這部影片名氣太響，可在最后5分鐘到來之前，還真是沒覺得特別。人物賦予夸張的戲劇性表情，說是驚悚片著力點(diǎn)卻不在兇殺，更多描述黑白兩道對(duì)罪犯的抓捕，就像一場鬧劇。這是我看的德國表現(xiàn)主義大師弗里茨·朗的首部影片，“表現(xiàn)主義”可是很厲害的，很前衛(wèi)，它創(chuàng)立的電影風(fēng)格已經(jīng)成為現(xiàn)代電影藝術(shù)的常用手法。茂瑙就是我十分喜歡的一位，我覺得他在默片時(shí)期已經(jīng)做完了所有關(guān)于電影表現(xiàn)手法的嘗試。
 
說《M就是兇手》十分偉大，因?yàn)樗怯笆飞系谝徊恐v述連環(huán)變態(tài)殺手的電影，弗里茨·朗的第一部有聲片。世界上第一部有聲片也就誕生在1927年吧，1931年出品的《M》對(duì)聲效的運(yùn)用已經(jīng)十分了得，尤其是兇手哼著格里格的《皮爾金特》誘殺女孩，《皮爾金特》是格里格為易卜生的同名詩劇寫的配樂，就講了一個(gè)病態(tài)地沉溺于幻想的角色，最終成為犧牲品。
 
這在當(dāng)時(shí)一定非常里程碑，不過，時(shí)間流逝，“第一”會(huì)慢慢變成符號(hào)，一道考題，一則引用短語，從極具意義到意義的尸體，在最后5分鐘到來之前，你仿佛在看一個(gè)被后來者撫摸、仿效和取用了多次的紀(jì)念品，直到最后5分鐘，令我驚嘆的5分鐘，宣告它永遠(yuǎn)屹立于偉大作品之林，并且永不褪色。

“初衷”是個(gè)挺機(jī)靈的小子，常常發(fā)覺我們的理解和藝術(shù)家的創(chuàng)作初衷不是一回事，不知道是他們故意在戲弄我們，還是我們成全了他們，作品被包裝成蘊(yùn)含無窮深意，訪問弗里茨·朗關(guān)于《M》的創(chuàng)作想法，他說：“這部電影的要義不在于懲罰罪犯，而是警告母親們：你們要看好自己的孩子！”對(duì)于這個(gè)說法，會(huì)令評(píng)論家大跌眼鏡嗎？我也想不通這樣的創(chuàng)作意圖，但按照一般評(píng)論的說法，這部影片“黑社會(huì)組織嚴(yán)明、私設(shè)公堂的做法，更是直指了1931年篡權(quán)前的納粹，放在今天來看，依然具有相當(dāng)震撼的警世意義”我也覺得太過嚴(yán)重了。
 
兇手M表現(xiàn)為精神異常，連續(xù)作案，殺了八九個(gè)女孩子。警方展開地毯式搜捕還是一無所獲，在此期間，黑幫老大的娛樂場所屢次受到排查，生意不振，黑幫老大要出擊，利用丐幫人肉搜索，先于警察擒獲M。最后5分鐘開始了，黑社會(huì)組織模擬法庭，法官、審判長、聽審聽眾一應(yīng)俱全，還為M配了辯護(hù)律師，開始雙方駁辯：
 
M說：他自己無法控制自己的行為，只要一看到小女孩，他的內(nèi)心就由惡魔驅(qū)使，引導(dǎo)他犯下不可饒恕的罪惡，在那時(shí)，他忘記了一切。有兩個(gè)他在斗爭，一個(gè)說“你要做”，一個(gè)說“你不能”，內(nèi)心時(shí)時(shí)備受煎熬；而要裁決他的黑社會(huì)都是心智正常的普通人，可以控制自己的行為，卻也做著殺人放火的勾當(dāng)危害社會(huì)，到底是誰應(yīng)該受到制裁呢？
 
