M
Right, for those of you who saw my massive essay, and were like “what is he talking about” I feel like I should in good conscious write a review of one the best movies ever made, M by Germany’s very own Fritz Lang, the man who essentially invented Film Noir. M was his first silent film and his own personal favorite film, made in 1931 a little before Hitler took power. Now, reviewing M is awkward because in all honesty, it is much better than Citizen Kain, and about as complex, so any review inevitable goes into a morass of film related tedium as I try to sum up the massive amount of genius contained in this movie. So quick summery for those of you who don’t want to have any spoilers and don’t want to listen to my massive film rants, as you can see those in my other article.
M is set in a nameless German city, most likely Berlin, which is under threat. There is serial killer on the loose, a pederast who goes for little girls, and this is causing all degrees of panic. Now its important to realize, this was essentially the first serial killer film ever made, and handles the subject matter brilliantly. Instead of just showing the murders like a typical horror film, M shows how the killer effects the city around him, because people get really upset by this serial killer. Because nobody knows who he is, people are accusing each other wildly, angry mobs are attacking anybody who is remotely eccentric or so much as talks to a little girl. The police become increasingly authoritarian in there hope to find the killer, and raid the more seedy pubs thinking that the serial killer might hang out among there crowd. In response, the underground criminal organization gets together and decides to hunt the killer themselves, both because they are quite frankly, digested by this man. The rest of the movie is a chase as both the police and the mob try to catch the killer before he does more damage. As the movie goes on, the audience follows the killer himself, played by Peter Lorre, as he desperately hopes to escape It posses this Watchmen quality of awesome, except far far better than Moores work (book not movie, and I say that knowing it is hard to top) And it is awesome
Alright, now for those of you who don’t care about spoilers or have seen it before, I feel bad just talking more about it cause I pretty much did a score of pages on that, so let me just list what M did that I wish more movies out there would do and make it awesome
1) Mature subject matter. Child murderer who is being hunted by the Nazi like criminal syndicate and is played by Peter Lorre? Yeah, for a film that has no blood, this is a mature film, but it doesn’t just revel in the “oh look at us, we talk about pedophilia”, it actually handles all of its mature subject matter very…well maturely. There isn’t any reveling or in depth graphic portrayal of the various subtexts, sexual or political, they are just taken for granted and then handled like any other movie subject. Compare to say, Sin City, where the child molesters played up for all they are worth and the dark nature of rape and murder are played up to the point where it becomes a joke (and not in a good way). M treats the problem of a Serial Killer very realistically, showing how society reacts to his atrocities, and how the city undergoes a state of panic and quite frankly revulsion, to the point where the mob wants to get rid of this guy. Also, politics, and pretty tough one. Lang is trying to give a strong message, everybody is human and mob justice is wrong, but he doesn’t attempt to simply use a series of stereotypes and idealized protagonist ubermensch to simply dictate what the director believes, like say Mel Gibson, Michael bay and Frank Miller do. The issue of the Nazis is taken very seriously, and the movie takes a lot of time to explain both the Serial Killer and the rise of a militaristic authoritarian second government. A mature subject is more than just thinking of the darkest crime imaginable then graphically portraying it, films have an obligation to actually address the subject matter. Hans Becerkt isn’t just a mindless Dirty Harry torturer who kills for kicks, he is a mentally ill, who can’t help himself and is clearly in need of help. While he is truly a degenerate of society and needs to be locked up, the performer is able to convey that he is in fact human, and pitiable, not some mindless monster. And I’ll take a guess and say that real life serial killers, while the worst society has to offer are still human beings.
2) Handling politics with an eye towards portrayal, not propaganda. M has learned the lesson that so many educational videos have not in that hammering a point home again and again to the point of absurdity doesn’t teach people how to learn something. And portraying all of your villains in offensively two dimensional terms in a world of extreme black and white is just offensive. The way to handle a political point is to make an attempt to explore the issue, to demonstrate reasonably the dangers of an issue. M doesn’t simply yell at the audience that mob justice is wrong and barrage use with friendship speeches, then walk away. Instead, Lang makes an effort to show how hard of a position democracy is, that the mob’s reasoning to murder the child killer seems appealing, and many of the characters make speeches explaining there point of view. Lang makes his point by displaying even the most vile members of society have feelings and showing the value of humanity. In Sin City, the Yellow man is not a human being, he is a two dimensional character who exists simply to be so vile that the sociopathic main character can be justified in torturing him brutally. And because he never displays any actual human emotions, its easy to accept this, to delight in his brutal torture and murder (same goes to Scorpio in Dirty Harry and the mute guy in Sin city….oh and all of 300), we can easily give in to our inner sadism now that we have thoroughly taken away any humanity from the character. But that isn’t real, that’s an illusion, an dream where evil people are simply just inherently demonic. Peter Lorre plays the most vile human being society can naturally produce, (with the possible exception of the SS like Safecracker), and yet he is still a human being. While we can mentally wish him to be tore apart when he is stalking a young girl, when he is desperately fleeing from a band of angry crooks, hiding pitifully to avoid capture, we can’t help but feel pity. He is one of us, a sick twisted one of us, but he isn’t some fantastical creature who exists only in trashy pulp novels and the films of hacks. He is a person, and that is far harder to face than any two dimensional monster. Far scarier than witnessing a soulless monster is being forced to confront the humanity within that. Especially when M forces us to ask who is the monster, the sick man who gives in to his perverse urges or the sane men who wish to torture him none the less. Now I’m not saying every villain has to be a Peter Lorre, Captain Videl in Pan’s Labyrinth and the villain of Blue Velvet are great examples of psychopaths who still show hints of humanity, and the film doesn’t justify torture. On the political sides of things, Lang disagrees with the Nazis, but he isn’t showing them as a series of stock movie villains, and explores the mob’s own motivations and philosophy. The hints of the film towards purging the “unpure” and of spies and mass execution were at the time simply fantasy, but sadly were revealed to be true.
