M就是凶手

剧情片其它1931

主演:彼得·洛,艾伦·维德曼,因格·兰德特,奥托·维尔尼克

导演:弗里茨·朗

 剧照

M就是凶手 剧照 NO.1M就是凶手 剧照 NO.2M就是凶手 剧照 NO.3M就是凶手 剧照 NO.4M就是凶手 剧照 NO.5M就是凶手 剧照 NO.6M就是凶手 剧照 NO.13M就是凶手 剧照 NO.14M就是凶手 剧照 NO.15M就是凶手 剧照 NO.16M就是凶手 剧照 NO.17M就是凶手 剧照 NO.18M就是凶手 剧照 NO.19M就是凶手 剧照 NO.20
更新时间:2023-12-28 04:13

详细剧情

  一名针对小女孩作案的连环杀手(Peter Lorre 饰)出没,城中人心惶惶。警察全体出动,频繁突击检查。黑帮首领(Gustaf Gründgens 饰)因生意受到严重影响,决定利用乞丐的隐蔽性布下天罗地网。卖气球的盲丐(Georg John 饰)通过《在妖王宫中》的口哨声辨出了杀手,他的同伙(Carl Balhaus 饰)趁机将“Mörder”的首字母“M”标记在其背上。虽然警方锁定了杀手的住处,但杀手被乞丐围困于商业大厦,成了瓮中之鳖。深夜,在黑帮私设的法庭上,杀手会为自己作出怎样的辩护?

 长篇影评

 1 ) M就是凶手有感

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。

 2 ) Tracing Human Abnormality in Modern Berlin

        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.
 

 3 ) 几点笔记。

1.该片拍摄与20世纪三十年代,这时候德国刚开始或已经准备走上法西斯主义道路。电影中警民的不和谐实则透视了人民对政府和权威的不信任。其中警察在酒场检查妓女和男人时,是一个比较明显的政治隐喻——在当时社会环境和条件下,男人们并不完全配合警察的调查,就连身份阶层低级的妓女都对警察表现出不屑的神色和嘲笑
2,这部三十年代的有声片是对电影技术的又一次成功的革命性尝试。除了影片中 人物的口哨声等并没有多余的配乐。却能在将近两个小时时间的电影中将情节近乎完美的衔接。
3.警察和黑道分开讨论如何抓捕杀人狂时,用到的交叉蒙太奇清晰无破绽。警察开会是方桌,代表秩序和规则。黑社会成员讨论是彼此围坐在一张不小的圆桌边,在某种程度上象征着与所谓秩序的对抗。具有讽刺意味的是,他们两方讨论的话题一样——将同一人抓获
4.开场小孩们围坐在一起玩游戏的镜头由上至下俯拍,其一可将情节发生的环境进行全面的概括,其二是孩子们缺乏保护意识之下弱小的象征。有趣的是歌谣的内容,弗里茨·郎意味深长的将案情的大致通过歌谣和大人的反应呈现给观众,使观众在几分钟内就知晓了电影是基于怎样的背景和环境进行讲述的。
5.爱丽丝被凶手M带走后,镜头给了爱丽丝家中几处地方的空镜。同景别无技巧剪辑代表一种并列关系,仿佛不用刻意解释,单是从这组镜头中,观众就能明白发生了什么。
6.场面调度。

 4 ) 笔记:叙事结构的创新与深度—<M>

创作时代背景

1931年德国

纳粹作为德国国会第二大政党,危险的极右意识形态,主张对少数民族进行镇压和种族灭绝,以扩大雅利安种族的利益。

导演弗里茨与主演彼得·洛均为犹太人。

奠定了惊悚片的基石

《M就是凶手》作为最早一批探索着用音乐音响来服务剧情的影片,其对光影的创新运用,启发了德国黑色电影,此外,它还代表着电影向着更为复杂细腻形态的进化,开创了一种模式:在电影中精心设计道德与哲学问题,观众可以自己得出答案对自身道德信仰进行检视。

叙事结构

电影中讨论的话题遵循着议论文式的撰写结构:

a.对主题进行概述的引言

b.支撑论点的论据、推论规程

c.得出结论性假说(但<M>将假说抛给了观众)

电影通过镜头、场景、表演、剪辑、蒙太奇代替语句来表达观点。

其实,在弗里茨早期最为著名的作品《大都会》中,便已经展示出了这种叙事结构。

a.电影开篇向我们抛出了议题

几分钟交代背景,一个孩童杀手给城市蒙上了恐怖的阴影,孩子们传唱着他的顺口溜,家长们忧虑孩子的安危,孩子在警察的帮助下过马路,这是一个关爱弱小的社会环境。

与之形成强烈对比的是

凶手通过写满自己罪行的通缉令时映出的阴影。

影片近乎赋予了我们全知全能的体验,以便从各种角度进行分析。

弗朗茨展示了连环杀人案给小镇带来的影响,猜疑和紧张的气氛使无辜的人们互相攻击,影响着家长、公众、警方及犯罪团伙

b.心理学家在分析罪犯笔记时,判断出他精神失常

对着镜子调皮的拉伸嘴角来取悦自己(见到孩子并尝试平复犯罪冲动的时候)

