Had he really felt so awful about his urge to kill, he should have committed suicide. It would have been the honourable thing to do if he felt remorseful and unable to control himself. Why would anyone feel empathy for such a man regardless of his mental illness is beyond me.
share+1
It's not over, everybody betrayed me! I'm fed up with this world!
sympathy, but it's more a question of rights and justice than emotional response. However Lorre's acting was extremely powerful and did move me to, at least momentarily, consider this monster as a victim in at least one regard. Incredible film making in every respect.
shareHaving a movie creating sympathy for a child murderer is really out there. And the woman at the end saying his (presumed) execution solves nothing, as tho it doesn't prevent other children being murdered, is an outrageous position to take.
And a woman wrote the script. It is mind boggling.
I think the woman was trying to say that capital punishment wouldn't bring back the victims of his crimes. Which is true. It may make anecdotal sense that executing criminals would reduce the violent crime rate, but on a larger level, this change hasn't taken place, even though the U.S. has embraced the death penalty for nearly 40 consecutive years.
share[deleted]
Let's put it this way: I think serial killers are so confused that the existence of the death penalty, administered frequently or not, will not deter them from what they want to do. As a society, we keep looking for solutions that would prevent normal people from committing violent acts. However, violent criminals, by definition, are not normal, and these solutions haven't worked. So I have to side with the "life without parole" crowd.
By the way, thanks for a refreshingly fair and respectful response, one that is rarely seen from the pro-capital punishment crowd.
Almost four years ago, a career criminal with two attempted murders under his belt--one while in prison--murdered my girlfriend. Executing him won't bring her back, but it does give retribution and ensures he can never kill anyone again. Why should those of us who knew her have to pay tax dollars to keep him alive when he took someone from us? Whatever one personally thinks of the death penalty, I don't understand the point of expending energy to ensure murderers get to live their lives out naturally whether behind bars or not.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you.
A Clockwork Orange did something similar, to provoke feelings of empathy from the audience toward a guy who did some terrible things. One should have empathy toward other people, even people who do bad things, in order to make sure justice is done. If we can't put ourselves in the place of others, we can't possibly follow the Golden Rule.
The point of the debate over putting the guy to death was not whether or not he needs to be removed from society. The debate was about whether killing him is just, when life in prison would also prevent other children from being murdered and he was not able to control his impulses.
This was a groundbreaking movie when it came out, and I think it deserves the respect it gets from many - the questions raised and the way the movie showed how people behave and why they behave that way were way ahead of its time. In addition, the artistic qualities of the film were also new and a revelation at the time in advancing the art of movie-making.
My real name is Jeff
His imprisonment would also prevent children being murdered. I guess on a bigger picture level, his death solves nothing in a sense that it won't prevent people like him from existing, because it's a mental condition, not a rational decision. therefore, no matter how you chose to punish the crime, it won't matter, because no one does this just because they can.
And as a punishment, it also doesn't do anything because the dead remain dead.
And a woman wrote the script. It is mind boggling.
Like Se7en (1995) This presented us with the delima, does he deserve to live ir die? Personally, in previous scenes, he did not look like he was "forced" to do it, I feel like that was a cop out he made up at the end. I'm glad the police busted the trial at the end. I was thinking during that scene of an outcome that would feel right, and I'm glad thats what they went with.
shareI think you sort of missed the point there? It wasn't so much about feeling empathy but rather acknowlidging the fact that there are certain conditions in life which people can't necessarily help. The statement was not an emotional one, but rather a rational one. In fact, the character, who was brilliantly played by Peter Lorre, was almost reptile-like, i.e. clearly not ment to be likeable at all. The question which the movie raises is not "should we feel empathy for this dude", but rather "should we resort to mob madness when our juridical system fails" - like it did in the movie, and like it did in Germany in the 30s. And of course the movie itself doesn't even hand out an exact answer to us - while mob madness is a disease almost equal to that of Peter Lorre, the juridical system wasn't exactly shall we say effective.
Good stories don't hand out answers or force you to feel something. Good movies raise questions. This movie was one of them.
"Good stories don't hand out answers or force you to feel something. Good movies raise questions. This movie was one of them."
I agree. Didacticism is a trap that many film makers can't seem to avoid. I'm a little uncertain about Lang's ending, though. All we hear from the court is, "In the name of the people...." So the verdict is left to the viewer's imagination, and some, here, have assumed that the verdict is for death. Frau Beckmann's final words would be just as true if Beckert received a life sentence or was institutionalized. I admit that the assumption of the death penalty is the most defensible. And it's at that point that Lang might be seen to be making a didactic statement. By giving Frau Beckmann the last word, he seems to be saying that the death penalty is not the answer. I don't insist on this interpretation, though, and in every other respect this movie is thoughtful, insightful, innovative--in short, a major work of art.
