.jpg)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
MONDAY 3:35 SCREENING
it's the movies that have really been running things ... ever since they were invented. they show you what to do, how to do it, when to do it, how to feel about it, and how to look how you feel about it. --andy warhol
BILL COSFORD CINEMA
MONDAY 3:35 SCREENING
Finally a sound film! Although it was a little long and slow at times “M” was definitely an enjoyable film. Of all the films we watched semester this was the best. “M” a 1931 German thriller directed by Fritz Lang is about a man who kills young girls and a group of criminals that tries to apprehend this psychotic killer. Peter Lorre who plays the role of the killer lures young girls in by offering them candy and balloons. Throughout the film the police are unable to track down the killer thus a local band of criminals decides to take the matter into their own hands by hunting the murderer down. The criminals break into an office building and capture the killer. They take him to an underground court led by the criminals themselves and condemn him to death. Lorre pleas that he is unable to help himself and that it’s not his fault. As he is about to be killed the cops break in and put and end to the mayhem. In the end Lorre is brought to a regular court where he is to receive his sentence. “M” is very reflective of German expressionism from its camera work to its mise en scene. Lang uses chiaroscuro light and high contrast to set the tone of the film. German expressionism is also seen through the prevalent use of shadow and reflections through glass. These shadows and reflections represent ideas of looking in on ones inner self, they externalize ones inner thoughts and feelings. Themes such as madness, hysteria, self-analysis and revolt are exemplified throughout the entire film. This is specifically seen at the end when Peter Lorre tries to explain that he is mentally ill and cannot control his urge to kill. The cinematography was great, the camera was constantly moving and there were a variety of angels. My favorite shot was when they mother looks down the staircase in search of her daughter. It made the stairs look never ending which represents that the mother will never see her daughter again.
ReplyDeleteM, what can I say… I did not like it at all. I felt it was too long and I found myself falling asleep most of the movie. I was really happy to know that this film was not going to be silent but when I saw it, I wished it would have been. If it were I would have put a good sound track and not fell asleep. But this film was something that I would not like to ever watch again in my life, the only thing I did like was the camera work and how they showed the tall guy and the short guy I felt that was really cool and really new. I have never seen that before. I really did not care for the story line I just hated that fact that there was so much loudness and I did not understand anything that any one was saying so I had to read everything I miss out on a lot of the video because I was reading and trying to not fall asleep. But that was not working out. There was one thing that I like about this film and that was the way that the film used its lights and the way the camera moved, I felt like if I was there in the film but I did not see any ones point come out of the film, I don’t know if that’s what the film makers were going after but if it was they got it. I did not like that in the movie there was no sound at all the only sound was a car and that was so loud and it was so bad that even my dog jumped the first time she heard it. That was the highlight of the film (when my dog jumped) but everything on this film, I did not like maybe it is known to be “one of the best film ever made” but I did not like it, not even a little. I guess I just love silent films and everything about them from the way that they are made to the way the actors act in them; it’s just everything that M did not have. I found myself not even wanted to talk about M nor anything about the film, would I not tell my friends to watch it or to even talk about it. With everything said I just like silent films better. =(
ReplyDeleteI was very happy to finally get to watch a sound film as opposed to silent. A wonderful example of German Expressionism, "M" employs chiaroscuro lighting, dark shadows, and strange angles giving the film an eerie sort of feel.
ReplyDeleteThe story is very suspenseful and at times creepy. I think the whistling of the killer really added to the creepiness of the film.
I found myself getting a little restless during the film only because they seemed to be taking so long to find the killer. The police and other group of people looking for him began to look pretty stupid after a while because at least from my point of view it didn't seem THAT difficult to find and capture him. The ending of the film is quite thought-provoking and leaves the audience with a question of moral dilemma.
As far as being a sound film, as I mentioned earlier the whistling really added to the effect of the film. I noticed at some points though, a lack of ambient sound throughout the film which is somewhat jarring because all of the sudden things would just go completely silent -- no sound effects, no talking, no ambient sound whatsoever.
Overall, although I felt "M" was just a little bit slow and long, I enjoyed it for the most part. Definitely the most entertaining film we've seen in this class by far.