還以為是擺設(shè)的辯護(hù)律師卻異常認(rèn)真、堅(jiān)持，他極力為 M 辯護(hù)：“因?yàn)槲业谋桓嬖诓豢煽咕艿臎_動(dòng)下犯了罪，所以不該被判處死刑……沒有人會(huì)因?yàn)槿滩蛔〉氖虑槎軕土P……沒有人能夠把一個(gè)不能為自己行為負(fù)責(zé)的人殺死，這個(gè)國家不行，你們當(dāng)然也不行……應(yīng)該把他送進(jìn)醫(yī)院，而不是監(jiān)獄或者絞刑架”。
 
審判長（黑幫老大）說：出院后又開始?xì)⑷四兀繎?yīng)該判他死刑……
此刻，圍坐著的聽眾沸騰起來，攻向M，想即刻處死他。
此刻，警察趕到，“救”了M，影片在此高潮落幕，一位母親呆看鏡頭“ 這樣救不回我們的孩子，我們應(yīng)該很小心地照看自己的孩子。”（我不太清楚自己看的是哪個(gè)版本，據(jù)說修復(fù)版是加長了法庭戲，是有一場真正法官進(jìn)行的審判？）
 
突然之間，一個(gè)難題甩到觀眾面前?！禡》的意義出現(xiàn)了。


拼音文字容易湊出點(diǎn)名堂來，譬如鉆石的檢驗(yàn)就會(huì)說用4C標(biāo)準(zhǔn)（Carat、Clarity、Colour、Cut），管理服務(wù)要追求5S（safety、standardization……），片名叫V叫M叫Z都可以看作有寓意。
 
兇手的名字與M無關(guān)，之所以說“M就是兇手”，是某人急中生智怕兇手給跟溜了，乘其不備涂在兇手衣服背后的記號(hào)，在那個(gè)場景中，M就是 murder，但到了（模擬）法庭上，他是一名精神病患者而受法律保護(hù)，他將接受治療而不是處決，大眾無法面對(duì)法律對(duì)他們道德觀念的不合作，此時(shí)的M就是 moral，法律只在為我所用、為我出頭時(shí)才受我尊敬，否則就讓道德來處死他吧，這才體現(xiàn)公平和公正，鏡頭掃去，黑社會(huì)和受害者家屬和一般民眾，已經(jīng)模糊不清。
 
此時(shí)再來看導(dǎo)演頗為奇怪的創(chuàng)作意圖“我們應(yīng)該很小心地照看自己的孩子”（這行字也正是電影放到這時(shí)出現(xiàn)的）就會(huì)覺得是對(duì)社會(huì)失控?zé)o可挽救（沒有小心照看、放任社會(huì)走向危險(xiǎn)極端）、個(gè)體意志與集體利益相處尷尬（個(gè)體發(fā)瘋威脅到群體生命，群體瘋狂折磨個(gè)體生命）、法律無能道德恐怖（法律只能是最大限度的實(shí)現(xiàn)公正，道德能用來殺人）的無奈諷刺了。
 
據(jù)說《M就是兇手》是原片名，制片人獲悉希特勒在大選中可能獲勝，擔(dān)心該片被禁，改為《M》，可見，這個(gè)M原是不簡單；而一部亙古長青的影片必是緊扣人類永恒難解的命題，看電影的同時(shí)看自己的。

        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, “l(fā)ocate 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 na?ve 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.
 

M這部電影主要出現(xiàn)的有三個(gè)版本。
最早送德國電影當(dāng)局審查的版本，是最符合導(dǎo)演用意的版本，117分鐘，當(dāng)時(shí)電影的名字叫就Murders are among us，可惜這個(gè)版本目前已經(jīng)找不到了。
最新的版本是109分鐘（約110分鐘）的，這個(gè)是盡最大可能保留原來117分鐘的原貌而進(jìn)行修復(fù)整理的版本，也就是CC公司最新出版發(fā)行的版本（CC公司之前發(fā)行過96分鐘的版本）。
第三個(gè)版本是96分鐘的版本，是當(dāng)時(shí)該片的制片人為了電影能公映，根據(jù)送審的版本修改刪節(jié)之后的版本，這個(gè)版本修改了其他兩個(gè)版本的結(jié)局，結(jié)局只到了法院開庭審理罪犯的情節(jié)，而刪了后面三個(gè)母親的場景。而且還對(duì)電影中一些導(dǎo)演故意采用默片手法的片段加上了后期配音。也就是這個(gè)版本把這部電影改成了現(xiàn)在的名字M。

