凶手m

M就是凶手有感
一个不需要法律制裁的凶手

同样的犯罪题材的电影，这个电影风格就是不同希区柯克的画风，就像希区柯克的电影《惊魂记》，他们的电影点相同的是都是说精神病患者的行凶。

M就是凶手，他重点的在于平铺直叙的讲述这个电影，涉及人物关系之多，有犯罪团伙，警察群体，小镇市民都是一堆一堆的演员，到影片中间部分才真正出现主角就是男主人公凶手M（ps:整部电影两个多小时，除了15分钟有一处凶手的闪现）。凶手M的露脸戏份并不多，很快他被犯罪团伙分钱雇佣的卧底市井们捉住，然后就开始自述自己的行凶是无意识行为。

那个时代的电影注重的是故事，所以编剧也是个煞费苦心纯技术活。而这部电影的演员也是平起平坐，因为没有所谓主角，他涉及演员关系之复杂，人员之多，所以应该把主角分为阵营，凶手，警队，黑帮，群众。同样胖子老希在《惊魂记》中也用了同样方法，假设女小职员是主角，随着故事发展，20分钟她就遇害了。所以主角并没有不死光环，故事才是真理。

惊魂记，胖子老希重点放在角色上的多重身份的塑造上，例如一个普通的女职员成为突然变成了携款逃走罪犯，一个友善的旅店老板原来是变态的杀人凶手。（ps:胖子老希的电影总是喜欢在人物身份的多重性下功夫，例如说西北偏北的一个才华横溢的广告商人莫名其妙的突然卷入犯罪团伙的卧底，一个年轻貌美的女人又是警察那边的卧底，又是犯罪头目的一张棋牌。在例如后窗里面的一个报社摄影师因为意外腿伤，通过偷窥又意外成为了侦探。例如迷魂记里面本来一个平常的售货小姐受雇佣变成了迷惑警察的演员。）

胖子老希的人物身份的多重性设定，使得电影更加立体，富有饱和感。这就是一个没有电影特效，一切剧情靠剧本的年代，因为没有特效，导演必须在电影的故事上花费心机，才能博得观众欢心，同时又是一个没有特效的年代，更加考验摄影师现场布光和演员的表演能力。而不是像现在的电影，那些演员只要美美的，很傻很天真就够了。现在的黑白电影质感都懒得打光，就像迪斯尼的仙野踪境，后期把实景变成黑白做复古的感觉就好。

故事的核心是角色，所以角色需要丰富多重的心理塑造。角色的每个表情，每次动作都是体现他的心理层面，电影没有小说里面的心理描写，只能通过演员的表演和观众进行视觉传达。

那是一个法律制裁的年代，法律至上，但是凶手并没有受到所谓制裁。因为他行凶是在无意识的情况下进行的，他说他的行凶时，就像背后有个魔鬼告诉他这样做，然后他脑袋一热就做了，这种无意识是不受谴责的，而且要受政府保护。但是就像影片说的那样，那些受害者，甚至她们的家庭，就是这样无可奈何的承受罪犯不受制裁，他们的疼痛夹杂着更多的无奈。影片中冰冷的旁观，没有正反派的人物结局设定，没有给观众留下坏蛋必须死的正义快感，而是像一部缺少感性思维的摄像机，好像说着我就是拍摄而已。

影片的小细节应该有掌声。一部变态凶手犯罪电影，却没有一个直面血腥镜头。一个电线杆上的氢气球，一个乱草堆上的小皮球，成功地暗示了小女孩已经遇害了。道具运用的有意义，小女孩放学回家玩的小皮球，遇害现场周围的糖纸。电影渲染的氛围很到位，一群人在一个密闭的会议室，因为想找出凶手的却又无能为力的焦头烂额的情绪，利用抽香烟雪茄弥漫开来的烟雾，来表达人心惶恐。每一个设定都是有存在的意义。还有就是当行凶过程前响起的音乐，口哨的音乐代表凶手的出现，先声夺人很好的例子，每次行凶前的口哨声音也表达了凶手的玩乐性格，他不像十二宫的杀人犯般的心思细密，说明了凶手的行为是一个无计划的感性行为。

黑白两派的介入。白派就是警察，负责正面搜寻，根据凶手线索，凶手给报社寄出了一张声明，潦草的字迹显示了凶手艺术情感的不确定性，为后面的无意识犯罪做了充足的铺垫。后来机智的警察顺藤摸瓜找到了凶手的住所，找到凶手写字用的红铅笔。白派是确定凶手的。黑派，觉得这个凶手出现导致黑派干不了事业，因为大规模的警察搜罗阻碍他们的交易。所以他们也讨厌那个凶手，赶紧捉赶紧判，赶紧恢复他们的生意。所以黑派分发市井人金钱，有序安放他们在固定方位作卧底，来捉住凶手再次犯案。不过他们也有正义的一面，面对凶手的兽性行为他们加以谴责，声讨命债命还。他们也有人性的一面，居然给凶手配置一个辩护律师，然后辩护律师说凶手是精神病患者，他的行为不构成犯罪，不受到惩罚。

这是一个法制的小社会，因为有法，所以有依据，而不是通过看的不顺眼就治罪。

这部影片名气太响，可在最后5分钟到来之前，还真是没觉得特别。人物赋予夸张的戏剧性表情，说是惊悚片着力点却不在凶杀，更多描述黑白两道对罪犯的抓捕，就像一场闹剧。这是我看的德国表现主义大师弗里茨·朗的首部影片，“表现主义”可是很厉害的，很前卫，它创立的电影风格已经成为现代电影艺术的常用手法。茂瑙就是我十分喜欢的一位，我觉得他在默片时期已经做完了所有关于电影表现手法的尝试。
 
说《M就是凶手》十分伟大，因为它是影史上第一部讲述连环变态杀手的电影，弗里茨·朗的第一部有声片。世界上第一部有声片也就诞生在1927年吧，1931年出品的《M》对声效的运用已经十分了得，尤其是凶手哼着格里格的《皮尔金特》诱杀女孩，《皮尔金特》是格里格为易卜生的同名诗剧写的配乐，就讲了一个病态地沉溺于幻想的角色，最终成为牺牲品。
 
这在当时一定非常里程碑，不过，时间流逝，“第一”会慢慢变成符号，一道考题，一则引用短语，从极具意义到意义的尸体，在最后5分钟到来之前，你仿佛在看一个被后来者抚摸、仿效和取用了多次的纪念品，直到最后5分钟，令我惊叹的5分钟，宣告它永远屹立于伟大作品之林，并且永不褪色。

“初衷”是个挺机灵的小子，常常发觉我们的理解和艺术家的创作初衷不是一回事，不知道是他们故意在戏弄我们，还是我们成全了他们，作品被包装成蕴含无穷深意，访问弗里茨·朗关于《M》的创作想法，他说：“这部电影的要义不在于惩罚罪犯，而是警告母亲们：你们要看好自己的孩子！”对于这个说法，会令评论家大跌眼镜吗？我也想不通这样的创作意图，但按照一般评论的说法，这部影片“黑社会组织严明、私设公堂的做法，更是直指了1931年篡权前的纳粹，放在今天来看，依然具有相当震撼的警世意义”我也觉得太过严重了。
 
凶手M表现为精神异常，连续作案，杀了八九个女孩子。警方展开地毯式搜捕还是一无所获，在此期间，黑帮老大的娱乐场所屡次受到排查，生意不振，黑帮老大要出击，利用丐帮人肉搜索，先于警察擒获M。最后5分钟开始了，黑社会组织模拟法庭，法官、审判长、听审听众一应俱全，还为M配了辩护律师，开始双方驳辩：
 
M说：他自己无法控制自己的行为，只要一看到小女孩，他的内心就由恶魔驱使，引导他犯下不可饶恕的罪恶，在那时，他忘记了一切。有两个他在斗争，一个说“你要做”，一个说“你不能”，内心时时备受煎熬；而要裁决他的黑社会都是心智正常的普通人，可以控制自己的行为，却也做着杀人放火的勾当危害社会，到底是谁应该受到制裁呢？
 
还以为是摆设的辩护律师却异常认真、坚持，他极力为 M 辩护：“因为我的被告在不可抗拒的冲动下犯了罪，所以不该被判处死刑……没有人会因为忍不住的事情而受惩罚……没有人能够把一个不能为自己行为负责的人杀死，这个国家不行，你们当然也不行……应该把他送进医院，而不是监狱或者绞刑架”。
 
审判长（黑帮老大）说：出院后又开始杀人呢？应该判他死刑……
此刻，围坐着的听众沸腾起来，攻向M，想即刻处死他。
此刻，警察赶到，“救”了M，影片在此高潮落幕，一位母亲呆看镜头“ 这样救不回我们的孩子，我们应该很小心地照看自己的孩子。”（我不太清楚自己看的是哪个版本，据说修复版是加长了法庭戏，是有一场真正法官进行的审判？）
 
突然之间，一个难题甩到观众面前。《M》的意义出现了。


拼音文字容易凑出点名堂来，譬如钻石的检验就会说用4C标准（Carat、Clarity、Colour、Cut），管理服务要追求5S（safety、standardization……），片名叫V叫M叫Z都可以看作有寓意。
 
凶手的名字与M无关，之所以说“M就是凶手”，是某人急中生智怕凶手给跟溜了，乘其不备涂在凶手衣服背后的记号，在那个场景中，M就是 murder，但到了（模拟）法庭上，他是一名精神病患者而受法律保护，他将接受治疗而不是处决，大众无法面对法律对他们道德观念的不合作，此时的M就是 moral，法律只在为我所用、为我出头时才受我尊敬，否则就让道德来处死他吧，这才体现公平和公正，镜头扫去，黑社会和受害者家属和一般民众，已经模糊不清。
 
此时再来看导演颇为奇怪的创作意图“我们应该很小心地照看自己的孩子”（这行字也正是电影放到这时出现的）就会觉得是对社会失控无可挽救（没有小心照看、放任社会走向危险极端）、个体意志与集体利益相处尴尬（个体发疯威胁到群体生命，群体疯狂折磨个体生命）、法律无能道德恐怖（法律只能是最大限度的实现公正，道德能用来杀人）的无奈讽刺了。
 
据说《M就是凶手》是原片名，制片人获悉希特勒在大选中可能获胜，担心该片被禁，改为《M》，可见，这个M原是不简单；而一部亘古长青的影片必是紧扣人类永恒难解的命题，看电影的同时看自己的。

M这部电影主要出现的有三个版本。
最早送德国电影当局审查的版本，是最符合导演用意的版本，117分钟，当时电影的名字叫就Murders are among us，可惜这个版本目前已经找不到了。
最新的版本是109分钟（约110分钟）的，这个是尽最大可能保留原来117分钟的原貌而进行修复整理的版本，也就是CC公司最新出版发行的版本（CC公司之前发行过96分钟的版本）。
第三个版本是96分钟的版本，是当时该片的制片人为了电影能公映，根据送审的版本修改删节之后的版本，这个版本修改了其他两个版本的结局，结局只到了法院开庭审理罪犯的情节，而删了后面三个母亲的场景。而且还对电影中一些导演故意采用默片手法的片段加上了后期配音。也就是这个版本把这部电影改成了现在的名字M。

昨天看了110分钟的版本，可惜了那宝贵的7分钟，否则电影肯定有更独特的味道。
电影拍摄于1931年，正是纳粹主义逐渐要在德国兴起的时代，因此，这部电影当中的一些情节表现往往会被认为是在映射当时的纳粹势力，例如其中的盗贼势力——其实这并不是电影的初衷。这部电影的时代背景正是一战后经济萧条、社会动荡、民不聊生的时代，所以其中的盗贼猖獗可以说是一定程度的客观反映，但电影并没有把这些盗贼作为反面的批判角色，甚至是企图作为一种替代性的权力（替代政府）来描绘，其实这部电影里扮演盗贼的人，很多就是导演弗里兹•朗请来的真正盗贼来参演，而且很多是当时警察通缉的盗贼，可以说这部电影是在和警察打游击的过程中拍摄出来的。电影的起意也在于导演朗的妻子对一个事件的感触——政府在这个动荡社会下的无能。所以，这些抨击政府的无能——司法公权力的严重缺失才是私力救济诞生的土壤（盗贼主持的审判）——才是这部电影明确的主旨。
电影当中警察数月的毫无进展，只会毫无目的的盘问和搜索，以及最后也就是被删节的结尾这些情节都使电影带上了反政府倾向，也使之区别于一般的惊悚片（甚至不适宜归为这类）。结尾处三个母亲面对着镜头哭诉：判决也挽回不了死去的孩子，所以我们还是要依靠自己看好我们的孩子。还有你们……你们。（最后面对观众时说，这里树造了一种人人自危的环境，同时也是对司法无力的谴责）。

电影的一些处理也很令人印象深刻，这是朗的第一部有声电影，也是影史上第一部讲述变态杀手的电影，当凶手第一次现身之前，是一个黑影慢慢呈现在通缉海报上、受害的小女孩面前。这个很写意的恐怖手法不知道使后世多少的恐怖、惊悚片都打上了“影子”的主意。还有女孩遇害时的处理也是非常的简洁——一个皮球滚进画面，一只汽球缠在了电线上。这一手法也是被无数次的效仿。电影还结合了一些默片的处理，罪犯在逃跑和盗贼在追捕的一个阶段完成没有了声音，观众不由自主的把注意力都灌注到了画面上，令人不禁想摒住呼吸（96分钟版给这段配上了配音）。电影采用的1.19:1的特殊比例也使画面产生了很强的束缚感，也使电影的一些场景有非常独特的感觉——仓库、会议室、地下室都显得非常挤压。也许你能从那样的画面里闻到一股烧焦之后烟灰的味道，呵呵。

http://axinlove.com/2010/04/m/

《M[凶手M]》表现主义
by @xinl.ve 100406

杰作，推荐一看，但不能理解为什么能位列Top 250: #56。

在艺术的表现力和电影理应具有的戏剧性与趣味性来看，《M[凶手M]》臻至极致。数十年后，Guy Ritchie的极具风格化的摄影、叙事等技法，本片导演Fritz Lang[弗里茨·朗]和拍摄《Sunrise：A Song Of Two Humans[日出：二人之歌]》的茂瑙早已为之，特别是Fritz Lang拍摄的本片，“没有”过分玄乎的宏大主题，《M》单凭表现主义的风格登上了荣誉之巅。

借一段文字：
表现主义电影折射了当时的德国，同时也超越了当时的德国。他们思考的驱动力来自于战败后德国破败的现实，工业社会的冷漠资本膨胀对人的异化塑造了他们思考的姿态——面向共同的人类精神世界发问。在表现暴力、谋杀和死亡的主题时，表现主义电影导演们无不倾向于在影片中制造出一种迷幻、扭曲和阴冷的世界。对于这样一个世界心怀恐惧是全人类的共性，在这样一个世界中逃亡出去寻找精神的安慰之地也是全人类的愿望。当时的德国中产阶级对现实不满，带有自由意志论的时代精神和社会反叛助长了表现主义的发展。参加表现主义运动的人，在政治信仰和哲学观点上存在着很大的差异。其中有无政府主义者、虚无主义者，也有社会主义者。因此，表现主义运动从来不是一个完全统一协调的运动，也很少有始终如一的“纯粹”的表现主义者。但他们也有一些共同的思想倾向和艺术特点，即不满社会现状，要求改革，要求“革命”。

按照上一段文字，《M》已经隐喻着因第一次世界大战的失败而陷入萧条的德国社会有迎来纳粹极权的可能，加上《Das weiße Band[白丝带]》的推波助澜，《M》的题旨好像真是如此。按照部分电影介绍的说法，柏林的警察历经数月抓不住诱拐小孩子并杀害之的罪犯，无奈的普通人（电影中实际是黑帮组织乞丐、小偷和混混等违法之徒，真实世界里少数演员还有被逮进去的情况发生）只好自己组织起来行使正义，“In the name of the law/people”。政府无能，老百姓有力，革命来改朝换代是可以的，《M》因此暗示了德国纳粹的登台。并且导演Fritz Lang为了警示这种危险，在最后结局时，让某个悲伤的母亲说，“看好自己的孩子！”为什么要看好自己的孩子？既怕被拐走（被杀），也是怕被诱骗（成为纳粹）。

过分的解读莫过于此，多少人真看出了晦涩的《Das weiße Band》背后幼年纳粹的成长，抱着自己创造的幻觉可能误读了《M》。

忽视警察为抓捕变态凶手M付出的努力，并把抓获罪犯的功劳归功于黑帮代表的普通人，从而强化“人民行使正义”的电影主题，一厢情愿地厉害。黑帮分子要找出凶手的动机是因为警察的扫荡和宵禁政策极大地影响了他们的生意，并不是真要为民伸张正义。独立于黑帮分子找寻线索的警察并非想象中无能，在嫌犯的住处搜寻到香烟、铅笔屑，并在其家中设伏等待其回家后抓住之。在黑帮分子抢先一步带走凶手后，两个警察一个白脸一个红脸地唬骗被落在办公室的倒霉蛋，从而获悉“普通人”一伙审判罪犯的场所。等等诸如此类，描写政府、警察一方的情节，说明他们的效率其实还是蛮高的，并非电影的反面人物或者参照物。

召集法庭并为嫌犯指定辩护律师的最后一场是电影的高潮。“民意汹汹”的“小偷小摸们”在地下世界一本正经地采用了世俗里的法官、辩护、控方和评审团的形式，要以师出有名的方式判处宣告嫌犯有罪。如此的安排，的确会让人误以为导演站在了人民的一边，然而联想表现主义电影中黑色、夸张、荒诞和颠覆性。正常的“形式”与风格化的电影格格不入，黑帮审判凶人的场景才是异常里的正常。

截两张图，顺便参考表现主义的特点：





1.影像：表现主义的导演注重具有象征意味的造型，倾向认为电影的影像应该成为平面艺术。在构图和布景上下足了功夫。往往在一个构图中用相似的形状并列而形成相当具有表现力的镜头。表现主义电影经常摒弃常规的影像形态，采用倾斜、颠倒的影像，采用常规电影很少使用的特殊拍摄角度，画面的明暗反差一般会很大。表现主义电影常用人物特写和富有象征意义的空镜头，使用特写可以看作是在“放大”表演，增强戏剧性；而对环境的渲染可以看作是对人物行为和灵魂的“解释”，力图揭示人物行为背后的社会诱因。此外，主观镜头也是表现主义常用的手法，表现主义艺术家轻视局限于客观的写实，强调表现“主观的现实”。

2.表演：表现主义的表演一般比较夸张，基本放弃了写实主义的表演方式取而代之的是展示迅速的变动、舞蹈般的动作、变形或扭曲的表情。

3.题材和类型：在表现主义的代表作品中，题材的特征是显而易见的，恐怖、灾难、犯罪题材是最常见的，表现主义电影艺术家们往往从被扭曲的、阴暗的世界中去寻找素材，在那似乎与现实隔绝的、封闭的世界中，去挖掘人物内心深处的孤独、残暴、恐怖、狂乱的精神状态。内容荒诞离奇，有时结构散乱，情节变化突兀，故事人物类型化，往往鬼魂与活人同时出现（《吸血鬼》等），生与死、梦幻与现实之间没有明确的界线。表现主义电影导演们关注畸形社会中的心理非常态，关注那些焦虑与紧张的情绪，力图透视那些狂乱行为背后的深层动机和原因，用主观化的影像风格来反证社会事实，作品因此具有社会意义和社会价值。

56的排位，有了些许答案。

M.1931.720p.BluRay.x264-SiNNERS

        Fritz Lang, one of the most celebrated auteurs of Germany's national cinema, lays out a chilling crime story in M(1931). In this provocative motion picture, a search for the cruel child murderer, Beckert, drives the whole city to turmoil. As all members in the city become involved in the search for the criminal, two different forms of human abnormality lurked in the city are exposed: the criminal mentality as well as the conflict between the institutional authority and the general public of which it is in charge. While the search continues, both forms of human abnormality keep growing unchecked; yet, eventually, the citizens identified with such abnormality have to face the catastrophic consequences of their behavior. Through innovative use of sound and provocative editing techniques, Lang points to the city as the foster home of both forms of human abnormality. Furthermore, he invites the audience to question the unforeseen detriments of a city in modernity that all its members eventually have to confront.

        As Lang's first film with sound, Lang ingeniously manipulates this new technology to portray the city as an adoptive home of human abnormality. At the very beginning of the film, before any image appears on screen, the audience first hears a child singing a familiar tune: “Wait, wait just a little while/ then the black man will come after you/ with his little chopper/ he will make mince meat out of you.” According to Todd Herzog, this tune is a homage to the “Haarmann song” that tells the chilling crimes of the notorious serial killer Fritz Haarmann. Herzog believes that this song serves to, “locate M in a specific historical context, the world of the Weimar Republic at the time of the film's release, and to place it in dialogue with that world”(Herzog, “Fritz Lang's M(1931), An Open Case”, P232). Nevertheless, Fritz's use of this song to begin the film allows a different interpretation. As the film begins with the dark screen and the nursery rhyme, an image soon appears in a few seconds. A medium shot locates the source of the sound in the yard of a mietskascerne, where a group of kids are playing and singing. By placing the source of the cruel tune in the mouth of a naïve child, Lang further implies that the modern city has become a sink of iniquity, even for the innocent who have yet to understand the city in which they are situated. The victim of today is just as likely to become the perpetrator in the future.

        Beckert's whistle is a repetition in the film which symbolizes his criminal mentality. Each time when he begins to whistle, the audience witnesses the awakening of the monstrous murderer within him. Thus far, Lang constantly shifts the source of the whistle from on-screen to off-screen; such manipulation of the sound source sheds light on the unlikelihood to locate the specific origin of human abnormality in a modern milieu. In a scene when Beckert stands on the street and looks into a shop-window, the sequence is accompanied with no diegetic sound. All what the audience can see is that Beckert dramatically changes his facial expression when he sees a little girl in the reflection of the shop-window. As the girl walks away, the camera moves out of the shop to the street and captures Beckert staring in the direction that the girl is walking. The audience then hears the diegetic sound of the street traffic, and Beckert's whistle simultaneously joins in as he starts following the girl and walks out of the frame. In the next medium-long shot, the camera tracks the little girl as she walks on the street. The whistle continues in the background; however, Beckert no longer appears on-screen in this tracking shot. While the audience has been led to believe that the whistle comes from Beckert by the previous shot; Lang purposefully leaves the established sound source off-screen in the following shot, which leads the audience to question whether Beckert himself is the source of his abnormality, or if the city is that with which has fostered his brutal crimes.

        Lang further manipulates sound to create off-screen space that contrasts the on-screen image in order to depict another form of human abnormality: the revolt against the political authority. The conflict between the underworld business and the police points to a divergence between the authority and the public, which is previously kept in disguise by a seemingly stable social order. However, as Beckert's crimes disturb the social order and alarm the police, they immediately assume that the criminal must be someone from the underworld, and decide to break the ostensible peace and raid their gathering spots. One night, the police secretly surround one of the underworld's gathering place; in which the entire process is accompanied with no sound. The camera soon moves downstairs into the basement where people in the underworld business gather. As a woman shouts out that the police is here, everyone begins rushing towards the exit to leave the basement. In a medium shot, the camera awaits at the top of the stairs and looks slightly down as everyone starts running towards the camera. Among the frenzied noises, the audience first clearly hears a woman's scream as the policemen yell back at her; yet the entire action takes place upstairs in off-screen space while the shot remains still, featuring the panicking crowds. Soon, the police enter from the lower frame and gradually push the crowds back into the basement for investigation. The image on-screen contrasts the actions taken place in off-screen space; such contrast allows the audience to look beyond the images shown on-screen and picture the entire city, where its underlying instability and human abnormality are close to outbreak due to the police's disruption of a public order that does not solve social problems, but merely hides them unseen.

        Throughout the film, Long constructs several montage sequences which implicitly build cause-and-effect relationships between the modern city and human abnormality. In the beginning of the film, when Elsie's mother becomes worried about Elsie for having not returned home, a medium shot shows Elsie's mother walking towards the window and looking out. When she begins calling out “Elsie”, the image cuts to an aisle shot of the stairwell in the Mietskaserne. As the mother's cry echoes down the stairs, the audience then follows the camera to an empty space where people in the neighbourhood hang their laundry; Elsie is still absent on-screen. The sequence continues as it cuts to a close-up on the lunch table, where Elsie's seat remains empty. The grieving howl of the mother has now ended, yet the sequence did not until the audience are shown with two more shots: Elsie's ball rolling on the grass, and the ballon that the criminal Beckerd bought for Elsie entangled in the electric wires on the city street. In this sequence, Lang juxtaposes the mother's continuous calling for Elsie with discontinuity editing of on-screen images. The audience follows the mother as she searches for Elsie in all public spaces in the city where Elsie can possibly be; yet Elsie's ball and ballon at the end of the sequence tell audience that Elsie must have already been slaughtered by the murderer Beckerd. In this sequence, Lang associates the befalling of Elsie's tragic death with the city itself: the development of the modern metropolis not only enlarges the public space, but also catalyses crime and threat among the citizens.

        In another scene when the minister condemns the police chief on the phone for the police department's incompetence in finding the killer, Lang edits a flashback as the chief explains their difficulty. The editing of this flashback again connotes the unforeseen detriments of a city in modernity. When the chief tells the minister about a white paper bag that they found behind the hedge, a close-up on the paper bag gives the audience a clue that it is a candy wrapper, and the store's name was on the wrapper. Then, the image cuts to a close-up of a map of the city, in which circles and circles are drawn with a pair of compasses in increasing radius. While the search widens, the police interrogates owners of candy stores all over the city. However, all owners shake their heads and cannot remember who had bought the candy for little Elsie. As population increases, the city provides perpetrators the opportunity to disguise their abnormality and let it grow unchecked. The editing of this sequence connects the failure to identify the abnormal with the city itself.

        Lang further implies a cause-and-effect relationship between the city and another form of human abnormality, namely, the public and the institutional authority's revolt against each other. As both the leads of the underworld and the chiefs of the political institutions gather for two separate meetings to discuss their objectives on the case of Beckert, Lang uses cross-cutting to juxtapose both meetings. The heads of the underworld complain about the consistent police raids' harm to their business and decide to find the killer by themselves in order to resurrect their business. As the underworld head waves his hand, the shot cuts to the head of police's same action. The police simultaneously decides to continue their search for Beckert without the help of the public, by organizing more police raids and search among public spaces. While the underworld condemns the police for interfering the underworld's business, the police chief Lohmann also refuses to ask the public for help as he states, “Don't talk to me about the public helping, it disgusts me.” The cross-cutting technique invites the audience to contrast the underworld and the police's conflicting attitudes against each other. Such social conflict is another form of human abnormality that is against the democratic ideal of the Weimar republic.

        As the underworld collaborates with the beggars and has seized Beckerd from the building, together they leave the scene in a hurry. Lang then presents the audience with a montage sequence in which he rewinds the crimes that the underworld has just committed. The audience follows the camera into the room where both watchmen have been knocked out and tied up. Then, the sequence continues with still shots of the forcefully broken office door, the compartment's broken fences, and ends with the hole they have dug on the floor in order to make the crime scene look like a result of burglary. This montage sequence is shown with no sound, leaving the audience in contemplation of the underworld's motive and the destructions their abnormal behaviors have caused. The heads of the underworld are provoked to capture Beckerd not because that they find Beckerd's behavior immoral, but because the underworld's business is interrupted by the police's consistent raids. In turn, they decide to look for Beckerd without collaboration with the police, and purposefully commit a series of crimes in order to achieve their goal. The lack of stability in the city's social order has fostered the formation of the underworld, and the underworld's distrust with the political authority. Yet, their abnormal behaviors will lead them to their final conviction.

        The film ends with the final conviction of both the underworld and the child murderer. The audience should not forget that it is the underworld, despite their unrighteous motives, who has asked for help from the beggars and successfully seized Beckert. Nevertheless, both parties have to eventually face the catastrophic consequences of their abnormal behaviors. The first being the underworld's imprudent disruption of the public order for their own economic benefits, and the second being the brutal crimes that Beckert has committed. Throughout the film, Lang manipulates the sound effects and the editing of the sequences to point to the modern city itself as the very cause of all forms of human abnormality preeminent in it. The diegetic world in the film, which is the Weimar Republic in the 1920s, still echoes the modern milieu in which we live. However we try to trace any form of abnormality that hinders the public order, we are always led back to the society as the cause, without identifying the specific origin. Perhaps, the only way of prevention lies in the hands of the people who make up the society, with self-awareness of their behaviors, and positive objectives to make changes.
 
 
                                      Works Cited
 
Herzog, Todd. "Fritz Lang's M(1931): An Open Case." An Essential Guide to Classic Films of the Era Weimar Cinema. Ed. Noah Isenberg. New York: Columbia University Press, 2009. 291-309. Print.
 
M. Dir. Fritz Lang. Perf. Peter Lorre, Ellen Widmann, Inge Landgut. Criterion Collection, 2004, DVD.