For the most part, I enjoyed "M", by Fritz Lang. I expected this movie to be rather lacking in quality since it was only the beginning of the sound film era but I was pleasantly surprised. It had a few shots that I found extremely interesting: There was a specific shot where the camera moves into a building through a window, and you can SEE the little piece of glass moving to give way to the camera--which reminds me of a similar shot in Citizen Kane. I also enjoyed how they hyperbolized the taller man and the shorter man when the taller man is accusing the latter of being the murderer that everyone is searching for. The exaggeration of height difference gives the sense that the taller man has more power than the accused. I also enjoyed the intercuts between the criminals and the cops who were trying to figure out how to capture the murderer. It allowed the audience to put them on the same playing field even though they were on opposite sides of the law. Finally, I particularly loved the shot when the murderer is presented to the jury of criminals. Juxtaposing the one man against throngs of angry criminals was brilliantly executed and definitely gave the sense of one man versus the world.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite scene overall was the trial led by criminals. Not only is the idea of having justice performed by those who are fugitives of the law interesting (and also brings up a breed of vigilantes) but Lang further captured the audience's interest by giving insight into the murderer's motives for killing innocent children which, in a way, makes the audience understand the character rather than completely abhor him for the atrocities he's performed.
The use of sound was extremely intriguing. At times there would be no sound whatsoever, which helped build tension. For example, when the cops were walking down the street preparing for a raid, there was absolutely no sound until a whistle breaks the silence. It made me jump, which is kind of pathetic but I have no problem admitting it anyway. Sound was used to complement the artistic feel of the film rather than the technical. It was not used to explain story as much as it was used to exacerbate the tension between characters.
I did feel like "M" was a little slow at times. Some scenes and sequences were way too long and I found myself losing interest. The tension Lang created would dissipate due to the length of some of the unnecessary shots but he would find a way to capture my attention once more.
-Nathalie Fernandez
Glad to see we’re moving into the age of sound, and this wasn’t a bad film to start it on; a perfect example of a technology still in its baby stages. Random cut offs, sudden crashes of noise from nothingness, uneven levels, extended periods of no sound whatsoever, and a clear focus on dialogue only (in that many of the onscreen actions were not foleyed or lacked room tone). It’s glaring flaws with audio aside; the successful uses of sound were surprisingly effective and sophisticated. Already, sound was being used as part of the narrative, used to convey emotion through its characters, to build tension in the atmosphere (like the shots of M’s expressions while hiding, as we hear the search party breaking down doors and banging around nearby). The sound helps bring the movie to life, there’s really nothing gimmicky about it in the slightest (if there is, it’s heavily outweighed by the benefits of its presence). Compare this to the once-again popular “3D” innovation in our modern movies, and we see that ours is not really adding much substance to the narrative of film.
ReplyDeleteThe story itself was definitely more fast-paced than a lot of the stories we’ve seen so far, but it’s not without it’s slow parts, as others have pointed out. But for me, those moments were few and far between; I was really engaged in the performances and action. The editing and multiple character stories intercut perfectly to keep the pace from slowing too much. I loved the monologue of M at the end, another perfect example of how powerful the sound of the spoken word can be. That scene would not have been the same in a silent film, and the amount of text to explain the inner thoughts of M would have not been screen-friendly. Interesting, also, that there is no musical score present, even during entire sections of the film that are completely silent.
-Gabriel Basham
Our screening this week was radically different for one main reason: Sound. Along with sophisticated visuals, there was now a new element to the storytelling and narrative.
ReplyDeleteEven though the film was subtitled and in German, the sonic addition was universally applicable. The inflections of the voices along with sound effects, ticking clocks, children playing and the murderer’s creepy whistle all intensified the action.
This film adored the Kuleshov effect. The mother of Elsie, helplessly waiting for her daughter to arrive home while cooking dinner was intercut with inserts of the clock (and clock ticking), her checking the stairway (sound of children’s footsteps running upstairs), a shot of the empty stair well, empty laundry room, empty place at the table. All of these images connected with the mother’s expression and amplified the eagerness of her waiting, allowing the audience to know what she as a character wants (for her daughter to come home).
Regardless of the innovation of sound, the film did not neglect the visual aspect, cinematography or framing. Shadows, reflections and point of view shots were heavily employed. The looming shadow of the killer on the reward sign is an eerie foreshadowing of what is to unfold and the audience knows that the little girl “coincidentally” reflected in the mirror surrounded by knives in the shop window is in danger.
We never actually see the crime take place (thank goodness), but the editing uses an almost soviet montage technique of inserting otherwise seemingly random shots (outside the context) to allow the audience to grasp what has happened. The little girl’s ball rolls onto the forest floor and the balloon gets caught in an electrical pole. This is enough visual information to evoke a horrified response in the viewer.
Point of view shots were well executed throughout the film as well. In the scene exhibiting the overall paranoia of the city right before the small mob, the small man helping the little girl get home is wrongly accused of being the criminal by a man on the street. The large man towers over the bespeckled man and the camera emphasizes this by filming film from a very high angle.
Aerial shots were employed during the chase scene towards the end and it almost appeared as if they sped up the running.
There was a lot of talking in this film and as I sat there I tried to imagine the entire movie as a silent film with inter-titles and realized it would be possible, but the complexity would be drastically reduced.