昨天看了110分鐘的版本，可惜了那寶貴的7分鐘，否則電影肯定有更獨(dú)特的味道。
電影拍攝于1931年，正是納粹主義逐漸要在德國興起的時(shí)代，因此，這部電影當(dāng)中的一些情節(jié)表現(xiàn)往往會(huì)被認(rèn)為是在映射當(dāng)時(shí)的納粹勢力，例如其中的盜賊勢力——其實(shí)這并不是電影的初衷。這部電影的時(shí)代背景正是一戰(zhàn)后經(jīng)濟(jì)蕭條、社會(huì)動(dòng)蕩、民不聊生的時(shí)代，所以其中的盜賊猖獗可以說是一定程度的客觀反映，但電影并沒有把這些盜賊作為反面的批判角色，甚至是企圖作為一種替代性的權(quán)力（替代政府）來描繪，其實(shí)這部電影里扮演盜賊的人，很多就是導(dǎo)演弗里茲?朗請(qǐng)來的真正盜賊來參演，而且很多是當(dāng)時(shí)警察通緝的盜賊，可以說這部電影是在和警察打游擊的過程中拍攝出來的。電影的起意也在于導(dǎo)演朗的妻子對(duì)一個(gè)事件的感觸——政府在這個(gè)動(dòng)蕩社會(huì)下的無能。所以，這些抨擊政府的無能——司法公權(quán)力的嚴(yán)重缺失才是私力救濟(jì)誕生的土壤（盜賊主持的審判）——才是這部電影明確的主旨。
電影當(dāng)中警察數(shù)月的毫無進(jìn)展，只會(huì)毫無目的的盤問和搜索，以及最后也就是被刪節(jié)的結(jié)尾這些情節(jié)都使電影帶上了反政府傾向，也使之區(qū)別于一般的驚悚片（甚至不適宜歸為這類）。結(jié)尾處三個(gè)母親面對(duì)著鏡頭哭訴：判決也挽回不了死去的孩子，所以我們還是要依靠自己看好我們的孩子。還有你們……你們。（最后面對(duì)觀眾時(shí)說，這里樹造了一種人人自危的環(huán)境，同時(shí)也是對(duì)司法無力的譴責(zé)）。

電影的一些處理也很令人印象深刻，這是朗的第一部有聲電影，也是影史上第一部講述變態(tài)殺手的電影，當(dāng)兇手第一次現(xiàn)身之前，是一個(gè)黑影慢慢呈現(xiàn)在通緝海報(bào)上、受害的小女孩面前。這個(gè)很寫意的恐怖手法不知道使后世多少的恐怖、驚悚片都打上了“影子”的主意。還有女孩遇害時(shí)的處理也是非常的簡潔——一個(gè)皮球滾進(jìn)畫面，一只汽球纏在了電線上。這一手法也是被無數(shù)次的效仿。電影還結(jié)合了一些默片的處理，罪犯在逃跑和盜賊在追捕的一個(gè)階段完成沒有了聲音，觀眾不由自主的把注意力都灌注到了畫面上，令人不禁想摒住呼吸（96分鐘版給這段配上了配音）。電影采用的1.19:1的特殊比例也使畫面產(chǎn)生了很強(qiáng)的束縛感，也使電影的一些場景有非常獨(dú)特的感覺——倉庫、會(huì)議室、地下室都顯得非常擠壓。也許你能從那樣的畫面里聞到一股燒焦之后煙灰的味道，呵呵。