3) Showing the wide range effects of actions. This one really gets to me, because a good story always needs to have background in order to properly make sense. I read a lot of history, so I understand that background events always influence smaller decisions, the rise of Hitler was attached to at least in part to the wide spread disillusionment of traditional values and democracy following the depression and WWI. M makes sure hat the audience is well aware of the publics agitations and the way in which the actions of the police, the mob and the killer effect the city as a whole. Thus, the various characters actions have much more meaning to them, when one man is almost lynched for saying high to a little girl, this isn’t an isolated incident but instead the sign of the times. Compare to say, in Sin City, where the child murderer is able to get away with anything because his dad is a senator, and yet when Mark Foley hit on an intern, he gets essentially banished. What world does this operate in? Or the way that in Braveheart and the Patriot, no real effort is made to understand why the British are trying to keep their conquests. Or even why the rebels are rebelling beyond the generic “freedom” clause, when in reality the American revolution was an absurdly complicated, corrupt, and racist affair on all ends (except maybe the Quakers) as 1776 shows.
4) Less is more. M has no death on scene, no blood, in fact beyond one man falling down a stair case, no injury. And yet it is one of the darkest and most frightening films ever made. Being graphic to the point of absurdity isn’t dark, its silly. M is very reserved, and more implied horror than real gore, which hammers home a real point. The murderer is among us, will your community be driven to paranoid accusations and radical movements if pressured, could your child not come home one night as you prepare dinner? Could you support stability and order only to awake one day and find yourself in an oppressive militaristic government. Even the music does this, there isn’t any, the tone is set by the characters, not the music. The only music is the humming of “hall of the mountain king” by the killer, a broken tuneless whistle that is far more sinister than any orchestra. Dark Knight isn’t scary, the Joker’s antics are amusing, but not horrifying, because I have no doubt that it will never happen, that the movie is clearly a fantasy who’s pretensions of being “dark and edgy’ rest entirely upon having there villains be seemingly omnipotent and the mob being stupid enough to trust a clown. Its not something that I feel will ever effect me, what scares me are people. People are damn scary, they are reactionary, emotional, easily manipulated, and liable to commit great cruelty. There has never been a killer like the Joker or the Persians in 300. As we know, the darkest force in M emerged a year and a half after the film’s making.
5) Random characters. Every single character in M has something distinctive about him, something interesting, something that gives the impression he is a human being too. Even the beggar who counts out his cigarettes and has no lines is a person, and like in most Kurasaka like manner, seems like he’d be something that would be interesting to follow more and learn more about. It isn’t like 300 where the characters are just generic racially classified faces who play a part in the film, people are, well people, they are diverse, they are distinct, and they reaction to events. In every cut, every single extra is doing something different. Random characters often speak up or make observant comments, acting almost as a Greek Chorus.
6) There isn’t a main character. Are we following Safecracker as he tries to establish a stronger regime by taking advantage of this killer? Are we following Beckert’s fall as he is captured in response to his atrocities? Is this the story of Lohemann’s attempt to enforce democratic justice? Or is that random defense lawyer the main character, standing up to hundreds of angry criminals as he defense that nobody has the right to kill without a just trial. The story is seen from the perspective of many people, and tells a story, full of complications and different views
7) Details. Details, details, details. Details make a massive effect on the film. Let me give you an example. The opening scene of the film is a women in her room, hand washing clothes and obviously stressed out. Then her cocoo clock goes off, and she smiles, and goes to set the table and prepare food, more work but she is obviously delighted by something. The camera cuts to a public school, as little Elsie Bechmanne is coming out of school. As she crosses the street, she is almost hit by a car, making the audience suddenly jump, instinctively feeling sympathy for the child. We cut again to the mother, as she finishes her meal, and waits expectantly. It is clear that her daughter coming home is the happiest moment of her day. Cut again to Elsie, playing with her ball, throwing it against a wanted poster of the murderer, when suddenly a loaming shadow appears over her, and a voice, a strangely kind voice says “What a pretty ball you have. What is your name”. Cut again to the mother, as she watches other kids come up the stairs, her slightly anxious expression as she wonders why her kid is late. Cut again to the killer, buying the little girl a balloon, whistling his broken tune, the child looks delighted that she has met this understanding friend. Arm and arm, they walk off screen together. Cut again to the mother, now visibly nervous, when suddenly the door rings. The audience is confused, this can’t be the daughter, she is in the hands of a killer. Is help arriving? Has she escaped? IS this the news of what happened? But it is only a book salesman, selling the next chapter of some man’s story. The mother buys it, with a slightly happy, but also worried look on her face as she asks if he has seen her child, the man nonchalantly walks off. The mother stands in the room, almost dazed, not knowing what to do, then as if suddenly realizing what could have happened to her child, she begins to yell down the stairs her child’s name. Again and again she tries to reach her child, her own impotency in protecting her child reveled, as her cries echo uselessly through the empty building. Then we cut to a telephone pole with the child’s balloon caught in it, an empty field where silently a ball rolls unto screen, an empty attic with children’s clothes, a memory of the child perhaps, or a place where something horrible happened. The details bring out the emotions of the scene, like the when the police organize the objects.
OK, those I want to see more of. As you can tell, I am not a fan of modern film, and I truly hate the works of Mel Gibson, Frank Miller and Mr. Bay Surprise surprise
From
EE ,
No comments:
Post a Comment