-Brianne McKay
As stated in the previous posts, this week introduces a new element into the films we watch in class, sound. While this was a sound movie, it is clear that it is a film made in the beginning stages of the transition to the use of sound. Several scenes were shown to have been shot without audio equipment and later dubbed over by the actors. This was evident in wide shots or in outdoor shoots. Also an element that was missing was a soundtrack. Their wasn't any gushing instrumentals or sweeping orchestral pieces normally found in movies of that era, just the sound of people and the environment. The film played out nicely, pacing very well as it builds up tension. I particularly liked the scene that intercut between the police and criminals showing them planning to catch the killer. I was taken aback by how the main villain was a pedophile, normally this type of subject would not be addressed at the time. Even today that subject is seen as daring and taboo. I felt it was executed well, making me shudder as the killer approached his victims whistling and heavily breathing. Another striking scene was were the little girl hits a ball at a sign and the killer approaches and all we see is his shadow against the pillar. German expressionism techniques were rampant throughout the film which helped build the tension towards the end. I felt it somewhat sagged after the killer was caught by the criminals. There was no need to show the caught criminals experience with the police men interrogating him and trying to find out what happened at the building. Overall it was an enjoyable film and a great way to kick off the sound movement.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised to see how well sound was utilized in M. There were some little instances where the sound could have been improved but other than that it gave the sense that sound was being used for a while even though it was fairly new. The mystery around the pedophile murderer had my attention from the beginning, where we meet him abducting Elsie, the little girl, and whistling In the Hall of the Mountain King. I checked on online to see if the orchestral piece had any meaning that could relate to the film and I found that it first appeared in a fantasy play, Peer Gynt, where it plays while Peer sneaks into the Mountain King’s castle and then tries to escape as he is followed by the King and his trolls. Perhaps the piece foreshadows the murderer’s fate since he sneaks around taking children and then he is sought after by the authorities and other criminals.
ReplyDeleteIt felt as though the filmmakers really wanted to take advantage of the use of sound by including long scenes of dialogue. This is the main reason why the film seemed to move at a slow pace during the middle. Then, things really started to pick up as the killer was found and marked with a letter “M”.
One technique that I found interesting that was used in the film was the use of shadows. For instance, the first time we meet the murderer we do not see him but we see his shadow over a wanted poster describing the murderer. The shadows add to the mood of the film. By concealing his face for that moment, after we have had a chance to read the wanted poster, the mystery heightens since we do not know who this figure is.
Overall, M was good introduction to the use of sound. It showed how filmmakers began to have this extra element that added a whole dimension to the way they can tell stories.
Loved this movie! Even beyond the introduction of sound I thought the film was beautifully delivered. The story was creepy, engaging, and very thrilling, and it was all of this without so many modern conventions that are used today. For a film about a serial killer targeting young girls, very little was actually shown or even described for that matter. Much of the subject matter was indirect letting the audience’s imagination fill the void. I also enjoyed the gradual introduction of the killer into the film. You were never quite sure who or where he could be, leaving confusion and chaos that paralleled the same feelings for the police and citizens within the film.
ReplyDeleteWhile the obvious use of dialogue was amazing, perhaps my favorite element of sound that was used was Peter Lorre’s trademark sound as the serial killer. The simple tune he delivered while whistling was brilliant – rather than just attaching a mood or image to the killer, a specific and unique sounds came with him as well, which certainly added to the level of anxiety and paranoia surrounding Lorre’s character. I also liked the opening sequence that introduced the killer with the song the kids sang – another cool example of how the serial killer was introduced in a unique and creepy fashion without any overt representation of him.
Lorre’s portrayal of the serial killer marks for me the best performance of an actor we have seen during our screenings. Without sound his powerful performance would not have been fully delivered – the rage, frustration and terror he had in his voice during his final monologue was captivating. The tone and inflection marked a pivotal moment for realism within acting – that character consumed him, and it made the movie for me. Considering that character certainly fell outside common subject matter and roles, it was fun to watch Lorre play it out. He also got the audience to a point where we began to sympathize with the bad guy.
I also enjoyed the dynamic between the citizens, police, and underground criminal world. It brought up some interesting themes and concepts. The police came to aid when the citizens called, but were strongly resisted once their influence became troublesome. It was the entire idea of the most ideal form of justice – does the state and law suffice in bringing peace and justice to the world or should it be left to human nature and a rogue force to enforce the good in the world, as the audience saw the criminal underworld judging the killer only to be overrun by the police at the end of the film.
And then there was. . . . . .sound! It was great to finally watch a film with sound, and a thriller for that matter. The Fritz Lang film “M” had an interesting plot and film style. The negatives about the film were, that it was a little too lengthy, some establishing shots were held for too long and scenes that had no dialogue were dead silent, rather than allowing the background noise to be heard.