贝克特杀人前的口哨声,轻快童趣的曲调(与悲剧的对比,形成更强烈的意味)

口哨(内在欲望无法压抑的外在冲动表现)

导演弗朗茨并没有让贝克特这个角色变得讨喜

而是通过展示他的生活环境,来帮助我们理解他,我们看到他挣扎着克制自己,也看到他的恐惧与孤独,但并没有同情他。

同样让我们看到了他罪恶的影响,心碎的遇害者父母、被恐惧与猜疑击垮的城市。

c.最后一幕的“庭审”

我们听着市民与检察官的控诉,以及他的辩解。

如果放他生路则会带来更多杀戮,贝克特坚称自己犯罪时不受控制,不应受到审判。

最后他被警察带到真正的法庭,而法庭宣判的那一刻全片戛然而止。

我们则变成了审判员

当我们面临了这样一个哲学问题:我们愿意牺牲多少来实现最大多数人的最大幸福。

以血换血,以牙还牙虽然并不会让观众变为纳粹,但却引来了一种思考,如果我们来治理这个社会,又会怎么做?

《M》运用的手法与内核思想,放在当今社会依然适用,一个没有标准答案的问题。

最终,我们的答案将决定了自己的三观及决策

至今我们依然没有答案。

 5 ) 哨声依旧

M
1.悬念,铺陈人物2.悬赏单上的影子3.口哨声4.谁是凶手?5.人心浮动6.场景都极设计感7.无声音的一段8.对体制执行者的不满9.人心惶惶10.镜头角度很独特11.反射镜里的神魂颠倒12.背上的M13.快镜头14.兴师动众15.长镜头平摇16.瞎子发现真相17.民间审判18.我们就是你的权利19.我在追逐着我自己20.强迫性杀手21.以法律之名,以百姓之名22.举手投降23.德国表现主义

 6 ) M is for movie

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。

 短评

8论底层人民群众社会活动的重要性人民法庭所代表的民声与法庭所代表的正义 情感与理智的对决 谁才是真正的正义30年代就拍出如此前卫的社会题材作品 完爆如今各种院线商业流水线粗制滥造品结尾人民法庭的大法官与激起的群众又或是集体主义兴起的预言与写照

6分钟前
  • 東郷柏
  • 推荐

观感很奇怪的一部电影,就像无声和有声的结合,无配乐仅有图像来烘托情节,前段闷的要死,中段的剪辑很棒,结尾升华主题的对峙是点睛之笔,全片的悬疑点布置出众(说的就是那个口哨!), 对杀手的人物刻画很深刻(选角!)。(问题:那封信是谁写的?)

8分钟前
  • TWY
  • 推荐

B+/ 大半部散点透视无主角剧本,结尾审判似黑化生之欲;超低仰角俯角,移魂般长镜空镜,阴影与光的博弈; 心理音效恐惧感仿佛真空。无论文本还是影像都有新的尝试,昭示着尼伯龙根大都会的默片时代之后似乎稚嫩却更有生命力的弗里茨 · 朗。万万没想到喜剧效果这么出众。可作最近网络话题镜鉴。

10分钟前
  • 寒枝雀静
  • 推荐

黑白构图的张力,无声与画面的急速运作的对比,轻快口哨和极端反人性行径的并行不悖,空镜头与人物戏剧性夸张表演的穿插。电影在那个有声片刚诞生不久的年代,可以承载太多的艺术手法和社会诘问。如同富士康员工跳楼事件,个体背负社会病是流行于每一个年代的瘟疫。

11分钟前
  • 小岩菽
  • 推荐

除对白和口哨声外其他声音基本无,更别提扣人心魄的配乐了,但作为一部1931的有声片,如此足矣。有趣的地方在民众对警察(政府威权)的不信任(妓女朝警察啐口水),以及黑道擒获凶手的设定,加上最后私设法庭和真正的法庭审判对比,如此种种真是大胆的讽刺。口哨声很瘆人。

12分钟前
  • Derridager
  • 推荐

M逃进阁楼那一段特别精彩!彼得·洛长得果然猥琐!演个绑架小姑娘的变态杀手太合适了!1931年的这部电影现在看来还是有些琐碎冗长!翻拍的话应该不错!

17分钟前
  • 隐遁
  • 还行

群众大会真牛啊

22分钟前
  • 小米=qdmimi
  • 推荐

黑社会对杀人犯的人道和法律审判是很有意思的。真正的执法机构是无能的,但是一个罪犯又有什么权利来说另外一个罪犯是不可饶恕的?尤其是,这个杀人犯在倾述自己的心理病态时,听众席上的若干观众还默默的点着头。终究,这个社会的罪恶似乎是没有出路的,因此才有最后一幕的,父母们应该看好自己的孩子。虽然这最后一句台词真的出现得很突兀和莫名其妙,像是匆忙之间添上去用来过关的。如果没有执法机构的审判和最后母亲的画面,我想这部片子要好得多。

24分钟前
  • 思阳
  • 还行

看到底下那么多装逼的评论,心情就像M突然发现身后被标记了白字时那样,好惊悚好害怕!!!!!瞪!!!!!

