M (The Criterion Collection)

So how is it that one who enjoys movies, good and bad, as much as I do, has never seen Fritz Lang's M (1931) until last night? I've certainly heard about it, I've seen clips from it, I've read John J. Muth's beautifully rendered four issue comic/graphic novel adaptation of it, heck, I even bought the film at the end of last year, and it's been sitting on my `to be watched' shelf ever since...perhaps there was a sense of intimidation on my part, or fear...fear that I may not have liked the film that many acknowledge as a classic work of cinema, and one of the best examples of early German expressionist films (it's also one of the first, big German talkie films), from which so many others have since drawn upon for inspiration. After finally buckling down and watching it last night, I have to say, I really didn't know what I was missing, especially given how much I enjoy the noir films released by Hollywood in its heyday. Co-written and directed by Fritz Lang (Metropolis, The Blue Gardenia), the film stars Peter Lorre (The Man Who Knew Too Much, Mad Love), whom I first became familiar with, unknowingly, when I was a child, watching the Warner Brothers cartoons, shown on Saturday morning. It wasn't until later when I actually saw Lorre in Arsenic and Old Lace (1944) that I made the connection and realized his distinctive manner and appearance (bedroom voice, bug eyes, and moon face) was the one characterized within the various cartoons.As the story begins, the city streets are buzzing with news of a child murderer on the loose, one whose just recently claimed yet another victim. We learn there have been eight murders so far, in as many months. The general public is visibly distressed, especially with the authorities and their inability to catch the killer who leaves very little behind in terms of useful clues. Soon people begin pointing fingers at each other, making accusations based on paranoid reactions...if you're seen on the street even near a child you're the killer...if you're seen being arrested by the police for something completely unrelated, you're the killer, and so on...the police may have very little to go on, but that doesn't mean they're not working the case. On the contrary, they're working themselves to exhaustion, following up anything and everything in hopes it will pan out into a viable lead...the problem is, besides the fact that they are being inundated with dead end leads, is that there's no seeming connection between the killer and his randomly chosen victims. The authorities have even begun scouring the criminal districts, in hopes of turning up something, which, of course, upsets the criminals as there's a heightened sense of awareness permeating the city and interfering with their trade. In an interesting juxtaposition, we see two groups meeting separately, yet at the same time, one being the authorities, the other being a criminal syndicate of sorts, both striving for the same outcome, but for relatively different reasons. The authorities want this murdering psychopath off the streets for obvious reasons, while the criminal element wants to catch him because not only is the intensive manhunt interfering with their business, but also because there reputations are suffering given the public's inclination to not distinguish one criminal from another. Based on the respective outcomes of the meetings, the authorities broaden their search to include the recently released individuals who were wards of the state, deemed `harmless' to society, while the criminals employ a very different, unique, and ultimately effective strategy. Eventually both methods pay off and the killer is identified (by the most unlikely source), and the real manhunt begins...who will find him first, the police, or the `organization'?I have to say, this is probably the best film I've seen in an awhile. The one aspect that really stood out was the exquisite beauty within the cinematography, the usage of shadows along with an incredibly wide array of shots used to tell the story and develop tension throughout. Normally when someone uses that many different kinds of shots, it tends to draw unwanted attention, but here they seemed to have been chosen and ordered in such as ways as to feel seamless, hardly ever disrupting the flow. There was one shot, in particular, that comes to mind and it's when Lorre, who plays the killer, is being chased by emissaries of the underworld, through darkened streets. There's a high angled long shot, featuring an expansive view of a wide street, and we can see Lorre's character down below looking like a cornered animal, his escape routes cut off as various individuals appear, blocking off the exits. There are also many scenes featuring dialog being spoken by a character not on the screen, describing to another in detail what we're seeing as an example on the screen. One example of this was after the police raids on the criminal districts, we hear voice of one of the