ReplyDeleteThe film “M” had chiaroscuro lighting and shadows to emphasize on the “darkness” of the film. There were also interesting camera angles used throughout the film. One example is when the officer is on the phone; sitting at his desk and the shot is captured from an angle that is coming from under his desk, near his feet. Another interesting set of shots was when one man was trying to figure out why a certain brand of cigarettes sounded so familiar. Then every time he repeated the brand the camera zoomed in, closer and closer to his face, until he finally figured out that it was connected to the child murderer.
My favorite part of the film was the end when the child murderer is captured and brought to the empty warehouse, where a crowd of people is waiting to see him get punished for his sins. The child murderer attempts to explain what it is that he goes through and that he cannot control his actions. He is pretty much a schizophrenic individual that hears voices in his head, telling him to kill these young innocent girls. He blacks out during the murder and once it is completed he doesn’t remember what happened, until he sees the missing girl signs posted throughout the neighborhood. He tries to gain sympathy from the crowd, yet the mother’s and even the men cannot accept his actions. Then his defense says that he should have the right to be brought to the police, everyone laughs, but soon enough the police arrive and everyone’s hands are up. The film concludes with a scene of women (mothers) crying in a courthouse and text appears on the screen. This film can be compared to an episode of Law and Order, minus the fact that the law did not get involved with the case until the very end, (lol), but in ways the storyline reminded me of this show.
I really liked the film overall but I felt that the ending was a little bit of a letdown. It seemed like the bad guy didn’t really get his comeuppance. He was a child serial killer and I also thought it was implied that he was a pedophile which surprised me that he didn’t receive a harsher penalty, especially after such a lame defense. It was very brave of the man to become his impromptu legal counsel even though it was more of a witch trial than anything. I felt that Lang used sound very effectively but there were many times where it was noticeable that they were adding sound in post production which is no fault of Lang’s, but most people of today’s movie watcher generation take sound for granted. The title card at the end leaves the viewer with the message to watch your children closer, almost blaming the parents for what happened to their children at the hands of the serial killer. I thought it was bogus that he pleads insanity in a kangaroo court, and the men trying him weren’t exactly upstanding citizens. I feel like the viewer’s of past generations and today’s generations would have wanted to see the man torn to shreds by the angry mob. The fate of the serial killer is sort of ambiguous because you do not hear his actual sentence given to him, but one of the characters earlier explains that he will invoke some law that will enable him to escape jail time in favor of some mental institution which will then either release him as cured or he will escape which confused me as to the overall message of the film. They are basically saying that their justice system is somewhat pointless. The police coming in and “saving” the serial killer from his grisly fate also left me with many questions.
ReplyDeleteIn this week’s screening we actually got to watch a sound film! Even though it was not in English some sound that was not really boring score was greatly appreciated. M was directed by Fritz Lang and starred Peter Lorre as a child murderer. Overall I did not enjoy the film. At the beginning I found it boring because I felt that it took a long time for the story to actually get going. Though once the group of criminals met and decided that they were the only hope in to stopping this murderer the movie started to pick up its pace. A moment in the film that I really enjoyed was when we found out why the movie was titled, M. I thought it was a very creative way to find and recognize who the murderer was. Though I did find it a little weird that this guy was just carrying a piece of chalk with him but that could have been a regular thing back in the 1930s. My favorite part of the film is when the criminals hold the fake court hearing and Peter Lorre delivers his plea of freedom and redemption. Out of all the films I have ever seen I think this is one of the best delivered and acted monologues of all time. I felt his pain and his anguish when he spoke his lines. It made me feel for serial killer and at the end of his speech I wanted them not to kill him but instead let him get help at some insane asylum. Though one thing I was very confused about was the music. You kept saying that the music or the score in this film was very good but the only music I remember was the whistle that he did when he found a girl.
ReplyDeleteYes, finally a sound movie! I really enjoyed this movie. It was a bit too long. Fritz Lang would take too long to get to a point. The movie overall was really good. It did remind me a lot of Law and Order. Law and Order SVU is actually one of my favorite shows and it reminded me a lot especially that it had to do about kids being kidnapped and it ends with the murdered being in court.
ReplyDeleteThe film did have a lot of German expressionism. It was a little eerie, which the camera angles, chiaroscuro lighting, and the like helped it feel this way. I actually liked the beginning when the little girl kept singing the song over and over which was very weird because I don’t remember singing songs like that as a child. Hearing the girl sing that was a little creepy but, it introduced us to the story. I thought this film was going to be like The Zodiac because it seemed like they were never going to find the murdered, but I thought it took longer for the citizens to find the murdered once the viewers knew who it was. From then on it got a little boring because we knew who the killer was and I just wanted for someone to catch him already.