Many here have addressed the failure of the death penalty as a deterrent. On the large scale, this is certainly true. But I've yet to hear anybody address an aspect of the controversy that has always given me pause. The death penalty for Beckmann would certainly deter HIM from killing any more children. If such a man were imprisoned or institutionalized, got out, and later killed a child of mine, I'm sure my general agreement with the liberal stance on this issue would not make any sense to me at all. I'm progressive on some subjects, but it's certain that putting a murderer to death prevents that murderer from taking any more lives. In that sense, the court of criminals in M is right.
Back then, before a sentence of death, judges would put on a black cap, and Lang shows a judge doing this. Lorre's sentence is death; it's not ambiguous.
shareIt baffles me so many are unsure of the ending because they,myself included,did not know that simple fact. Thank you for providing this information as I now have a better grasp of Lang's stance.
shareThank you for sharing your point of view on the matter. You've managed to out something I did not.
share"It wasn't so much about feeling empathy but rather acknowlidging the fact that there are certain conditions in life which people can't necessarily help. The statement was not an emotional one, but rather a rational one."
Actually, that's a completely emotional statement. "Abolish the death penalty because some people are so mentally ill, they can't resist the urge to kill, boohoo!" Rational would be to acknowledge that these murderers are a danger to society no matter if they're mentally ill or not and executing them is one way to deal with the problem.
[deleted]
This is very true. I can understand where racists come from: Their perception of the group which they aim their hatred at is twisted but I can still follow their logic. Reality is however you perceive it to be. That being said, I do not agree with racism in the slightest. I understood where Peter Lorre's character was coming from, as I have intrusive thoughts and compulsions to do certain things and there is relief when you give in to them. However, that does not mean that his giving in to them is right. Some people do have stronger wills than others, and perhaps he had these thoughts from a very young age and they wore him down.
The "fire" and compulsions he feels could be comparable to a drug addiction or cutting. It is wrong and harmful and someone's higher thinking understands it's wrong, but there is still some satisfaction derived from indulging in it. Lorre's character is messed up in the head in some way but he is very remorseful about it. I would be much, much less inclined to feel sympathy for a serial killer if they expressed enjoyment and a general unapologetic attitude. Like someone commented before though, it's very likely Lorre's character got the death penalty. Personally I could see both sides to allowing him to live and to killing him, so I'm not really up in arms about the decision.
------
You shut your mouth when you're talking to me!
The fact that Lorre's character feels remorseful about his murders should have no bearing on his punishment. If the law allows for the death penalty than he should be sentenced to it if proven guilty no matter what he feels. If you are like me and do not believe in the death penalty then he should be given life in prison for his crime no matter what his approach is to his crime. Since I do not believe in the death penalty, I will add that if he is found to be mentally ill he still has to pay for his crime with life in prison.
shareCan't say I feel empathy for him, but "just killing yourself" is not something that's easily doable. A lot of people truly want to die but can't go through with the act itself.
shareI think in a way He wanted it over. He seemed tortured over his actions and unwilling to change. I think of he really felt remiss and not giving a smoke screen he would turn himself in.
shareMaybe because, even at that time, some people can and were able to be bleeding hearted liberals and feel that even criminals may deserve a fair treatment and some people are kind by nature not to hold too great a grudge even against heinous criminals? Remember the nun from "Bad Lieutenant" (1992) and how she has forgiven those who sexually assaulted her?
Or maybe they were putting emphasis on trying to understand him more?
Only if the bleeding hearted liberals children don't get killed, that is; otherwise...
sharePeople are very unpredictable by nature. Yeah, perhaps some of them MAY be overtaken by PERSONAL grief. But then, with it being as it is, is it necessarily horrible and wrong, or just flawed but natural?
shareFor some people, empathy towards even bad people is like a mental defense mechanism.
shareAnd also, could it actually be that the film did NOT intend to create "sympathy" or "empathy" for the child murderer here but rather it showed how he may have felt before being subjected to legal punishment?
shareYes thats the feeling i got. I didnt feel fritz was pushing sympathy for the killer at all. That deer in the head lights look when he got caught finally. Perfect acting by Peter. He was not right and he knew it
share