I just caught this film last night for the first time. Other than the superior camera work, Peter Lorre’s excellent but very brief performance, and the historical value in being one of the first police procedurals and the first serial killer film, as well as the first big production “talkie” in Germany, what is so great about this film? I just didn’t quite get it, especially after seeing it following the restored Metropolis, which is a great film.
So, what’s the big deal?
Stranger
I was kinda “meh” about M, too. However, I think your post actually nicely summarized why it’s famous.
Also, I think the concept of the underworld chasing down M because the police manhunt was interfering with its normal business was groundbreaking, too–and very very cynical for the time; perhaps something that could only come out of the chaos of between-war Germany.
Erm… ‘Other than all of the great stuff, what was so great about it?’ 
What makes it a great film is Peter Lorre’s performance, the crime drama genre, the nature of the crimes, and that it was an early ‘talkie’. And that haunting tune, whose name I keep forgetting.
I haven’t seen the movie in decades, but as I recall, the tune is “In the Hall of the Mountain King” from the Peer Gynt Suite.
Oh, I think it’s a marvelous suspense thriller, and the final sequence is chilling!
At least, I was chilled, anyway . . .
Hmm…I can appreciate the historical significance, but it’s hard when I keep falling asleep during the procedurals. :o
M just struck me as very dated and fitful. I can appreciate films like The Third Man, Citizen Kane, and The General because, in spite of their age, the techniques and performances are still fresh and energetic. M, on the other hand (for me) just dragged on, saving for the bits with Lorre and the scene where Lohmann discovers that the criminals were after the child murderer. It’s just me, I guess then. I’m just don’t see it as rating an 8.4 on IMDb, but clearly I’m in the minority.
Stranger
I saw “M” in November last year at the National Film Theatre, complete with an introduction by Mark Kermode and a filmed interview with Fritz Lang dating from the 60’s. But I’d also seen it before about 4 or 5 times before on TV.
I’m with eve; it’s a fantastic film for its time (it hasn’t dated, as far as I can tell: nor do I understand how it could), particularly taking into account that the Nazis were in power when it was made.
I barely remember it from an intro to film class, but if I remember, I think it’s famous because of the way it incorporated sound, that it could be watched as a political allegory, and because it was the first movie to capitalize on the suggestion of the visual medium, eg: the balloon caught in the telephone wires signifying the child’s death.
M was released in 1931. Hitler took power in 1933. The Nazi’s weren’t where they needed to be just yet.
I’ve been told that what set that film apart at the time was the subject…a child killer.
To me it’s a great work, too.
I also think it’s a great film. Very chilling, very dramatic – and still groundbreaking in that the killer is ultimately shown to be just a sick human being, not a monster.
BTW, Lang did intend it to be an allegory about the Nazis; the original title was “The Murderers are Among Us,” a reference to the Nazi street thugs (Hitler wasn’t in power, but the party’s strength was growing). I’ve heard to differing accounts for the name change: one that Lang thought the Nazis might catch on, and another that they did catch on and pressured the studio to make the change.
I haven’t seen it in years, but that opening scene with the mother slowly getting nervous when her daughter hasn’t come home yet…you could see and feel her anxiety growing to hysteria. Pretty powerful stuff. I am not a parent, but I cannot imagine anyone with children watching that scene and not getting sick to their stomach.
And then the film starts to really get creepy…
Maybe you just weren’t in the mood for the film, but I think it certainly deserves its rank as a classic in filmmaking!
Yes, its a great flick. I particularly liked it when the criminals have Peter Lorre on trial, and he attempts to defend himself. He says something like “you are all criminals because you want to be, I cannot help myself”.
I also liked how the criminals of Hamburg all made fun out of the police chief (Lohmann) when the raids took place. Shows you that pre-Nazi Germany had LOTS of crime and criminals.
What I loved about this movie when I first saw it was how cerebral the take on the murderer was.
Okay- here’s a spoiler space to let people walk on by if they haven’t seen it,
SPOILERS BELOW
You spend the entire movie wanting Lorre’s character to be found and dealt with, preferably horribly. He’s a monster, an evil unfeeling demon, and he needs killing and as painfully as possible.
Then he’s captured. And he delivers that pitiful soliloquy- (I’m paraphrasing because I don’t remember the exact [translated] words: “All of you chose to be thieves and cut-throats and thugs, but I do what I do because it’s the only time the voices stop!” You end up still wanting him dead (as a protection to society), but the resolution is gone. You have no joy in seeing him die.
The man rapes and murders little girls, and you somehow on some level end up feeling sorry for him. He’s (in the true meaning) pathetic- he’s not a monster, he’s a very sick little man. (Again, this isn’t to say he shouldn’t be killed, but he’s not who you thought he was either.)
That was brilliant. Seventy years later you very rarely get a villain that complex or realistic: you have the slashers (Freddy, Jason, Michael Myers, etc.) and the mad geniuses (Se7en, Hannibal Lecter), but this little milquetoast with the demonically bungled brain is one of the great nihilist characters of all time: his murders cause horror, his death brings no relief, there’s even a sigh of pity.
There’s a lot of great trivia associated with this film and it’s cast/producers, but one of my favorites is this: M was one of the favorite movies of a real serial killer, Kenneth Bianchi (one of the two men known as the Hillside Strangler). One night in 1970 he picked up a young lady walking home from work with the intent of making her his (their) next victim, but he ended up letting her go when he found out she was Cathy Lorre, Peter’s daughter.
I remember Lorre cornered by the thugs and screaming out, “I can’t help what I do!”, and thinking to myself, “Yikes…”
I last saw the film as a childless bachelor; as a dad I couldn’t bear to watch it now.
I really like the idea of Lorre being judged by fellow criminals.
The idea that these people were only concerned about themselves and their criminal livelyhood and not about children being murdered.
The hunting down of Lorre is when I started rooting for him to escape.
I agree with this 100%. We really need more villains like Lorre in M. You just don’t see any complexity in them these days; they are eeeee-villllll and that’s enough.
“M” btw was inspired by a real German serial killer- Peter Kurten.
The writers sanitized it by making him a child killer! :eek:
I refer you to Brian Cox in L.I.E. (2001), and Kevin Bacon in The Woodsman (2004).
Actually, I thought of Kevin Bacon’s character in The Woodsman as the protagonist, not the antagonist. I haven’t seen L.I.E. yet, but it’s on my Netflix queue.