Fritz Lang's M - Sound and History
Released in 1931, Fritz Lang's film M has bedazzled audiences for generations that would be the envy of most filmmakers the world over. It's use of image and specifically sound has left us gripped in suspense as the police and criminal underworld separately hunt to find the child killer, played by Peter Lorre, who has left the city in a state of hysteria. But we're here to focus on it's use of sound with which this film is partly known for.
At the end of the 1920s, cinema then was seen as in a state of crisis with the advent of the radio. This had threatened the cinema as here was a medium that had a format with which plays could be broadcasted into the homes of almost every citizen and, it was feared, that the public would not be willing to go out and spend money on a film with which you couldn't hear actors speak or sing. A lot of directors had concerns about how to use sound within a narrative structure that would give the film an extra edge whereas others had dismissed the use of sound as they saw it as a regression to mere theatre. As Noel Carroll points out in his essay on Lang and Pabst that in as early as in 1933, there was an article asking "Is Cinema in Decline?" ( Film Sound Theory and Practice pg 265 ).
Lang himself initially had his doubts about the use of sound in cinema. In an interview he gave with Peter Bogdanovich ( made available as a DVD extra ), he states that in a couple of earlier films, the Ufa studio with which he was a part of and made the legendary Dr Mabuse and Metropolis films, had pestered him to include the use of sound into his films. He had fought against this. With the success of Al Jolson's The Jazz Singer however, it became more difficult for the silent movies to survive. The use of sound was key in bringing audiences to the box office. Filmmakers were forced to adapt the use of sound into their films or their films would not be funded.
The first thing that strikes you about M is that as we see little Elsie Beckmann as she gets out of school and plays with a rubber ball across the street with it's faint echoes as it hits the pillar again and again, we are introduced to the killer through the use of off screen whistling and then by shadow. Therefore we "hear" the killer before we "see" him. As such when we hear the opening bars of Edvard Grieg's Peer Gynt suite segment In The Hall of The Mountain King, we as a viewer are instantly uneasy by this presence in the film. We know that something bad is going to happen and although we cannot see him, we know immediately that this is the man that kills Elsie Beckmann.
However, as much as sound plays a part in the film, silence also makes a vital contribution. When the chase is on between the gangsters and the child killer in question, there are moments of almost total silence where not a word is spoken and there is almost an eerie calm that is set amongst the ensuing chaos. It is almost unthinkable in modern day cinema to keep sound to a strict minimum. There is a tendency to fill in every little detail in the film where it is not necessary. As Stanley Kauffmann writes in his notes for the Criterion release for the film's DVD release in America, he argues that it is this minimalist approach to sound which makes the film more firm and incisive that makes the film less lethargic than it's modern counterparts.
Indeed, cinema was seen to be in a state of lethargy back in the late 20s, early 30s in Germany according to H.A Potamkin. Much of which was down to the aftermath of Wall Street Crash of 1928. Germany in what would be known as the Weimar era, recovered quickly after the First World War with the help of funds from America. As such, they prospered with the links to Wall Street. However in the aftermath of the crash, Germany was left in the throes of hyper-inflation. According to Potamkin though, its cinema was left in a lethargic state where, films which thrived under the Weimar era no longer represented the ordinary man and that what was needed was "the serious-minded will force the German cinema.......to a treatment of important subject matter." For Potamkin, Germany was "approaching a political crisis" and this would lead to an "intellectual and aesthetic crisis." ( From Caligari To Hitler, Siegfried Kracauer, pg. 215 )
As we see from police interrogations we can see that as a superintendant informs a government minister about the intensive work in which his sleep deprived work force are carrying out, we see the police force asking questions to the local bakeries and shop owners around the city, but we never hear the questions, we never hear a sound other than the superintendant's voice detailing what we can see on film with the shopkeepers shaking their heads to suggest they don't know where the suspect could be, police force checking through every hedge and field to collect sweet wrappers as possible clues as to where the murderer could be. Such an effective mix of sound and silent acting helps increase the tension to the film.