  這部片子的名聲實(shí)在不小，當(dāng)然了，它頭頂上的便簽個(gè)個(gè)都是閃閃發(fā)光：表現(xiàn)主義大師弗里茨·朗加上“世界上最好的演員”彼得·洛，再加上真實(shí)事件改編，加上第一部連環(huán)殺手電影，加上IMDB TOP排在#56，最后再加上弗里茨·朗的第一部有聲片，沒有理由不相信這是一部值得好好玩味的電影。
  但是我錯(cuò)了，以上的所有頭銜都不足以概述[M]的根本內(nèi)核，在最后一場戲到來之前，我一直以為這就是一部講述30年代變態(tài)殺人魔的有聲片而已，但是一場來自黑幫的審判生生地把這部110分鐘的黑白電影提升到一個(gè)絕非任何一部當(dāng)代電影可以小看的地步，從[大都會(huì)]到[M]，弗里茨·朗越發(fā)走向人的內(nèi)心。
   但是首先，不可回避的是，這的的確確是弗里茨·朗的第一部有聲電影，技術(shù)的革新往往是最基礎(chǔ)和決定性的。不過嚴(yán)格一點(diǎn)說，很多聲音元素還是缺乏的，甚至到大部分情況下，聲音只單純作為畫面的解釋而存在，弗里茨·朗似乎相當(dāng)不放心聲音的表達(dá)作用，在好幾處都給聲音加上畫面來表達(dá)，比如警長在看關(guān)于搶劫案的口供時(shí)，對(duì)于現(xiàn)場的再現(xiàn)其實(shí)是聲畫重復(fù)的表達(dá)。其次，所謂“有聲”，更大程度上只是“有對(duì)白”，早期有聲片最直觀地意識(shí)到了語言可以直接參與影片，但是還沒有加入音效，除了對(duì)白，汽車，街道，道具，很難聽到環(huán)境的音效，當(dāng)然更不用說表現(xiàn)性的音效和音樂了。再次，音畫同步看起來還是一個(gè)恪守的原則，一個(gè)聲音對(duì)應(yīng)一個(gè)畫面，所有的聲音都是當(dāng)下的寫實(shí)的，于今看起來還真是難得的感覺。
  當(dāng)然說回來，這幾點(diǎn)僅能作為對(duì)今昔電影的聲音運(yùn)用作比較而言，在有聲電影僅僅出現(xiàn)4年之后，弗里茨·朗就給出了這樣一部音畫結(jié)合的佳作，已然難以想象，況且[M]中還有一個(gè)重要的聲音元素，那就是兇手所哼唱的那首[皮爾金特]，再次提出，那是在1931年，弗里茨·朗讓一個(gè)殺手哼著歌去殺人，并且讓這個(gè)關(guān)鍵性的元素——在情節(jié)上和聽覺上都同樣關(guān)鍵——重復(fù)出現(xiàn)，要知道，用哼著歌殺人而給人留下深刻印象的辦法來塑造變態(tài)殺人魔形象，至今還是屢試不爽的經(jīng)典。（例子就不用舉了吧）
   除去聲音之外，最后5分鐘的審判，黑幫對(duì)于殺人犯的審判，以及那個(gè)辯護(hù)人所說的，“沒有人可以殺了人不負(fù)責(zé)，一個(gè)國家也不能”，這之中所表達(dá)的政治司法觀念，甚至對(duì)于人權(quán)的思考，只消聯(lián)系1931年的德國現(xiàn)實(shí)，也不難略知一二。

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

《M[兇手M]》表現(xiàn)主義
by @xinl.ve 100406

杰作，推薦一看，但不能理解為什么能位列Top 250: #56。

在藝術(shù)的表現(xiàn)力和電影理應(yīng)具有的戲劇性與趣味性來看，《M[兇手M]》臻至極致。數(shù)十年后，Guy Ritchie的極具風(fēng)格化的攝影、敘事等技法，本片導(dǎo)演Fritz Lang[弗里茨·朗]和拍攝《Sunrise：A Song Of Two Humans[日出：二人之歌]》的茂瑙早已為之，特別是Fritz Lang拍攝的本片，“沒有”過分玄乎的宏大主題，《M》單憑表現(xiàn)主義的風(fēng)格登上了榮譽(yù)之巔。

