It’s interesting that whoever wrote the dialogue for this scene was so on point with criminal psychology, a concept that wasn’t popular or very known about at the time this film came out. Around this time the more popular thought process was that criminals are simply evil, nothing else to it, no one thought about the deeper psychology in them that drove them to their actions, or the mental illness. The ideas in this scene are relate to far more modern ideas in criminal psychology, whoever wrote this was not only very intelligent but totally ahead of their time.
Director Fritz Lang and his wife Thea von Harbou (who received no screen credit for it BTW) did extensive research on Peter Kürten (the murderer of Dusseldorf.) Lang also did eight days of additional research in a German mental institution interviewing murderers, including Kürten himself. The research shows!
I mean Fritz Lang wrote this script and Metropolis as well. He was obviously tapped in to realities than the public consciousness would not be privy to for decades to come. Probably was an initiate to a secret society or something
It's even more impressive because a team of psychologists went over 400 films to determine which movies had the most clinically-accurate depictions of a psychopath, and Peter Lorre's performance in M made second place, sitting inbetween Anton Chigurh from No Country for Old Men and Henry from Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. A really impressive accomplishment for a movie made at the beginning of the 1930s.
The fact that they cannot help it just means they have no business living. Society is 100% justified in having as much sympathy for the pedos as the pedos have for their victims. Even if they do not kill their victims, they ought pay with their life for murdering their souls. They all deserve slow, prolonged, and torturous deaths.
2:35 Today's "horror" movie creators can learn from this scene alone. This is how you create fear. He looks legitimately possessed. This monologue is more terrifying than any bloody, gore filled movie made today.
Probably Peter Lorre's greatest role, before Hollywood typecasted him as a foreign comic relief. Also a good view of Depression-Era Germany between the wars.
Fritz Lang's works in general were ahead of their time and absolute masterpieces. Especially the bigger films such as Metropolis, die Niebelungen and Dr. Mabuse.
the original intended title was "mörder unter uns", meaning "murderer amongst us". i think it far better points to exactly what you are describing, not sympathy but understanding of the murderer, and in turn, our own psyche. a not so sublte side note is that the owner of the studio that Fritz Lang intended (and did) create the movie in was member of the NSDAP, and he insisted in changing the title, as the nazis felt offended by it, hence it was changed to "M" in german original.
@@ddv1647 not smart enough to "understand?" That is upside down. This character deserves no sympathy, and definitely no "understanding." Fact is, it takes intelligence to see through gaslighting and theatrics. The ONLY thing that is relevant is what he did, not why he did it. Someone who claims to have no control would not be capable of stopping himself when he sees the mother take the child's hand. He's not a starving beast that must kill to eat. A hungry animal doesn't care if the fawn's mother is with her. This character is a psychopath that passes children all day. He only pounces when he suspects he will get away with it. He's playing a mind game and anyone who sympathizes is as much a victim as the children he hurt. The same way he uses kindness to snag children, he uses empathy to snag sympathy. Anyone who thinks this is an impassioned attempt to be understood is nothing but a victim of gaslighting.
I only got three things to say. 1. Peter Lorre was brilliant 2. Still, fuck this character because he killed kids. Don't care how you spin it 3. This is a great great film
Bruh as someone studying psychology... This poor dude would be such an easy fix today. Anti-schizophrenics maybe mixed with endorphin boosters. It's so obvious that what gets the "ghosts" to stop is the endorphin rush.
And to think this was made 91 years ago, not only was peters performance way ahead of his time but the use of sound, camera angles and plot still hold up against the films that are being made today.
Hi Peter, thanks for posting this scene. I would say "Sympathy for the Devil" is a good label for this scene.... (even though as another commentator mentioned, it's might be more accurate to say an "Understanding of the Devil"). What is incredible about this scene is that the mob verdict has some justification (especially public safety, even if the mob inquisitor presents that majority view with a cold sadistic calmness), but Peter Lorre's torment is credible, and yet the mothers whose children were murdered understandably want an end to his life (out of revenge, or maybe the most certain way to prevent further serial killing of children). And the seemingly bumbling defence lawyer was pretty brave to persist with his defence in front of such a hostile crowd. Also, when I watched this movie, I also felt the "late Weimar Republic expressionist (yet also realistic) only two years before the Nazis assumed power" vibe. That the movie was filmed 89 years ago is something....
To those that claim that Peter Lorre's addiction to opioids had something to do with his ability to deliver such emotional and grand performances: Since most Hollywood actors/actresses were in the past (since the birth of cinema) and still are today hooked on one or another form of drug or alcohol addiction then, if we are to be unbiased and not apply double standards, that means that their acting talent gets amplified , helped and even improved by such addictions as well!. If that is the case then it shouldn't be a PROBLEM for the likes of Charlton Heston, Will Smith, Robert de Niro, Glenn Ford, Gregory Peck, John Wayne, D.Washington, Harrison Ford, S.Poiter , Al Pacino, H.Bogart, Cagney, Duval, Reeves, Clark Gable, T.Cruse, Morgan, Lee Jones, Marlon Brandon, Eastwood, Bronson, D.Hoffman,Sellers, Robbin Williams, K.Douglas, E Presley, H.Fonda or Mr.Citizen Cane himself Orson Welles to deliver a performance like the one shown here by Lorre!.No PROBLEM at all!
I can't show any mercy to child molesters/murderers. There's no free will on both sides. that's how it is. Too much humanism is as bad as none or too little.
He's a great actor. Unfortunately, it seems people forget he is playing a psychopath. Psychopaths play mind games. They perform to get what they want. This character deserves no sympathy, and definitely no "understanding." Fact is, it takes intelligence to see through gaslighting and theatrics. The ONLY thing that is relevant is what he did, not why he did it. Someone who claims to have no control would not be capable of stopping himself when he sees the mother take the child's hand. He's not a starving beast that must kill to eat. A hungry animal doesn't care if the fawn's mother is with her. This character is a psychopath that passes children all day. He only pounces when he suspects he will get away with it. He's playing a mind game and anyone who sympathizes is as much a victim as the children he hurt. The same way he uses kindness to snag children, he uses empathy to snag sympathy. Anyone who thinks this is an impassioned attempt to be understood is nothing but a victim of gaslighting.
“Anyone who thinks this is an impassioned attempt to be understood is nothing but a victim of gaslighting” I think you’re off the mark. I agree with all that you said in describing the real world of psychopaths, but the film is not presenting a real world picture of a psychopath. If gaslighting was part of the story it would have been filmed that way. The purpose of the fictional character in the scene is draw out the nodding reactions of the gallery who see similar demons in their own lives. Not demons that want to murder, but personal demons that control all of our lives. They recognize something of themselves in the murderer. It’s a good film. Take it as it is.
You mean, if it is done under a mutual consent agreement then anything goes?.Well we have to wait to see how far liberals will go as to judge at what age someone is capable of understanding such implications!.
God, for 1931, with no special effects, and being one of the first films with sound... what a movie.
An unforgettable performance by Peter Lorre.
It’s interesting that whoever wrote the dialogue for this scene was so on point with criminal psychology, a concept that wasn’t popular or very known about at the time this film came out. Around this time the more popular thought process was that criminals are simply evil, nothing else to it, no one thought about the deeper psychology in them that drove them to their actions, or the mental illness. The ideas in this scene are relate to far more modern ideas in criminal psychology, whoever wrote this was not only very intelligent but totally ahead of their time.
Director Fritz Lang and his wife Thea von Harbou (who received no screen credit for it BTW) did extensive research on Peter Kürten (the murderer of Dusseldorf.) Lang also did eight days of additional research in a German mental institution interviewing murderers, including Kürten himself. The research shows!
If you read any classic novels from the 1800s you'll know that's false. The problem is all the psychological "experts" didn't believe it
I mean Fritz Lang wrote this script and Metropolis as well. He was obviously tapped in to realities than the public consciousness would not be privy to for decades to come. Probably was an initiate to a secret society or something
It's even more impressive because a team of psychologists went over 400 films to determine which movies had the most clinically-accurate depictions of a psychopath, and Peter Lorre's performance in M made second place, sitting inbetween Anton Chigurh from No Country for Old Men and Henry from Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. A really impressive accomplishment for a movie made at the beginning of the 1930s.
What a great actor.
people weren';t afraid back then to give an intense passionate performance like this...amazing acting
An intense performance of an inherently dangerous, and morally reprehensible character.
Peter Lorre was brilliant.
@@peteywheatstraws4909 the bad seed in the 50s was also a very well acted intense film...
Never thought I'd feel sorry for a murderer. Excellent performance by a master! They don't make them like they used too!
A trick: watch series on kaldrostream. Been using them for watching lots of of movies these days.
@Lewis Jake yup, I've been watching on KaldroStream for years myself =)
The fact that they cannot help it just means they have no business living. Society is 100% justified in having as much sympathy for the pedos as the pedos have for their victims. Even if they do not kill their victims, they ought pay with their life for murdering their souls. They all deserve slow, prolonged, and torturous deaths.
2:35 Today's "horror" movie creators can learn from this scene alone. This is how you create fear. He looks legitimately possessed. This monologue is more terrifying than any bloody, gore filled movie made today.
Probably Peter Lorre's greatest role, before Hollywood typecasted him as a foreign comic relief. Also a good view of Depression-Era Germany between the wars.
Fabulous scene and Lorre was amazing. I encourage everyone to see “M” in its entirety to appreciate the mood and cinematography.
Fritz Lang's works in general were ahead of their time and absolute masterpieces. Especially the bigger films such as Metropolis, die Niebelungen and Dr. Mabuse.
That laugh at :17 gets me every time!
This movie alongside Mad Love (1935) are the best Peter Lorre films
The title of the video is somewhat off. Fritz Lang is not necessarily asking for sympathy. What he's asking for is understanding.
Dennis, the constitutional peasant pedos need to be set on fire.
Most people arent smart enough to realize this.
the original intended title was "mörder unter uns", meaning "murderer amongst us". i think it far better points to exactly what you are describing, not sympathy but understanding of the murderer, and in turn, our own psyche.
a not so sublte side note is that the owner of the studio that Fritz Lang intended (and did) create the movie in was member of the NSDAP, and he insisted in changing the title, as the nazis felt offended by it, hence it was changed to "M" in german original.
@@ddv1647 not smart enough to "understand?" That is upside down. This character deserves no sympathy, and definitely no "understanding." Fact is, it takes intelligence to see through gaslighting and theatrics. The ONLY thing that is relevant is what he did, not why he did it. Someone who claims to have no control would not be capable of stopping himself when he sees the mother take the child's hand. He's not a starving beast that must kill to eat. A hungry animal doesn't care if the fawn's mother is with her. This character is a psychopath that passes children all day. He only pounces when he suspects he will get away with it. He's playing a mind game and anyone who sympathizes is as much a victim as the children he hurt. The same way he uses kindness to snag children, he uses empathy to snag sympathy.
Anyone who thinks this is an impassioned attempt to be understood is nothing but a victim of gaslighting.
Cool, I understand him. Now he will understand how it feels to have his brains decorate the floor.
its unreal how this one early 30s movie explored themes so new and ahead of its time that this couldve come out in the 70s
I only got three things to say.
1. Peter Lorre was brilliant
2. Still, fuck this character because he killed kids. Don't care how you spin it
3. This is a great great film
Yeah I mean u kill a rabid dog because it's dangerous. He is dangerous so he must be dealt with. No hate here it just is what it is
Peter Lorre is fantastic
Bruh as someone studying psychology... This poor dude would be such an easy fix today. Anti-schizophrenics maybe mixed with endorphin boosters. It's so obvious that what gets the "ghosts" to stop is the endorphin rush.
And to think this was made 91 years ago, not only was peters performance way ahead of his time but the use of sound, camera angles and plot still hold up against the films that are being made today.
A LEGEND
Hi Peter, thanks for posting this scene. I would say "Sympathy for the Devil" is a good label for this scene.... (even though as another commentator mentioned, it's might be more accurate to say an "Understanding of the Devil").
What is incredible about this scene is that the mob verdict has some justification (especially public safety, even if the mob inquisitor presents that majority view with a cold sadistic calmness), but Peter Lorre's torment is credible, and yet the mothers whose children were murdered understandably want an end to his life (out of revenge, or maybe the most certain way to prevent further serial killing of children). And the seemingly bumbling defence lawyer was pretty brave to persist with his defence in front of such a hostile crowd. Also, when I watched this movie, I also felt the "late Weimar Republic expressionist (yet also realistic) only two years before the Nazis assumed power" vibe. That the movie was filmed 89 years ago is something....
What about the subject matter?Bad enough today,but 1931 surprised the studio took it on.
To those that claim that Peter Lorre's addiction to opioids had something to do with his ability to deliver such emotional and grand performances:
Since most Hollywood actors/actresses were in the past (since the birth of cinema) and still are today hooked on one or another form of drug or alcohol addiction then, if we are to be unbiased and not apply double standards, that means that their acting talent gets amplified , helped and even improved by such addictions as well!.
If that is the case then it shouldn't be a PROBLEM for the likes of Charlton Heston, Will Smith, Robert de Niro, Glenn Ford, Gregory Peck, John Wayne, D.Washington, Harrison Ford, S.Poiter , Al Pacino, H.Bogart, Cagney, Duval, Reeves, Clark Gable, T.Cruse, Morgan, Lee Jones, Marlon Brandon, Eastwood, Bronson, D.Hoffman,Sellers, Robbin Williams, K.Douglas, E Presley, H.Fonda or Mr.Citizen Cane himself Orson Welles to deliver a performance like the one shown here by Lorre!.No PROBLEM at all!
Back when Peter put his all into a scene, before he got old and just walked through a part with the perpetual look of sheer boredom.
My family made this picture. It works every time. The 1951 remake is being re-released in 2016, watch for it.
Some of those people were alive when slavery was legal. That’s fucking crazy.
Yawn
@@raymondturner1478 what
@@kobsy7074 When something is typed it doesn't need to be repeated. Just read it again.
@@raymondturner1478 I wanted to know why you said it and in what context, not what you said
@@kobsy7074 It's tedious to me.
Computer generated scenes couldn't touch this performance.
"its wrong because its like against society!"
I can't show any mercy to child molesters/murderers. There's no free will on both sides. that's how it is. Too much humanism is as bad as none or too little.
There's such thing as "too much humanism". Yes, it's very show mercy with theses guys. But the point is that theses guys are one from US.
He's a great actor. Unfortunately, it seems people forget he is playing a psychopath. Psychopaths play mind games. They perform to get what they want.
This character deserves no sympathy, and definitely no "understanding." Fact is, it takes intelligence to see through gaslighting and theatrics. The ONLY thing that is relevant is what he did, not why he did it. Someone who claims to have no control would not be capable of stopping himself when he sees the mother take the child's hand. He's not a starving beast that must kill to eat. A hungry animal doesn't care if the fawn's mother is with her. This character is a psychopath that passes children all day. He only pounces when he suspects he will get away with it. He's playing a mind game and anyone who sympathizes is as much a victim as the children he hurt. The same way he uses kindness to snag children, he uses empathy to snag sympathy.
Anyone who thinks this is an impassioned attempt to be understood is nothing but a victim of gaslighting.
“Anyone who thinks this is an impassioned attempt to be understood is nothing but a victim of gaslighting”
I think you’re off the mark. I agree with all that you said in describing the real world of psychopaths, but the film is not presenting a real world picture of a psychopath. If gaslighting was part of the story it would have been filmed that way. The purpose of the fictional character in the scene is draw out the nodding reactions of the gallery who see similar demons in their own lives. Not demons that want to murder, but personal demons that control all of our lives. They recognize something of themselves in the murderer.
It’s a good film. Take it as it is.
Will paedophilia become the next sexuality? That is the question.
You mean, if it is done under a mutual consent agreement then anything goes?.Well we have to wait to see how far liberals will go as to judge at what age someone is capable of understanding such implications!.
“It’s not my fault”....he sounds like a liberal millennial.
Dafuq?
no... he sounds just like Trump!
@@doomo go upload a stoopid vid to your stoopid channel, stoopid.
@@doomo :Yep and as liberals also!.Both.
Well, it's more complicated than this