Made around the time of Adolf Hitler and the rise of the Nazi Party, it caused particular trouble with the party. Hitler had been a fan of cinema and had advocated it's use by means of propaganda. The German workforce were at such low morale that at one moment they could fall in love with a communist spokesman's grand ideals of a better future and by the time he would finish, be equally entranced by a Nazi agitator's harangue ( From Caligari to Hitler, Kracauer, pg 247 ). Joseph Goebbels was in charge as Minister for Propaganda and as such, controlled what films could and could not be seen. Hitler was also a big fan of Lang's early work. It has been reported that Hitler had seen Die Nibelungen and was so swept away by it that by the end of the film, Hitler broke down in tears. Goebbels had quoted to Lang that Hitler had said "Here is a man who will give us great Nazi films." ( Patrick McGilligan, Fritz Lang: The Nature of The Beast, pg 175 )
However with M, there was seen to be friction. With the title of the film originally intended to be Murderers Among Us, clearly Lang had no desire to be seen as the chief executive of the Nazi propaganda film. This had clearly troubled him because of the Nazi's anti-Jew policy. Lang himself was Catholic but his mother was born as a Jewess. ( McGilligan, pg 6-7 ) As such he was wary of the threat that was posed by the Nazi party and if such a thing had taken place, the Nazi party’s stance on Jews could hardly be more hypocritical. M was seen as to imply that the Nazi Party were murderers. With that Lang was skating on thin ice, it only required one more false step, such as his next film which the Nazi party banned, The Thousand Eyes of Dr. Mabuse, before Lang had to make his move for Hollywood.
There is a full scene in which the criminal underworld try to find their own search for the murderer. Within that, between the faint footsteps of a woman, presumably a prostitute, walking the streets at night, we see them carry out their operation in total silence. Cars go past. They start to work, keeping a watch to check that everything is going according to plan, being on guard for any police officers or anyone who would break their cover. Guards marching almost in a line, blocking off the whole road so that no one can escape. It is carried out in silence. It's only broken by a whistle and car horns before someone runs down into the underground tavern to inform those drinking there that "the police are coming. Get back!" Again, the use of silence over sound enhances the drama as both the police and criminals get to work for different reasons.
There is also the scene with which both the police and criminals are plotting to find a way in which they can find the murderer. This is deftly dealt with swift cuts where words and gestures meld into the other and it goes back and forth between the two seamlessly to create an almost unified conversation between both the police and the criminals. While it shows the differences in approach to both what techniques for example, Kommissar Lohmann will want to use in catching the killer and that of the criminal underworld, one could think that in such a case that both the criminals and the police are thinking exactly the same thing and saying almost identical things to each other at their meetings. This is only enhanced with the cuts between the two rooms where they walk around in a plume of thick cigar smoke, thinking of ways to catch the murderer.
There are many other scenes in which sound can be outlined as to what makes M stand out like the kangaroo court. And yet despite that it was made back in 1931, we come to the conclusion much like Stanley Kauffmann does in his notes made for the Criterion DVD release. Kauffmann states that the film is "more engaging to the eye, more incisive in its irony, more firm in its grasp of social complications than most of the films that come along today." It is an assertion that is hard to disagree with. In an interview with Peter Bogdanovich, Fritz Lang had told that with this film he had total control over the film, no one could interrupt him and that he had "artistic freedom" over this film. Perhaps this, in no small part, helps achieve a freshness that beforehand was not the case. Away from the pressures film studios can put on directors to adhere to certain stylistics, certain themes etc. Lang could film M in the way he wanted.
It is with this that with M, Fritz Lang achieved not only artistic freedom, but create a film in which would be hailed as a classic of cinema. The use of sound or even the non-use of sound helps achieve a greater sense of tension and is effective in holding the audience within it's power. Many films have been made throughout the existence of cinema but it would be hard to find a film that utilizes each element in such a precise way in which the film achieves a greater purpose. It is with this that we salute Lang for making a masterpiece, and a masterpiece with which he can be proud given the political backdrop Germany was engulfed in.