借一段文字：
表現(xiàn)主義電影折射了當(dāng)時(shí)的德國，同時(shí)也超越了當(dāng)時(shí)的德國。他們思考的驅(qū)動(dòng)力來自于戰(zhàn)敗后德國破敗的現(xiàn)實(shí)，工業(yè)社會(huì)的冷漠資本膨脹對(duì)人的異化塑造了他們思考的姿態(tài)——面向共同的人類精神世界發(fā)問。在表現(xiàn)暴力、謀殺和死亡的主題時(shí)，表現(xiàn)主義電影導(dǎo)演們無不傾向于在影片中制造出一種迷幻、扭曲和陰冷的世界。對(duì)于這樣一個(gè)世界心懷恐懼是全人類的共性，在這樣一個(gè)世界中逃亡出去尋找精神的安慰之地也是全人類的愿望。當(dāng)時(shí)的德國中產(chǎn)階級(jí)對(duì)現(xiàn)實(shí)不滿，帶有自由意志論的時(shí)代精神和社會(huì)反叛助長了表現(xiàn)主義的發(fā)展。參加表現(xiàn)主義運(yùn)動(dòng)的人，在政治信仰和哲學(xué)觀點(diǎn)上存在著很大的差異。其中有無政府主義者、虛無主義者，也有社會(huì)主義者。因此，表現(xiàn)主義運(yùn)動(dòng)從來不是一個(gè)完全統(tǒng)一協(xié)調(diào)的運(yùn)動(dòng)，也很少有始終如一的“純粹”的表現(xiàn)主義者。但他們也有一些共同的思想傾向和藝術(shù)特點(diǎn)，即不滿社會(huì)現(xiàn)狀，要求改革，要求“革命”。

按照上一段文字，《M》已經(jīng)隱喻著因第一次世界大戰(zhàn)的失敗而陷入蕭條的德國社會(huì)有迎來納粹極權(quán)的可能，加上《Das wei?e Band[白絲帶]》的推波助瀾，《M》的題旨好像真是如此。按照部分電影介紹的說法，柏林的警察歷經(jīng)數(shù)月抓不住誘拐小孩子并殺害之的罪犯，無奈的普通人（電影中實(shí)際是黑幫組織乞丐、小偷和混混等違法之徒，真實(shí)世界里少數(shù)演員還有被逮進(jìn)去的情況發(fā)生）只好自己組織起來行使正義，“In the name of the law/people”。政府無能，老百姓有力，革命來改朝換代是可以的，《M》因此暗示了德國納粹的登臺(tái)。并且導(dǎo)演Fritz Lang為了警示這種危險(xiǎn)，在最后結(jié)局時(shí)，讓某個(gè)悲傷的母親說，“看好自己的孩子！”為什么要看好自己的孩子？既怕被拐走（被殺），也是怕被誘騙（成為納粹）。

過分的解讀莫過于此，多少人真看出了晦澀的《Das wei?e Band》背后幼年納粹的成長，抱著自己創(chuàng)造的幻覺可能誤讀了《M》。

忽視警察為抓捕變態(tài)兇手M付出的努力，并把抓獲罪犯的功勞歸功于黑幫代表的普通人，從而強(qiáng)化“人民行使正義”的電影主題，一廂情愿地厲害。黑幫分子要找出兇手的動(dòng)機(jī)是因?yàn)榫斓膾呤幒拖邩O大地影響了他們的生意，并不是真要為民伸張正義。獨(dú)立于黑幫分子找尋線索的警察并非想象中無能，在嫌犯的住處搜尋到香煙、鉛筆屑，并在其家中設(shè)伏等待其回家后抓住之。在黑幫分子搶先一步帶走兇手后，兩個(gè)警察一個(gè)白臉一個(gè)紅臉地唬騙被落在辦公室的倒霉蛋，從而獲悉“普通人”一伙審判罪犯的場所。等等諸如此類，描寫政府、警察一方的情節(jié)，說明他們的效率其實(shí)還是蠻高的，并非電影的反面人物或者參照物。