I liked the plot, especially for it to be one of the first sound films. Most of the films we’ve seen so far are fictional, or about social issues, and some have been funny. But it was interesting how Fritz Lang decide to do it on a serial killer especially one that kills young girls. The plot also represented German expressionism because it dealt with someone that was insane. Peter Lorre played out his part really good. His face expressions showed his mental illness, especially whenever he would look at a young girl walking around him. His whistling was a little frightening because it showed how calm he was when he was up to no good.
Even though I was anxious for the movie to end, I liked it as our first sound film.
Holy Crap! This movie floored me. I was so amazed and captivated the entire time. I can see why some think that it is the best movie ever made. I mean it had a phenomenal story, phenomenal performances, and phenomenal social commentary, which ends with a profound question on what justice truly is.
ReplyDeleteThe story is so much darker than anything that we have seen thus far. Whereas Caligari was indeed a dark movie, it had a fantastical look. This one was more rooted in reality, and was depraved in a believable way. This was only the thirties and Lang decided that his first sound film would be this story about a man who lures children in to kill them. That took some courage, and I'm so glad that he had it.
Peter Lorre is so good in this film, especially at the end when he explains his condition. My favorite scene with him though has to be when he goes to the restaurant and fights with himself and his urges and desires. It was just so sad and creepy. I also really liked the guy who played the head of the underworld. He was so interesting to watch, one of those “bad guys” that is just so much fun to see and listen to.
I loved how the police and the underground have two different ways of handling the situation, and it is up to you to decide which one is right. The underground stalks the streets and breaks into a building to get him, while the police wade through detective work and wait for him to come home. This reaches its inevitable climax in the end when, in one of the great scenes in the movie, the underground holds a trial complete with a lawyer in the basement of an abandoned building. They want to kill him and stop his disease rather than have him institutionalized and let out to start all over again like what just happened. It is such a great moment when the law steps in and takes Lorre away and its up to you to decide whether it was good that Lorre was going to get away with it or not.
The way that the police control the town is also of great interest to me. The way that they use the fact that they are looking for a murderer to go down into the bars and arrest people for all sorts of things. Lohmann seems to take specific glee in making everybody go to prison, down to where if he has any slight suspicion or there is any issue with the person, they get sent to the station. So it seems as if there is a bit of corruption on both sides. The underground breaks into the building and the police lie their way into Lorre's home. Lang even goes as far as to cut between the two tables during the same conversation to show that their isn't that much of a difference between the two, and while their methods might be different, they both crave the same result.
ReplyDeleteThe paranoia was also really cool. After there is the murder at the beginning of the film, the entire town goes crazy accusing everyone. Lang shows the town breaking down as everyone becomes a suspect and an accuser, to the point where a lot of people are getting arrested for being anywhere near children and in the one scene the crowd swallows up the suspect and overpowers the policeman.
All of this comes down to a question of authority, which is why it is in some ways similar to Metropolis. How much power should the authority have, and who says that the decisions they make are correct. The film has so much to do with authority that the murderer becomes the authority figure over the children. You could go as far as to say that Lorre represented the government, who will promise all these great things and be really kind and gentle and charitable to its lower class, but then will quickly screw them over when it has the chance. It is scarily connected to what would happen in the years following this film with the Nazi party, World War II, and the Holocaust
The use of sound in the film was amazing. Since he was working at the very beginning of the incorporation of sound, it is so impressive how he masters it. Knowing the limitations of the equipment, he doesn't just record what he could and not record what he couldn't, he had the sound mean something. When there was no sound there was this sense of heartlessness and detachment, which is why when the police are combing the street there is nothing, but in the mother's home there is always sound. Also he used sound to disorient and shock the viewer, like when the police car siren came blasting through the speakers.
ReplyDeleteThe film sort of reminded me of the movie Citizen X with Stephen Rea and Max Von Sydow. The difference is that it has the same empty ending because when the police catch the child killer, he is going to be put in prison, but they take him into a room with a drain in the floor and shoot him in the back of the head. It is cool to see that the police taking action and not taking action could create such a desolate ending.
ReplyDeleteBut again, I LOVED THIS MOVIE!
Fritz Lang's depiction of the city in his movie M is persistently cold. Each town member, criminal or law official has a hard-edged demeanor--so much so that this is part of the reason we sympathize with Lorre's character. The people of the town are filled with such rage that they are ready to be senseless and act out violently against a random and innocent man merely because they think he might be the killer. This paints a picture of the entire town as being one giant, menacing entity. Nazi influence was present in Germany at the time the movie was made. This depiction of the town could have been Lang's response to what was happening to Germany.
ReplyDeleteM uses dialogue so sparingly that it reminded me of an earlier silent film more than a sound film. There was little score, sound or dialogue. A considerable amount of the story is told visually and almost nothing is left to dialogue. In fact, Lorre's character doesn't utter a word until his confession towards the end of the movie.