authorities speaking to another about the raids, while seeing a slow pan across a long table featuring all the contraband confiscated, including guns, knifes, brass knuckles, burglary tools, stolen booty, etc. Lorre's performance was amazing, even more so considering he wasn't even really featured in the first half of the film. The scenes were he's leading a potential victim around, buying candy and such, were particularly creepy, whistling that tune, but his real talent comes through near the end, as he tries to explain his despicable actions to an audience bent on seeing him destroyed. Despite the ugly nature of the character, Lorre almost makes you feel sympathetic towards his monstrous character...almost. One element that surprised me was the very subtle comedic touches included in the film dealing with such serious material. An example of this can be seen during the meeting of the criminals to discuss the effect the investigation of the killer is having on their business ventures. One individual asks another for the time, to which the one calls and asks the operator, and then proceeds to remove watch after watch from his garments to set the time...obviously he's a pickpocket by trade, and there was something comical about him taking out all these stolen watches to set the time. I've read that, with regards to some elements of the film, Lang intended to surreptitiously comment on his distaste for the prevalent Fascist regime within Germany at the time, and I can see collaborative material within the film to justify such a claim, specifically in terms of the public's reactions (accusations, finger pointing, apathy), and the authorities general sense of contempt for those it is trying to protect...whether this is true or not, I do not know, as I'm not one of historical knowledge, especially of a political sense...regardless, this is an excellent film, with a definite contemporary relevancy even after nearly 70 some odd years, and worth watching, if, for nothing else, to gain an appreciation for its influence on films that followed.The film on this Criterion Collection DVD release runs 110 minutes, and looks beautiful in its original aspect ratio of 1.19:1. The picture is very clear and clean, as is the Dolby Digital monaural audio. This release also features a `new and improved' English subtitle translation. This is a two disc set, the first featuring a new, restored in high definition digital print, along with an audio commentary by German film scholars Anton Kaes and Eric Rentschler. The second disc contains a conversation with Fritz Lang (50 minutes), a short film titled "M le Maudet", by Claude Chabrol, classroom tapes of M editor Paul Falkenberg discussing the film and its history, an interview with Harold Nebenzal, son of the producer, a physical history of M, and a still gallery with behind the scenes photos and production sketches. Also included is a 32-page booklet with essays, interviews, and a script for a missing scene.Cookieman108By the way, as far as the meaning of the one letter title, it's pretty simple, one that's made perfectly clear within the film, so there's no sense in my spoiling it here...

This particular motion picture came to my attention as I researched Nazi Germany.The opinions unearthed as it were suggested that "M" was an influenced film which was in effect Fritz Lang's departure from Germany.There was a good deal of intimidation present with Fritz Lang being personally threatened as having Jewish Blood in his Family Line.Events in Germany were to follow that would only solidify Nazi opinion and extend the influence of the office of Propaganda headed by Joseph Goebbels.In 1934 "M" was banned from being exhibited in Germany.Though "M" was shown on the 11th of May,1931.It was premiered in the United States in 1933.Adolf Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor on Jan.30th 1933.Peter Lorre,Like Lang were truly aware of the world around them.There were many German Jews who were leaving Germany as life in Nazi Germany was no place for a Jewish person,there was only promises of more to come.It should be stated that though there were Racial Laws already on the books.The "Volkish State" were laws that forbade the intermingling of Aryan and Non-Aryan peoples.This included any relation whereby there was Sex between A Non-Aryan and an Aryan.This was designed specifically to target A Non-Aryan person.There was an attempt by Nazi Administrators to characterize a Jew through the films story telling ability.Fritz Lang as Director was documented by a researcher as having kicked Peter Lorre down the stairs better than 25 times.This was done in the hope of extracting a performance worthy of the scene.Later on in Peter Lorre film career Lang went to Peter Lorre with an offer for another film and Peter Lorre turned it down.This film apparently did not always sit well with him.Fritz Lang admitted to have hired many criminals to perform in the film with some 23 arrests having been made during