At The Movies (ATM): M (1931)

👅

1. I thought Lorre gave a great performance. His creepy demeanour in the shadows as he lured children could easily pass for a character in Thomas Harris's red dragon. He was tormented by the voices he heard urging him to roam the streets and kill. His speech was haunting as he tried to convey he couldn't control the urges inside of him. I wish he had more screen time, but in his absence it gave the others more time to breath and worked in it's favor as his presence as a big bad wolfe among the millions of sheep in Germany.

2. 8

3. I would say it holds up today in two ways based on mob mentality and the importance of protecting our children.

4. To extend my thoughts from above is that the muderer always went out the vulnerable children of the town and would lure them with gifts. If the poor mothers had been more attentive or even the neighbors had been more caring about their welfare instead of annoyed about their childish antics they could've been saved. The mothers seemed so regretful they couldn't protect them, so they demanded cheap justice for a moment of peace and at the end realize the loss will always be with them.

The other was how quick the town fell apart as every one became suspicious of one another and becoming an unrulely mob. I can see why the town would be in hysterics as the killer was at large, still how far can society push it's limits or burn bridges for justice. I think the killer had points in a way they were a society in decline from sex, gambling, criminal behavior ect, but willing to caste the first stone upon the insane. They could stop at any moment to make their lives better as they were normal people instead of looking for a scrape goat to justiy their actions. I'm not saying the killer should be let go, but the town was not a shinning city on the hill it tried to present itself as.

5. I have to say I quite enjoyed it. Another thing I really picked up on was how the town was becoming a police state. Economic hard times can lead to extreme measures calling for shutdowns of pubs and asking for identification instead of liberties. As the killer takes more lives the police roam the streets causing bussinesses goose money, the townspeople are at each others throat as neighbor turns against neighbor and the press are kept from keeping the men in charge of the investigation in line. Their was no accountability and the people were to separated allowing the police chief assuming duties that went against his job description.

I watched about half of M. It's a bit of a slog. I'm having the trouble I basically expected to have - I just have a hard time connecting with "old" movies. They're movies made by a different people for a different people. I will say parts of it reminded me a little bit of 12 Angry Men, one of my favorite films ever; an "old" film, go figure. While not entirely unrelatable, I'm finding the direction a bit on the clunky side. Still need to soldier on and finish it up, I reckon.

Sorry guys, I was really busy for the past couple of days, so I could only finish the movie today. I am going to present a flow of thought that perhaps addresses all questions at point or the other.

My impression of the movie remains exactly the same as it stood 13 years ago. This is a stunning movie whose power is primarily fueled by its astonishing, note-perfect writing. I would give it a 9/10 with 1 point being docked only because the film's visual style does not stun the viewer today.
Stylistically, the film may not hold up today as the editing and cinematographic techniques and technology used today are far superior to that of those times. But we must remember that the filmmaking was still in its relative infancy at that age, and the technology of that age was still relatively crude, and new techniques still being explored. For its time, it is a beautifully made movie, and even by today's standards the execution is competent.

What really makes this movie one for the ages is the nuanced, thought-provoking writing. Like Shakespeare, this movie is not keen to provide answers, but instead chooses to dwell on life's confusions and contradictions, as though to suggest that human complexity must be accepted and understood if we ever want to deal with its consequences. Most movies today take an approach that is not much different from the kangaroo court jury members. >>>>1. Cue bad guy >>>>2. Punish bad guy>>>> 3.Justice is served. Basically, the "bad guy" is just that pesky little thing that keeps creeping up. That menace that needs to be eliminated on a constant, regular basis so that regular, good guys like us can be good. It seems to be common belief both in society and in entertainment that all that is required for humans to be happy is to destroy the evil guy. But alas Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said, “If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

The concern about this heavy-handed, impatient insistence on quick answers and instant justice is obviously relevant in today's times and will be relevant for a very, very, very long time now. Humans are fundamentally feral beings accustomed to quick confrontations and outcomes. Concepts such as "justice" may have caught up with humanity, but humans have yet to catch on to them fully, because in their purest form they involve little visceral stimulation, a great deal of mental effort, and frustrating ambiguity, something that humans are not accustomed to. The thought that a seemingly monstrous child murderer could possibly be acting out of compulsion that he has no control over is hard for people to digest because it means that he could be good and bad at the same time. This conflict, which revolves around questions like "How much humanizing is going too far?", "Is justice meant to make society as a whole happier, or give each individual their due?" etc., forms the core of every political debate, and this movie captures it in a masterful manner.

In fact, this lack of patience seems to be plaguing most modern movies, even ones that pretend to be against vigilantism. Even movies calling for "tolerance" often identify good "tolerant" guys and bad "intolerant" guys and attempt no discipline that would require a viewer to question himself, "Wait. Who is the good/bad guy here? Wait.... Come to think of it...Could I be a bad guy by this standard?". The dumbed down notion of justice (involving "good" and "evil") seems to be only fueling shortened attention spans, in movies and otherwise. This movie on the other hand, does not adopt the crisp narrative style that has become commonplace in all movies (light or serious) today. It shuns the narrative arcs that have fueled and validated human impatience for thousands of years. In this movie, narrative slowly drifts into place. The culprit is not identified immediately. Nor are solutions. This discipline which involves conveying ideas and feelings through scattered documents of reality, rather than a distilled presentation of "truth" is sadly lacking in movie-making today, and this movie at least practices what is preaches.

The movie reaches its powerful crescendo in the final kangaroo court scene, especially in Lorre's moving monologue. Lorre's performance does smack of artifice by today's standards, but his magnificent timing and rhythms in these shots are hard to beat. This is a movie that will stand the test of time. Not so much as a ground breaking experiment is style, but as a thought-provoking documentary.