I was surprised to recognize Peter Lorre as the criminal after seeing him in Casablanca. Lorre's face does not strike me as malevolent and seemed to be an odd choice at first for a pedophile killer. I wonder what motivated Lang to show the killer's face (Lorre) at the beginning of the film instead of wait until the end? And why cast such a benign face for such a nefarious offender?
Also, why not show any of the violence on screen? What we imagine is often more frightening that what we see, but was there an alternate reason to not show the acts of murder?
The film M directed by Fritz Lang in 1931 is a great example of German expressionism. I was excited to finally see a sound film.
ReplyDeleteThis film in particular used several techniques like dark shadows and chiaro oscuro lighting, among many others. The plot of the movie entered the drama/ thriller genre, which filled me with suspense. It kind of reminded me of Freedy Krueger, the movie, because of the killer’s whist lining and the kids involved etc.. Trying to find the killer throughout the film becomes annoying after a while but in the end the twist and question I think really added to the film.
One thing I noticed missing was music in the background of some kind, which could have fit well in the film, but this also led to creating tension in some parts like when the cops are trying to find the killer and all of a sudden the whistle sounds. Even though the film was somewhat slow at times I enjoyed it the most out of all the films I have seen in class so far.
It’s about time we start watching something that’s actually interesting. M was the best film we’ve seen in this class thus far. There has been a film here and there that had some good qualities but this film was actually goo all around. I was in to the film. I didn’t doze off at all. This film really did resemble Law and Order but I think it was more like Criminal Minds. There was action from beginning to end. There was suspense. There weren’t these stalk, boring characters. There weren’t these over the top, over dramatic characters. I enjoyed the trapping of the killer. When the beggars were chasing him into the business building, it was kind of comedic to me. But the suspense of the “mafia” actually trying to locate the killer in the building was the best part of the scene. Although, the most heightened suspense part was whether or not the people were going to killer the murderer. When they were searching for the killer in the building, there were all these different camera angles and quick cuts that made the drama and adventure of catching the guy. I was disappointed that the film ended so abruptly. It left you hanging about what actually ended up happening to the killer. Was he tried? Was he convicted? Was he found innocent? Was he committed to a mental institution? There was hint, no nothing. I would’ve preferred he be killed by all the people and the wannabe “mafia.” All of the shadows and the soft lighting enhanced the film’s direction of a suspense/drama film. The speed of the film was acceptable but the rate at which the characters spoke was kind of slow, but it worked for the film. Once again, it enhanced the subject material of the film. I liked the sets. All the tall buildings and dark alleys made you feel like you were really in this big area, in danger and the was no one around who could ever save you. The sets attributed to the film by giving this helpless feeling to the unfortunate murdered kids. They may have screamed and tried to get away, but being in a location like that, no one probably heard them and they couldn’t escape because they were lost; there were too many alleys and dark corners for them to find their way home so they couldn’t escape the tragedy that awaited them.
ReplyDeleteOn Monday we saw “M.” The filmed was directed by Fritz Lang and not only was it our first sound film, but also the first one he made. They story centered on a neighborhood were little girls have gone missing. From the start the audience learns who the murderer is because he buys a girl a balloon and then the little girl never makes it home. He is recognized on a later day by the blind man who sold him the balloon because he whistles the same melody he whistled when he bought the young girl the balloon. Both criminals and the police try to catch him and finally the criminals do. He is put in a trial and found guilty even though he says he can’t control it.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this film. It had the influence of German Expressionism, but you could tell Lang was leaving that movement. The film felt like a transition to noir. There was a scene when they are smoking inside a room and the smoke rises and rises comes out of every cigarette until it feel the whole room is up in smokes. When I was watching I couldn’t help but think how many hours they must’ve spent in that room pumping out smoke.
The thing that impressed me the most was the dialogue us. Even though it was his first film with dialogue, Lang didn’t overuse it and it didn’t seem to fit fine. There were some instances were he did use it for a lot of exposition, but most of the movie was visual, and I was surprised because I would have imagine that when something like dialogue came along, they were going to use it as much as the could.
Also, another excellent performance by an actor we haven’t seen this semester: Peter Lorre. His screams, his desperation and his angst when he is caught and put to trial are priceless. You can feel his emotions, it was a powerful performance.
I really enjoyed M. Not only because it was nice to hear some dialogue in film but because it was just this incredibly made film. It's interesting to think that a key element of the film - the whistle - is used so astutely in Lang's first sound film. I think Lang understood how useful sound could be and attempted to make it powerful without being overwhelming in the movie.
ReplyDeleteI can definitely see the influence of German Expressionism - the lengthy shadows - although it's not as obvious as the influence in Metropolis.