25分钟前
  • Irgendwann
  • 力荐

【B+】第一次看德国表现主义电影,不负盛名。在许多方面的想法都远远领先于同时代其他影片(尤其是对声音和光的运用),只是毕竟是先行者,已如今眼光再看有些地方还是显得生涩,比如那个平行剪辑,很生硬。

28分钟前
  • 掉线
  • 推荐

德国表现主义电影向美国黑色电影转变时期的牛逼片子,而且就我目前的阅历来说,它好过所有的德国表现主义电影以及八成的(另两成我没看而已)美国黑色电影,这当中的差距,是巨大的

30分钟前
  • 左胸上的吸盘
  • 力荐

印象最深的是 他说“你们要是杀了我 你们就是冷血谋杀!” 群众听到后笑了起来;他说“我要求把自己交给警察!” 群众也笑了起来;他说“我要求把自己交给民主陪审团!” 群众还是笑了起来。群众没有兴趣也觉得没有必要听他说些什么 这不重要 “让他死”就是大家坐在这里的目的。M是凶手 而乱审判的群众也是凶手——从个人观点来看 某些罪犯——就如M 单单交给法律来处理是难解自己的心头恨 就应该让他受折磨——但民主审判又不能当主流 如何让法律和民主完美结合这才是国家最最重要的治国之道 最后在法律和人情里留了一个做选择的悬念 大概就是这个意思吧。

34分钟前
  • 黄悦_
  • 还行

开场利用影子铺设惊悚氛围、人人自危的紧张空气,与明暗双线并行的抓捕过程构成高反差对比,制造出不少萌点;空无一人的街道,M惊恐的表情,口哨的运用,堪称经典;对连环杀手的心理描摹,以及对法律制度的揶揄,都具有前瞻性。

37分钟前
  • 欢乐分裂
  • 推荐

原来,他只是个卖萌大师。中间有一段很惊艳的平行硬切剪辑,瞬间明朗了两个势力、一个目标的局势;想不到在全民哄笑那一刻燃了;最后的辩论虽然升华了高度,但也同时削弱了快感;那支口哨的旋律,忘不得。配乐贫乏、完全依靠影像推进的原味悬疑片,这是黑色艺术品。

39分钟前
  • Ocap
  • 推荐

近乎完美,扣一星最后的伪庭审,当民粹已然发展到人人相疑,社会不安时,是无法产生如此模式化的场景的。东方快车式也许更加契合

40分钟前
  • Ada的B计划
  • 推荐

每次看德国电影都忍不住往政治隐喻上想,德国真是一个牛逼的国家啊。影史上第一部讲连环杀人的电影,却比后来的那些要高明得多。黑社会审犯人那一段是我觉得电影最好看的一段,“难道把你交给警察送进监狱,让国家养你一辈子?”,警察搜寻许久无果最后由盲人找到了线索,这真是个无比讽刺的故事。

45分钟前
  • 凉水
  • 力荐

弗里茨·朗十分大胆地让一位罪恶滔天的凶犯在大银幕前为自己辩解,凶犯与群众的关系变得十分微妙;朗用一个社会新闻进行了一次政治反思,这是1931年的魏玛德国;按照克拉考尔的观点,M同样预示了纳粹德国的崛起。马克·费罗更认为结局中女人的警告表明朗和他当时的女友Thea von Harbou(后加入纳粹)对魏玛共和国民主的不信任,流露出两人的意识形态(cf.Cinéma et Histoire, 1977)。从以微观的社会事件对社会制度进行宏观的分析角度来看,朗无疑是影史的先驱。

47分钟前
  • 阿茶
  • 推荐

传说中的德国表现主义力作。这种片子放在现在的天朝完胜那些大片。最后的辩论进入了人权、制度和法律的思辨,而他们的概念完全是基于人性的角度,这是人权的思考。前半部的悬疑解惑,后面的基层社会的私设法庭,凶手的经典口哨还有夸张的表情和肢体。经典!8.6

50分钟前
  • 巴喆
  • 推荐

淘到DVD了哈哈

53分钟前
  • 亵渎电影
  • 推荐

解读一部经典电影就要联系当时的环境,读过福柯的《规训与惩罚》《癫狂与文明》可能对电影中欧洲的法律体系有所了解。其实就剧情来说这部电影很是粗糙,不过最后的审判意味伸长。人权,自由,权利,精神病一系列中世纪的产物柔和起来,这才是这部戏的精髓。

54分钟前
  • 乔大路
  • 推荐

返回首页返回顶部

Copyright © 2023 All Rights Reserved