the making of the film.Nazi Administrators also expressed opinions as to the scene's where the individual is brought into the basement.It is a particular good scene with the performance in general being subjected to such suggestion as to suggest that is how they are.Fritz Lang said that there was no relative merit to suggestions as to one Peter Kurten.Peter Kurten was a particular dangerous serial killer in German Criminal History. He was a very brutal human being who was equally as terrfying.Peter Kurten was in a manner of speaking the real thing whereas "M" may be suggested to be merely a motion picture.Fritz Lang prior to the filming did research by going to Mental Hospitals,talked to Police about the likes of Peter Kurten and was ably assisted by his wife, Thea von Harbou.I was interested in the whistled tune by this films protagonist "In the Hall of the Mountain King" by Edvard Grieg.Edvard Grieg in his commentary as to The Peer Gynt Suite No.1 says that Peer Gynt is "full of himself".The liklihood of a self important individual may work however the film uses the referred to music(the whistling)to anticipate a crime.There is present in the suggestion that this "self Important" individual wanted to provide the public with an involvement in the ways by which he intends to kill.There is a unmistakable underwriting of hysteria brought about by the actions of the protagonist,one Hans Beckert played by Peter Lorre.The scene where a child is viewed through a reflection by Hans Beckert is useful as it pertains to a deviant,even un-natural association of such an image and this individual.The thought of not so much desire but of thirst is suggestive of a depraved notion of pleasure.The camera angle may have as much to do with how one is seen as would be a depraved notion of pleasure.I'am of the opinion that these scenes are meant to provide a suggestion further these suggestive scenes are as well leading the viewer.The scene where it concerns another child and Hans Beckert is useful.The child has a good deal of confidence in herself as she handles the protagonist with care and resolve.It seems the child does not know danger or perhaps does not anticipate danger whatever it may suggest it appears as if the child does not want to let go.There is some suggesting beyond imminent peril with Beckert showing a knife which is handled by this particular child.The symbolic relationship indicates that there is in fact some bonding that has occurred between the two individuals.Those individuals being both Hans Beckert and a particular child.This is merely a reminder that the reference to Peter Kurten earlier has a place here as well.Peter Kurten killed the female who he had a relationship with.Fritz Lang denied that there was any direct attempt to use or reflect upon the life of Serial Murderer Peter Kurten however there are some scenes that do seem to share some information. The Category of "Film Noir" is said to have evolved from this very film.The Film Noir perhaps if anything may be suggestive of subject matter not generally viewed.It is also more than that it maybe be that subject matter is not necessarily popular as well.This film is an attempt to vilify a Jew.There is a mob like mentality that is themetic in its treatment not unlike what was to occur in Nazi Germany.This is to be certain "M" is an interesting motion picture.The photography is very good,the scenes are excellent to very involved.There is treatment of subject matter that is if anything useful though most certainly this referred to treatment is not a definitive portrayal of the "Noir" subject matter.A question is raised is if in fact the life of Peter Kurten was not the source of this films "Noir" then what was.The "Noir" like Nazi Germany could be very smart and perhaps as unfriendly as this suggestion. There is something to learn from how Nazi Germany looked at the Arts.The word "Noir" simply means Black or perhaps it maybe something of the unknown.If what Fritz Lang suggests, that Serial Killer Peter Kurten was not the source of the particular treatment then what was?There is some frustrating elements that represent the equal to getting in someone's way.That may very well be the equal as to the source.This source needs to get its way and it will get its way irregardless of what is in its way.This "Noir" finding is useful as both a Psychological Profile and an inability to take no for an answer are inherent in the very makeup of this invention.This invention and its effect influenced more than merely this particular film.The film has that going for it,it is useful as a unknown theater,however the inventor is known and so is his invention.The field was present on the Earth from the very first broadcast which occurred in New York 1920 with Berlin being on board as of 1921.Indeed some of the very suggestion made evident by statements coming from Fritz Lang can ably place suggestion as an influence.That influence being hereby associated with the "Noir" influence.