M (Lang, 1931)

Fritz Lang is another director long of intrigue for me, and I finally got around to seeing M last night. What a terrific movie! I was glued to it.

I must mention that I was really taken aback by how stylized M is. Perhaps due to my limited scope of 1930’s filmmaking, or maybe still because it was a film that facilitated Lang’s reputation as a master. Perhaps both, which would explain it’s elevated impact on me. It feels so much more modern than it is. From the first scene, a mother worrying about her daughters being taken by the child murderer running loose in the city, Lang gives discomfort through the camera. Jarring and claustrophobic shots that linger are seemingly never out of commission. Whether it’s a curved wall blocking off the top of the screen, a staircase or a post going face-to-face with you to make a wide shot completely asymmetrical, or the fences, cages, jail cells, rows of beds and balloons and trees in every shot, or a plain old uncomfortable angle, the camera is the most important narrative tool utilized. Lang creates this world of paranoia and discomfort beautifully. I remain extremely impressed with the cinematography in the film and the tricks Lang implements with the camera, especially given the time period. Often times, there is a highly-orchestrated crowd shot, with jumpy and wired bodies, bumping into each other and shouting, as the camera moves back in the crowd, as if the viewer were right there, blocked by a group of outlandish people. There was a time in the film when the camera starts shooting outside of a window, and slowly advances to it and going through the window into the house. I thought Orson Welles had been the first to do this, in Citizen Kane, but sat with friends and coffee to see Lang do it ten years beforehand. Without getting boring, I would consider M to be one of the most finely-characterized-by-camera films I’ve seen, and is worth seeing for this alone. It’s one of the few of movies I’ve seen (The Seventh Seal, Persona, Punch-Drunk Love included) where I’ve let out exasperated sighs because of how wonderful certain shots are.

But, oh, how the cast and story are right there with the shooting! This is not merely a story about showcasing the horrors of crime (especially one to the level of child murdering). It’s an enticing contrast between the way cops and criminals think. To be brief about this, once the criminals decide to find the murderer to keep the cops at arm’s length once again, the story really gets fun to watch. While the cops decide to sacrifice the well-being of the innocent public to ramp up the search, the criminals decide to use the beggars to keep a constant watch on children throughout the streets. So, while the cops decide to put everything they have into finding the murderer, the criminals believe that putting that same energy into protecting the children is the better option. Both are good decisions, and this does ask a subtle question of how the viewer would handle the situation.

There are so many memorable scenes in this movie. There is one where a blind balloon salesman hears the familiar “In the Hall of the Mountain King” whistling of the murderer go by, and alerts a police officer, who proceeds to mark the man with an M. As he walks a marked man, he becomes surrounded, and it’s a very tense moment. There’s another great part where the cops and criminals are, on separate ends, of course, discussing how to handle the murderer situation (as I touched on above). Lang’s editing is quite seamless as we flow back and forth between the two meetings. The cops’ room is filled with cigar smoke and the feeling that their worries are leading them to work hurriedly instead of logically, while the criminals find a route of using the beggar’s union to never let a child in the street out of sight… without looking for the murderer. Both sides of pros and cons to them, and they are laid out in one impact scene.

The most memorable scene, though, is the very end, which I will get into. Before I do, I also want to say how much the acting impressed me. Peter Lorre’s role as the child murderer is very highly-regarded, and rightly so. Until said ending scene, he rarely speaks. He acts in his mannerisms, whether he’s bugging his eyes out in a panic, or constantly using his hands to peruse the side of his lips in what is obviously an oral fixation, or his creepy whistling everywhere he goes, Lorre embodies the nervous and disgusting behavior you might imagine a killer possessing. I was, however, just as impressed at the smaller characters, and how individual they all seemed. From Inspector Lohmann to “Safecracker” to Franz’s animated and delightful character to the people of judging underground in the last scene, the acting really is top-notch, and the final scene certainly puts any doubt to rest, as Lorre and the prosecuting criminal have at it in a series of amazing monologues. Lorre comes to terms with himself when he is facing judgment in total madness, as he admits he did it but cannot help it, and that when he does it… his fears and his memories just disappear. It’s remarkable and disturbing, and Lorre’s performance in this scene is astounding. It’s one of my favorite monologues.

M is a phenomenal film in my eyes. Shot with intense flavor and flair with an entertaining story and superb acting, I’d recommend this to just about anybody.