At the end of the 1920s, cinema then was seen as in a state of crisis with the advent of the radio. This had threatened the cinema as here was a medium that had a format with which plays could be broadcasted into the homes of almost every citizen and, it was feared, that the public would not be willing to go out and spend money on a film with which you couldn't hear actors speak or sing. A lot of directors had concerns about how to use sound within a narrative structure that would give the film an extra edge whereas others had dismissed the use of sound as they saw it as a regression to mere theatre. As Noel Carroll points out in his essay on Lang and Pabst that in as early as in 1933, there was an article asking "Is Cinema in Decline?" ( Film Sound Theory and Practice pg 265 ).
Lang himself initially had his doubts about the use of sound in cinema. In an interview he gave with Peter Bogdanovich ( made available as a DVD extra ), he states that in a couple of earlier films, the Ufa studio with which he was a part of and made the legendary Dr Mabuse and Metropolis films, had pestered him to include the use of sound into his films. He had fought against this. With the success of Al Jolson's The Jazz Singer however, it became more difficult for the silent movies to survive. The use of sound was key in bringing audiences to the box office. Filmmakers were forced to adapt the use of sound into their films or their films would not be funded.
The first thing that strikes you about M is that as we see little Elsie Beckmann as she gets out of school and plays with a rubber ball across the street with it's faint echoes as it hits the pillar again and again, we are introduced to the killer through the use of off screen whistling and then by shadow. Therefore we "hear" the killer before we "see" him. As such when we hear the opening bars of Edvard Grieg's Peer Gynt suite segment In The Hall of The Mountain King, we as a viewer are instantly uneasy by this presence in the film. We know that something bad is going to happen and although we cannot see him, we know immediately that this is the man that kills Elsie Beckmann.
However, as much as sound plays a part in the film, silence also makes a vital contribution. When the chase is on between the gangsters and the child killer in question, there are moments of almost total silence where not a word is spoken and there is almost an eerie calm that is set amongst the ensuing chaos. It is almost unthinkable in modern day cinema to keep sound to a strict minimum. There is a tendency to fill in every little detail in the film where it is not necessary. As Stanley Kauffmann writes in his notes for the Criterion release for the film's DVD release in America, he argues that it is this minimalist approach to sound which makes the film more firm and incisive that makes the film less lethargic than it's modern counterparts.
Indeed, cinema was seen to be in a state of lethargy back in the late 20s, early 30s in Germany according to H.A Potamkin. Much of which was down to the aftermath of Wall Street Crash of 1928. Germany in what would be known as the Weimar era, recovered quickly after the First World War with the help of funds from America. As such, they prospered with the links to Wall Street. However in the aftermath of the crash, Germany was left in the throes of hyper-inflation. According to Potamkin though, its cinema was left in a lethargic state where, films which thrived under the Weimar era no longer represented the ordinary man and that what was needed was "the serious-minded will force the German cinema.......to a treatment of important subject matter." For Potamkin, Germany was "approaching a political crisis" and this would lead to an "intellectual and aesthetic crisis." ( From Caligari To Hitler, Siegfried Kracauer, pg. 215 )
As we see from police interrogations we can see that as a superintendant informs a government minister about the intensive work in which his sleep deprived work force are carrying out, we see the police force asking questions to the local bakeries and shop owners around the city, but we never hear the questions, we never hear a sound other than the superintendant's voice detailing what we can see on film with the shopkeepers shaking their heads to suggest they don't know where the suspect could be, police force checking through every hedge and field to collect sweet wrappers as possible clues as to where the murderer could be. Such an effective mix of sound and silent acting helps increase the tension to the film.
