"Killer M (1931)" Movie Review Essay & Film Analysis

Raisin 'M' in the fact that it is based not on the type of Lang uncertainty (when using the 'expressionistic techniques', we lose a clear understanding of whether the action is in reality, in a dream, or the heroes of fantasy), and the ambivalence of the ethical sense . The 'M' is the formal rule of law and justice, it seems not a solution to the problem, and its problematization. The killer does not cause the slightest sympathy, but never turns into a typical character image, a symbolic target for the arrows of a higher justice. The faster narrows the circle in which the good citizens and criminals caught the maniac, the more likely it is reminiscent of the hermeneutic circle, the Sisyphean task of understanding.
It is seditious and now seems a mounting chorus of the film, where it is constantly rhyme rich and poor, the Mafia and the city aristocracy. In one of the central scenes of the film - in the preparation of effective and efficient plan for the capture of child-killers - the headquarters of the police operation mounted back to back with the thieves 'raspberry'. It turns out that the police prefect start phrase and continues its criminal authority. And these parallels Lang held so accented and often that resemble a kind of author's dictation, a teachers underline in red pencil.
illustrated at best ironic police and thieves face each other, and even clever and tenacious Commissioner Lohmann is shown in one of the last scenes of such flattering to his view (the camera takes his seated figure below why Commissioner converted directly into an ugly and self-righteous boar) that doubt that there are real heroes in this film does not remain. And if there are no heroes, no anti-heroes. Because thieves in the scene parody of justice, promising to turn a rough punishment, maniac-Beckert Infanticide can not cause mere disgust. His recognition and at the same time charged to his judges and executioners seem in the moment of truth:
' What do you know about it? What are you talking about? Who do you like that? Who you are? Criminals? Perhaps you are proud of the fact that you can open safes or those that know how to cheat at card games. You could become honest men, if you had the chance. If you find a job if you were not such lazy pigs. But I ... Can I? Can I do anything about it? But my curse ... Fire! That voice! This torment! (...) I can not escape! I must, must escape, and constantly run away from yourself! (...) I'm running, and together with me run the ghosts of mothers and children. They did not leave, they will always be with me. Always, always, always! In addition to the time when I'm doing this ... Then I just keep forgetting. Then I stand in front of a poster and read about what I did. And I read, read ... But what have I done? I remember nothing. But who would believe me? Who knows what's going on inside of me? When something screams and cries in me at the time of the murder. I do not want. But I must, must! And then there is that voice! I can not hear it! Help! I can not, I can not! '
paradox (and it draws the attention of thieves' attorney') that this speech is not only recognition, but also to justify the killer. Accusatory speech, but rather a replica in his address heard from people (by the way, 'chairman' of the councils, he is suspected of three murders), turned the crime into a profession, while Infanticide act by vocation. His monstrous, of course, a crime - a consequence of some Mantica, ecstasy, trance, as he says in all sincerity. He does not even have a motive for the murder, and it is good that Lang does not give the slightest ground for vulgar psychoanalytic explanations (trivial in such cases sexual innuendo in the crimes does not manifest). Several koschunstvuya can say that the character of Peter Lorre makes a poetic nature of the crime (the abstract, nepragmaticheskie, neprozaicheskie, irrational), while his inquisitors doing much the same with a sober calculation and a cool head.
It is this blatant irrationality of the crime makes child-killers it to 'moral monster', a completely anti-social subject. But the hidden irony of modern rule of law is, according to Michel Foucault that the irrationality of criminal activities and a lack of motive completely withdrawn its subject beyond the legal field. Simply put, in the legal paradigm of XIX-XX centuries the perpetrator may be considered not everyone who commits a crime the man, but quite rational to be aware and responsible for their actions. If a classic right emphasis on 'objective' circumstances of the case, the proceedings in the present situation should concern and subtle mental sphere of the accused device. If the true destination of punishment in the traditional justice system was the crime itself, sin itself (on this and built the famous alibi Holy Inquisition), in the spirit of the Enlightenment is now required to first understand the reasons of the criminal, to establish what kind of interest or passion guided his actions:
This conflict of laws and, more than that - the ethical uncertainty brilliantly played up Lang in the final film 'M'. Especially ironic it becomes the episode where a hundred criminals, with pathos uttering speech for the prosecution (in the spirit 'of the tears of our mothers!') Suddenly raises his arms up in sync. This is a reaction to the appearance behind the scenes 'true' representatives of law and order - saving Infanticide by lynching of policemen. However, the sentence 'of the Court' (cut off at the first sentence, so that the viewer is unaware of the outcome of the case) is depreciating remark unhappy mother: 'This is not the return of our children'
Indeed, what to do with this murder. ? What judgment and on what basis to judge him? The situation napomniet known dispute Sharapova and Zheglova in the film "The venue can not be changed." Moral Zheglova - 'thief should be in prison, and people do not care in what way I had to upryachu' and morality Sharapova - 'If the law once bend, then another time, and then start them holes to plug in the investigation, we are with you comfortable, it is not the law is, and bludgeon 'part of the real clinching metaphysical stalemate. What is more important - the spirit or the letter of the law, the opinion of 'the common people from the street ", which appeals Zheglov or representing the interests of the same people' People's Court '- a clear answer to the question is no ambivalence on
formula and essence of justice, to challenge. all one-sided solutions ethical challenges hold the best films of the genre: 'Touch of evil "by Orson Welles,' Dogville 'with' Manderleem 'Lars von Trier and others Fritz Lang with his kvazizhanrovymi movie' M ',' Woman in the window ',' Doctor Mabuse,. player 'et al. is at the origin of the reflexive about the movie. As always, modernity is a dwarf standing on the shoulders of giants.
9 out of 10

How to cite this essay: