Movie. M, 1931. (HIx: 4)
In German, with subtitles.
There are two levels at which this movie can be enjoyed. The first is a crime story structured a bit like Columbo of many decades later: we the audience know quite early who the criminal is; the suspense is wondering how he could possibly be caught.
The second is a psychological and social thesis.
For the viewer, these are appropriated in roughly the first and second viewing.
A third level is more archival: we see Berlin before Bomber Harris and the Reds did their nefarious business of destruction, and also get a bit of glimpse into life in the late Weimar Republic. I unpack each of these a bit more.
The Columbo-like crime story
The crime is the serial abduction and brutal murder of children. Fortunately, the deeds themselves are not shown. Instead, Fritz Lang with Hitchcock-like skill shows the manner by which the crimes come about, from the perspective of both parent and perp.
One major thread is the desperate attempt by the police to solve the crime. The valiant absurdity of their efforts to follow minor leads in a city of four and a half million residents becomes the stuff of black comedy. For example, great effort is made to follow up on a littered candy wrapper found in the bushes somewhere. The police understandably come under great criticism, though we can also sympathize with the virtual impossibility of their task.
Naturally, this leads to turning up the heat on the known criminals, including small-time thieves and the “victimless” crimes of prostitution and gambling. As a result, “business” suffers, and the organized crime syndicate debates how they can solve the city’s problem and get back to business. A wonderful camera sequence alternates back and forth between the board-room debates of the police commissioners and the syndicate bosses. The climactic pair of “courtroom” scenes is sheer genius, with a tour de force performance by Peter Lorre (who ten years later played the wily Ugarte in Casablanca) that by itself makes the cost of the movie worth while.
The psycho-social commentary
The first message is that responsibility for the safety of society cannot simply be fobbed off on the police. There exists danger that simply cannot be removed by the police by themselves.
On the other hand, we see that society, when it does try to solve its problem, can adopt attitudes that are unjust. Everyone becomes suspicious. An innocent old man is accosted merely because he answered a passing-by child’s question. The problem of citizen testimony is explored: the Commissioner complains that fifteen eye-witnesses will present fifteen different stories.
Thus, the brilliance of having a blind beggar score the major lead.
The ordinary crooks’ outrage at this particular crime is balanced by their knowing nods when someone describes the feeling of an evil impulse, not really of himself, that comes over him. Thus, the universal and irrational impulse for evil is explored.
The commentary that we still hear (and make) today, that a criminal justice system is unacceptable that offers leniency for insanity and pardons for various reasons, is offered — by the criminals!
No simple solution to this dilemma is offered by the film; the question is put on the table however with great skill.
Berlin in the 20s
We see the police going around checking people’s papers– and everyone has papers! Note that the Nazi stereotype “ihre Papiere bitte” was a fact of life prior to the Nazis. The police department’s decision, “the citizens must consent to thorough searches of all their properties” is shown as a natural and understandable desire born of desperation.
The street scenes and shop-windows are very interesting indeed. The spinning spiral and bouncing arrow are perhaps symbols for how commercialism run amok may be a contributing factor to insanity. Watch for the rotating star of David too.
Concluding notes
Unfortunately, blasphemy is introduced in the subtitles that is not present (at least, not as strongly) in the original. For example, “Himmel-Herr…” is translated “for Christ’s sake…”; “Mein Gott” as “Christ”. This tendency must be a modern one and justly blamed on Hollywood, whether it should be caused by the stereotype Hollywood has created of the blaspheming American, or by deliberate sedition via the production process.
The issues raised by the film are still with us. Think of the acceptance of the Patriot Act by most Americans, who are quickly willing to sell their birth-right for safety. The movie brings home the dynamic that leads to this kind of mind-set, which yields both sympathy and the basis for a critique. We cannot rely on the experts to solve all our problems.