Another astonishing thing that I picked up on was how relevant this seems today. It doesn't seem out of date, nor is there anything remotely 'old-fashioned' about it. The story, the suspense, it's all something we could see in a modern day thriller. Everything has a sort of distant feel to it, but it works really well with the film. It's also interesting because we see the killer's face in the beginning, which would give the impression of a very 'personal' narrative, but then the rest of the film just sort of distances itself between the audience and the character. I really really enjoyed this film.
Hooray, a sound film! And one that is done by the same director as Metropolis, at that. I have to say, for how infamous early sound films were during their time, I very much enjoyed this film. It had a plethora of beautiful and clever shots, coupled with an intelligent use of sound.
ReplyDeleteOne of my favorite shots happened to occur during the beginning of the film when the murderer is first revealed. The killer purchases a balloon for the little girl who will soon go missing, and as he is doing so, his shadow is casted against the “wanted” sign for his arrest. How brilliant!
I also found it incredibly clever to make sound the very element that ends in the killer’s demise. Besides this inventive way of using sound, I think Fritz Lang did a very good job in not making sound too gimmicky. In other words, just because sound could now be broadcasted to audiences everywhere, he didn’t exploit its uses (Piranha 3D, anyone?) Instead, every sound had a purpose and every dialogue was necessary in the development of the plot.
All in all, the films German expressionistic styled shots and smart dialogue made our class’s first film quite enjoyable.
I realize how late I’m writing this response. It just slipped my mind for a while and by now I’ve probably lost some of what I would’ve liked to say… but... “M” was fantastic! It was probably one of the, if not the, most enjoyable film we’ve watched this semester so far. The way they used shadows was really cool, paired with the subject matter, you could see the roots of film noir there. In class we discussed how the dawn of sound films was paired with some really awful story telling because no one knew how to use it (not unlike the 3D crisis going on today) but this was our first screening with sound and they were really on the ball! It wasn’t constant masterful foley work, but what they needed, they used and it was effective. This came out in 1931, only four years after “The Jazz Singer”, so in a time of horrible primitive sound films, this thing is a gem. Story-wise they worked wonders. The opening kidnap scene was sincerely tragic. The mother calling up and down the stairs was really heartbreaking. They showed the killer a lot, which is unconventional of thrillers but in the end that choice proved to be a good one as they almost made the case to make him a sympathetic figure. I had the characters and even more importantly the viewers ask themselves why they hated the man they had learned to fear and hate so much over the last two hours. The defense that a serial killer cant control themselves and there is actually something wrong with them that needs treating, rather than punishing, has always been interesting to me, and at the point in the film history timeline it was still probably a relatively novel idea. One thing that I have to address that isn’t so much film related, is what this movie said about the state of Germany at the time, and I’m not just talking about how much longer it takes the German language to get a message across than English (we could read the subtitles in an instant and then had to wait full seconds to move on). Anyway… Damn that society was quick to judge! They were very partial to swift and horribly misdirected “justice”. An old man attempted to talk to a little girl for a moment and people went running for their torches and pitch forks. The first thing that came to my mind was, “Goddamn! That country was prepped for Nazism!”
ReplyDelete..... so eh.... Jordan... ya liked the movie huh?
Fritz Lang’s M was definitely a classic of its time. It must’ve been quite the thriller in the 1930’s when it was made, and it seems like many thrillers these days are simply refined, shortened versions of this dramatic story. Looking past the extremely long takes, I found the film very cinematic with interesting cinematography, dialogue and character quirks, like the murderer, M’s, whistled melody that seems to ring in your head after the film.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised by the drastic character change of Peter Lorre in comparison to Casablanca. His eyes are perfectly huge and eerie for this pedophile character. One thing that stuck out about his performance was the drawn out, wide-eyed stare shots that alluded to the older German Expressionism films such as The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.
I enjoyed the storyline above all, and it carried me through the drawn out scenes. It was a well-developed story with great directing and clear cinematography. The scene of the criminals hunting down M to do their own justice was definitely the highlight of the film, with M’s judgment scene as the most riveting part.
-Allison Basham
At last! a sound film, though not completely sound oriented. Only the parts that had dialogue were recorded, and the rest was left silent. At times I thought the film wasn't working properly because of the silence that surrounds our ears.
ReplyDeleteI just keep on hating myself for how I used to think about classical films in a negative aspect; so far each week all films keep on progressing into a more and more likable and interesting narrative. M displayed images of such disturbing and attracting scenes that personally grabbed my emotions and kind of felt bad for the kidnapper at the end.
