They catch Hans and briefly judge him. Her hope, and then distress as she hears people pass outside her door. In our modern age of film making there has been a considerable rise in the production of films about serial killers, their complexities and particularly about pathological ones. Beckert's culpability speech covers some of the basic issues that one would in an ethics class, but it's not very complete--it doesn't delve into the ontology of choice enough, and of course, it doesn't answer any of the issues. The entire movie, however is extremely thought-provoking and challenging, much like the German Expressionist movement itself.
I was overwhelmed by the power of the performances, the staging of the scenes, the locations, and the power that the simple story had with such complex circumstances. . Lorre doesn't do that but rather displays a frightened man, a scared man. He made a great movie. Still, I honestly can't believe that a modern viewer would actually enjoy this.
How can I be invisible in the street? On the first viewing I just went straight for the story, which is able to suck one in enough to make you feel dizzy. The stunning performances define the careers of exceptional actors such as Peter Lorre and Gustaf Grundgens. The underworld decides to enlist an invisible group - the beggars - to follow every child at all times and therefore catch the killer. This leads to the final conflict, of how justice should be administered, which is an great debate, but the killer is sick, through and through. I even like trying to twist my brain around mind-boggling, symbol-filled, convoluted art flicks. I don't understand the high rating it has got, maybe people are going easy on it because it is old but new or old it has to entertain and it doesn't.
The direction and writing of Fritz Lang is beyond comprehensible as he taps into the mind of a serial killer and his complexities. At first there is a focus on the victims and the hole left in their families by their killing. This in which by then end of the film all points of view are more then well delivered to the audience. The stunning performances define the careers of exceptional actors such as Peter Lorre and Gustaf Grundgens. The organized crime has great losses due to the intense search and siege of the police and decides to chase the murderer, with the support of the beggars association. There aren't really easy answers, although my personal view is that choice is not strictly necessary for responsibility or culpability. Lang has interesting things to say about vigilante justice and criminal culpability.
Each scene flows beautifully into the next with some amazing chases, raids, and facial expressions. They catch Hans and briefly judge him. They hardly run into a kink. The plot itself wasn't overly complex -- so why did I still have the feeling of unpleasant confusion. There were reports that during filming Lang put Lorre through torture, ultimately causing the two to never work together again.
Lorre before mobs straw, pray, but not for mercy, but to understand. This is the dynamic of M, and the stubbornness leads to tension. Seeing a man run completely scared but without even the noise of his shoes hitting the ground is harrowing. But on the multiple viewings it becomes even more interesting as one can study the intricacy, and indeed full-on artistry, of Lang's camera. There is also a lot of preaching in the final sequence about the death penalty and insanity that becomes very annoying. Although there is not that much talking in this early German talking picture - Fritz Lang resisted going to sound in the first place - what conversation that does take place is well done and natural sounding.
The organized crime has great losses due to the intense search and siege of the police and decides to chase the murderer, with the support of the beggars association. One that excels in its technical aspects and enlightens the audience on a topic that other films still have not yet to match M in. The movie's third act is sheer peak-high tension. Isn't this what movies are supposed to do? M is groundbreaking, going where film had not gone before and doing it supremely anyway. Yet, M is the first movie that comes to my mind when I think of the themes that have been in Psycho, Silence of the Lambs, Seven and not to mention countless more. With an creative perspective through a third person point of view, the filmmakers repeatedly give us examples of a solid structure through characters and occurrences.
This film was created by one of the all time great directors in Fritz Lang, Lang's command for the screen is mesmerizing and a joy to witness and so on and so forth. The police force pressed by the Minister give its best effort trying unsuccessfully to arrest the serial killer. This is definitely one of the all-time best movies! Fritz Lang here, has simply created here a timeless masterpiece. There were many opportunities to advance the plot that weren't taken. Fritz Lang, you cinematic god! But M is far from a masterpiece. The story is indeed suspenseful and at times, very creepy what whistling child killer isn't? You almost want the film to be successful so you search for it in Lorre's acting.
While the popular misconception holds that the mark of Cain symbolizes his evil, it in fact represents God's warning to Cain's flawed fellow creatures not to mete out wrathful vengeance, but to leave justice in God's hands. There are no surprises or twists to be had here. In a particularly well-done part of the film the scene shifts back and forth between a conference of police and one of the underworld. But, as I mentioned, there are a few moments of value in the first hour. For a film like this to be made in 1931 is just shocking. And then he also whistles this damn song all the time so loud you hear it from three streets away while everyone in the audience knows from beginning on that this will be his doom. Like the former it uses strange and disturbing compositions of light and dark in order to symbolize the inner workings of the human mind; like the latter it more realistically sets its story in a modern urban setting and blends in sociological issues along with the psychological and moral ones.
A mother preparing dinner for her child, waiting anxiously for her to return from school. As a justification so to say. They discuss how they are going to catch the killer. Metropolis, Nosferatu, Caligari, Sunrise, I think, have all a more stunning look. To those who appreciate early cinema that truly makes you think, both about the film and the subtext with which it was written and filmed, it is a must-see. But once the ball gets rolling. I went into it with a general understanding of what it was going to be about, and knowing Peter Lorre's work I had certain expectations.