Made around the time of Adolf Hitler and the rise of the Nazi Party, it caused particular trouble with the party. Hitler had been a fan of cinema and had advocated it's use by means of propaganda. The German workforce were at such low morale that at one moment they could fall in love with a communist spokesman's grand ideals of a better future and by the time he would finish, be equally entranced by a Nazi agitator's harangue ( From Caligari to Hitler, Kracauer, pg 247 ). Joseph Goebbels was in charge as Minister for Propaganda and as such, controlled what films could and could not be seen. Hitler was also a big fan of Lang's early work. It has been reported that Hitler had seen Die Nibelungen and was so swept away by it that by the end of the film, Hitler broke down in tears. Goebbels had quoted to Lang that Hitler had said "Here is a man who will give us great Nazi films." ( Patrick McGilligan, Fritz Lang: The Nature of The Beast, pg 175 )
However with M, there was seen to be friction. With the title of the film originally intended to be Murderers Among Us, clearly Lang had no desire to be seen as the chief executive of the Nazi propaganda film. This had clearly troubled him because of the Nazi's anti-Jew policy. Lang himself was Catholic but his mother was born as a Jewess. ( McGilligan, pg 6-7 ) As such he was wary of the threat that was posed by the Nazi party and if such a thing had taken place, the Nazi party’s stance on Jews could hardly be more hypocritical. M was seen as to imply that the Nazi Party were murderers. With that Lang was skating on thin ice, it only required one more false step, such as his next film which the Nazi party banned, The Thousand Eyes of Dr. Mabuse, before Lang had to make his move for Hollywood.
There is a full scene in which the criminal underworld try to find their own search for the murderer. Within that, between the faint footsteps of a woman, presumably a prostitute, walking the streets at night, we see them carry out their operation in total silence. Cars go past. They start to work, keeping a watch to check that everything is going according to plan, being on guard for any police officers or anyone who would break their cover. Guards marching almost in a line, blocking off the whole road so that no one can escape. It is carried out in silence. It's only broken by a whistle and car horns before someone runs down into the underground tavern to inform those drinking there that "the police are coming. Get back!" Again, the use of silence over sound enhances the drama as both the police and criminals get to work for different reasons.
There is also the scene with which both the police and criminals are plotting to find a way in which they can find the murderer. This is deftly dealt with swift cuts where words and gestures meld into the other and it goes back and forth between the two seamlessly to create an almost unified conversation between both the police and the criminals. While it shows the differences in approach to both what techniques for example, Kommissar Lohmann will want to use in catching the killer and that of the criminal underworld, one could think that in such a case that both the criminals and the police are thinking exactly the same thing and saying almost identical things to each other at their meetings. This is only enhanced with the cuts between the two rooms where they walk around in a plume of thick cigar smoke, thinking of ways to catch the murderer.
There are many other scenes in which sound can be outlined as to what makes M stand out like the kangaroo court. And yet despite that it was made back in 1931, we come to the conclusion much like Stanley Kauffmann does in his notes made for the Criterion DVD release. Kauffmann states that the film is "more engaging to the eye, more incisive in its irony, more firm in its grasp of social complications than most of the films that come along today." It is an assertion that is hard to disagree with. In an interview with Peter Bogdanovich, Fritz Lang had told that with this film he had total control over the film, no one could interrupt him and that he had "artistic freedom" over this film. Perhaps this, in no small part, helps achieve a freshness that beforehand was not the case. Away from the pressures film studios can put on directors to adhere to certain stylistics, certain themes etc. Lang could film M in the way he wanted.
It is with this that with M, Fritz Lang achieved not only artistic freedom, but create a film in which would be hailed as a classic of cinema. The use of sound or even the non-use of sound helps achieve a greater sense of tension and is effective in holding the audience within it's power. Many films have been made throughout the existence of cinema but it would be hard to find a film that utilizes each element in such a precise way in which the film achieves a greater purpose. It is with this that we salute Lang for making a masterpiece, and a masterpiece with which he can be proud given the political backdrop Germany was engulfed in.
Comments
Post a Comment