Dramatic use of angles and shadows have been considered by the well known pioneer Fritz Lang. One scene that i found really interesting and compelling was when 'Elsie' plays with her ball on the wall and suddenly we see the shadow of the Kidnapper. It somehow reminded me of the Kuleshov effect, because we see the ball and then we see the shadow of a man moving into place, and in our minds we add them together which results in the thought of kidnapping Elsie. The use of shadow has been referenced a couple of times throughout the film which somehow creates one of Fritz Lang's styles or techniques.
One other technique that extremely impressed me and caught my attention was the part when we get introduced to the Homicide Detective, and the camera was shot using a low angle. This angle can show the importance of the character and/or show as we have seen the detective's true snobbish and careless physique. This angle also highlights key characteristics in subjects, in this case the detectives fail in formal clothes and his reckless take on his job. The director also creates a third person (the viewers) and places us under the table for us to see the true reality behind the careless police.
In the last scene when the Kidnapper was imprisoned in the abandoned building in front of all the people, we as the viewers all go with the decision that he should either be executed or placed in prison by the authorities, however, the last speech he made really made me feel sorry for him and really thought about giving him a second chance, and as his prosecutor said that he should be cured as sick man should.
“M”
ReplyDeleteSarah Garcia
I enjoyed this film, because I thought it was advanced from our previous screenings. It really developed story telling by a more complex editing scheme with cross cutting, which built up tensions through out the film. Another element that I thought worked really well was the repetition of music. The fact that the killer or kidnapper was always whistling this really helped me associate this with evil, and eventually the little song he was whistling got associated with fear and it made it all the more creepy.
The main problem I had with the film was the timing. I thought it was way to long, and could have been condensed a lot more and cutting it down would have made it much more entertaining. I also think that the sound was very unrealistic and did not make sense. There would be a busy street and the only sound would be the dialogue central to the scene, but I know that it was an early time in sound and they were still developing the ways in which they captured the sound so it was difficult to capture ambient sound. I guess I am just spoiled and used to sound being more natural within the scenes.
I do think that the director did an excellent job in blocking the scenes, and directing the actors because they all seemed very believable especially when the man hits the killer and puts an “M” on him instead of the killer freaking out which what would be expected of a serial killer and just killed him he was very shy and scared of the man. This timid moment shows the true coward of the killer, because all child abusers are just cowards who think by overpowering young children they will be able to make up everything they are lacking. I really thought that this seen showed the true face of the killer, and helped the audience realize how truly pathetic he is.
I also enjoyed the part of the film that had citizens taking over the police investigation, because it shows that often times things can not be handled by people in charge and someone has to do something to stand up for what is right for the people, what is going to save these little girls from harm.
All in all, I thought the film made many advances with story telling and character development, but I think that the film was way too slow and could have been much shorter.
Sorry this was such a late blog post. I watched the movie on netflix and was finally relieved that it was a talkie! For it's decade M must have been a film that was out of this world. It was a great film that Lang hit big time. It caught my attention for the entire movie and especially the whistle was pretty scary and rose a lot of tension.
ReplyDeleteAs a movie, it progressed from silent to talkie films. It was pretty good movement with the camera, character development and very suspenseful. It was interesting the fact that the police and criminals wanted to kill the murderer and how they got the M on his shoulder. For the 30's it was a great film. I really liked the montage of images towards the beginning when the killer was with the little girl. It showed you that he killed her, but with out showing the actual event that took place after buying the balloon. It probably made it better because the audience does all of the work and thinks of all the horrible ways he could have killed the little girl.
Overall this has to be one of the favorites that I have seen in all of the screenings. It had great characters, sound, development, and editing.
So I haven’t looked at the other comments yet, but I think I’m one of the very few who doesn’t like gangster movies. I rather it be an action movie like James bond then a bunch of rich people discussion how one man is going to ruin their business. “M” had a decent storyline but was very slow. I don’t really want to focus as much on the storyline as much as I do on the actual sound, that to me was more exciting that the actual movie. Finally, speaking and footsteps! Lang did an excellent job in incorporating sound to the feature. Though sounds was relatively still new he knew and to incorporate it so it would help the movie and not destroy it. It was the first film that I’ve seen in this class where there was talking even when there was no image on the screen. When this happens in the movie the audience focuses on what is being said more because there is less distraction. When Elsy is lost the whole audience feels for her mother. While the mother was calling out the image on screen was of different places, this is also a new style now that there is sound.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of the whistling was by far the best idea Lang had for this movie. Using didactic sound in order to solve the mystery? Brilliant. This was a fresh new idea during that time, how could it have ever been done prior to using voices on screen? I really like the song he was whistling too. I’m sure it has been in other movies, possibly as an homage to “M”.
Peter Lorre I have to say is one of the most unique actors I have ever seen as far as looks. I don’t even have to look twice to figure out who he is. Though he will never play the hero he does fit his party of the mysterious/creepy man excellently. I’m not saying that it’s a bad thing that he looks/acts like that but it’s quite a unique style.