Movie Review/Analysis of the Fritz Langs 1931 film "M" for Modern European History Class

University Degree Historical and Philosophical studies

Margaret Caulkins

Professor Jason Hansen

20th Century Germany

January 30, 2012

Review and Analysis of the film, M

Fritz Lang’s 1931 film, M, centers around a fictional Weimar Berlin society that is gripped in fear and panic. After meticulous police investigations produce no results in capturing a pedophile serial killer, the city’s underground crime families decide to take care of the problem themselves by recruiting the help of the mysterious Safecracker. This sparks a race to see which organization will capture the murderer first. After a suspenseful chase scene culminating in a race against the clock with the police, the mob manages to capture the criminal first. The mob stages an improvised false trial, in which the murderer’s claims of madness are laughed at as he is condemned. Before a sentence can be carried out against him, the police arrive and seize the murderer for a just and legal hearing in the nick of time. The film ends in the court, with the mother declaring that the pronounced declaration of guilt “will not bring our children back.” (Lang)

Though the society is outraged and horrified by the murderer’s actions, some fault must be placed with the society that nurtured this man to such a state. Safecracker makes an apt observation when he proclaims, “the idea that each individual is responsible for the poorest hasn’t hit the public at large.” (Lang) The last scene in the movie mirrors this, when the mother of Elsie places the guilt of the murders on each individual citizen for allowing this modern society to enable such anonymity and personal disconnect. A society cannot function properly if it is not unified and connected. It can be argued that the murderer is only able to elude capture because the society is so anonymous and disconnected. This Weimar society is so detached that no one notices tell tale signs of abduction or other crimes.

This is a preview of the whole essay

This implication gains greater significance when the broader implications of the society’s inattention, unawareness, and lack of responsibility to the future are considered. It is feasible to say that M presents an example of the Weimar society’s response to evil, in that it is apt reallocate blame and shun the responsibility of affecting change. This is shown in Lohmann’s early response to the kidnappings; his first suggested solution is a plea to mothers to better guard their children. Lohmann shifts the blame from his ineffectual investigation’s ability to apprehend the villain and end the crime wave, to the mothers who’s lack of meticulous constant vigilance is now to blame. Everyday, citizens’ lack of connectivity and unity contributed to the killer eluding authorities, yet the response is to shift responsibility for the guilt they feel. The two witnesses to Elsie’s abduction would argue over her hat color for an hour, yet neither of them takes a second to expresses guilt or responsibility for witnessing the event and doing nothing.

This lack of ownership of responsibility and reallocation of guilt is a bleak implication for the future of Germany, especially under Nazi power. M is tells the story of an individual struggling against a force stronger than himself; in this case his own consciousness and impulses. He says,

“It's there all the time, driving me out to wander the streets, following me, silently, but I can feel it there. It's me, pursuing myself! I want to run, to run away from myself! But it's impossible. I can't escape; I have to obey it. I have to run, run down endless streets. I want to escape, to get away!” (Lang)

This can be applied as representative of the society as a whole in that it is struggling against fate, injustice, or force of authority or organizations. The murderer, his situation, and his struggle are representative of what the Weimar society has wrought. It is often asked how German society stood by as their ideology and government was polluted by a party as evil as the Nazis. This film places the viewer within the uncertainty and disconnect of the era. M allows the viewer to consider the actions and attitudes of Germany, as a whole, through the circumstances of one society and its individual citizens. During the Weimar period, Berliners lacked a clear foresight of the path that National Socialism was leading Germany down, but they felt trapped by the Weimar Republic. There was a terrible depression had the country in a death grip, and there was an almost overwhelming belief in the inefficacy of the Weimar state and its programs. The Weimar people probably felt a similar hopeless as the murderer-a feeling of being unable to fight against a terrible eventuality. The scene where the murderer expresses these feelings is the one moment where these Weimar citizens feel a flash of empathy with him, thought it is quickly dissolved by their mocking and condemnation. This movie implies that there was a willingness within the Weimar society to try anything new in hopes of escaping their horrible fate. Our protagonist turned to murder, the society trusted the mob, and Germany yielded sadly to Nazism.

When the murderer’s crime spree reaches its zenith, the public angrily demands justice, yet it does not come from the state. One of Lang’s most obvious commentaries on the lack of control and success of the Weimar Republic is the fact that the mob gets involved when the police start to disrupt their businesses for a change. So, the people must turn to the mobsters and thieves, the outcasts of society to solve their problems. It is at this point that the role of the gang and its characteristics can easily be seen as drawing direct inspiration from the Nazi party. The gestures and speech of Safecracker are also very much a parallel to those of Hitler. From his exaggerated hand gestures to his vocal inflections, the physical similarity to Hitler is striking. And the most pronounced congruence is seen in Safecracker’s speech at his mock trial. During his staged trial, Safecracker says, “We're doing our job because we have a living to make. But this monster has no right to live. He must disappear. He must be exterminated, without pity... without scruples.” (Lang) As Safecracker expounds on the guilt and the deserved punishment of the murderer, the apparent exterminationalist vocabulary and lack of guilt is hauntingly similar to that of the Nazi party. Following this line of thinking, Safecracker and the Nazis committed murder because it was necessary for them to live. Yet, the murderer argues that he “must” commit his crime as well, and the Jews’ only crime is their existence, which they can hardly be blamed for, but both are pronounced monsters that do not deserve to live. This justification of Safecracker’s own actions reflects the Nazis’ attitude to their circumvention of the law-in that it was a necessary means to an end.

The citizens in M ask, “who will catch this murderer?” and indirectly “who has the ability to save this society that created this monster?” If M is considered to be representative of the Weimar society near its decline, the question becomes whether it will take a new political model, i.e. the Nazis, to eradicate these problems, or if the authorities, the Weimar Republic, will get their act together and save the day. The sense of deep crisis, and the belief in the utter failure of the state and its institutions and systems is present both in M and in the last years of the Weimar Republic. The social chaos and mass hysteria caused by this crime in M is very easily seen as a reflection of the end of the Weimar. M is a commentary on an individual’s relationship with society in several ways, and it can be seen as evidence of Lang’s pessimistic view of the Weimar state. By looking through the lens of this heinous act and the murderer’s experience, it is possible to draw conclusions about the society that produced this man and this situation. M offers the opinion that to avoid the problems in society and the guilt which it may cause, individuals within society must be aware of the culture surrounding them, both sociologically and politically, and they must take responsibility for shaping the world of tomorrow and the people in it.