召集法庭并為嫌犯指定辯護(hù)律師的最后一場是電影的高潮?！懊褚鉀皼啊钡摹靶⊥敌∶儭痹诘叵率澜缫槐菊?jīng)地采用了世俗里的法官、辯護(hù)、控方和評(píng)審團(tuán)的形式，要以師出有名的方式判處宣告嫌犯有罪。如此的安排，的確會(huì)讓人誤以為導(dǎo)演站在了人民的一邊，然而聯(lián)想表現(xiàn)主義電影中黑色、夸張、荒誕和顛覆性。正常的“形式”與風(fēng)格化的電影格格不入，黑幫審判兇人的場景才是異常里的正常。

截兩張圖，順便參考表現(xiàn)主義的特點(diǎn)：





1.影像：表現(xiàn)主義的導(dǎo)演注重具有象征意味的造型，傾向認(rèn)為電影的影像應(yīng)該成為平面藝術(shù)。在構(gòu)圖和布景上下足了功夫。往往在一個(gè)構(gòu)圖中用相似的形狀并列而形成相當(dāng)具有表現(xiàn)力的鏡頭。表現(xiàn)主義電影經(jīng)常摒棄常規(guī)的影像形態(tài)，采用傾斜、顛倒的影像，采用常規(guī)電影很少使用的特殊拍攝角度，畫面的明暗反差一般會(huì)很大。表現(xiàn)主義電影常用人物特寫和富有象征意義的空鏡頭，使用特寫可以看作是在“放大”表演，增強(qiáng)戲劇性；而對(duì)環(huán)境的渲染可以看作是對(duì)人物行為和靈魂的“解釋”，力圖揭示人物行為背后的社會(huì)誘因。此外，主觀鏡頭也是表現(xiàn)主義常用的手法，表現(xiàn)主義藝術(shù)家輕視局限于客觀的寫實(shí)，強(qiáng)調(diào)表現(xiàn)“主觀的現(xiàn)實(shí)”。

2.表演：表現(xiàn)主義的表演一般比較夸張，基本放棄了寫實(shí)主義的表演方式取而代之的是展示迅速的變動(dòng)、舞蹈般的動(dòng)作、變形或扭曲的表情。

3.題材和類型：在表現(xiàn)主義的代表作品中，題材的特征是顯而易見的，恐怖、災(zāi)難、犯罪題材是最常見的，表現(xiàn)主義電影藝術(shù)家們往往從被扭曲的、陰暗的世界中去尋找素材，在那似乎與現(xiàn)實(shí)隔絕的、封閉的世界中，去挖掘人物內(nèi)心深處的孤獨(dú)、殘暴、恐怖、狂亂的精神狀態(tài)。內(nèi)容荒誕離奇，有時(shí)結(jié)構(gòu)散亂，情節(jié)變化突兀，故事人物類型化，往往鬼魂與活人同時(shí)出現(xiàn)（《吸血鬼》等），生與死、夢幻與現(xiàn)實(shí)之間沒有明確的界線。表現(xiàn)主義電影導(dǎo)演們關(guān)注畸形社會(huì)中的心理非常態(tài)，關(guān)注那些焦慮與緊張的情緒，力圖透視那些狂亂行為背后的深層動(dòng)機(jī)和原因，用主觀化的影像風(fēng)格來反證社會(huì)事實(shí)，作品因此具有社會(huì)意義和社會(huì)價(jià)值。

56的排位，有了些許答案。

M.1931.720p.BluRay.x264-SiNNERS