Lang was legendary in his cruelty towards his actors, especially in this film. It was Peter Lorre who was thrown down the stairs, and he was forced to be chucked down the stairs over a dozen times before Lang was happy with the take. Twenty years later Lang asked Lorre to work with him again and Lorre refused.
Why are so many great directors such colossal dickheads? Does being a megalomaniacal control freak make you a better director?
Thereâs the opposite end too. Eastwood generally doesnât tinker with scripts and hires actors who he thinks know what their doing and often only does one take. Got masterpieces like âUnforgivenâ from that mindset so must be something to it.
That comes from him being an actor first, actors prefer working with directors that trust them to do their job
If that's the case then I wonder what actors thought of working with Mel Gibson (politics aside).
Iâve never heard of coworkers having any issues with Gibson, even when his alcoholism was crazy high (5 pints of beer before starting his day!) he was known as a consummate professional.
A consuming professional!
80ozs to freedom right there
All consuming professional!
"Say what you want about Mel Gibson, but the son of a bitch knows story structure."
He is a great director. Hasn't made a bad film, even if I don't want to see a couple of them again.
Nothing will ever possess me to watch Apocalypto again. It's brilliant but no way in hell can I handle that intensity.
That one and Passion of the Christ for me. It's well made, just too much religious nonsense.
Any of his others, including Hacksaw Ridge, sure.
I wonder what actors thought of working with Mel Gibson with politics in the middle
Politics aside is like sauce on the side at a restaurant, right? So it would be politics on top?
With Mel Gibson the sauce is manically injected directly into your throat with a turkey baster
If he was making a high quality product and wasn't a complete dickhead on set, they were probably happy to work with him once people forgot he sexually harassed a female cop by asking "What're you lookin' at, sugar-tits?"
Thats not great but the racist n word rants and holocaust denialism is probably worse
Leaving out that part was supposed to be kind of funny, but it wasn't. I really just wanted to say "sugar-tits".
Probably like working with Tom Cruise. Those actors in Top Gun Maverick seemed to loved working with him. But also Scientology and telling postpartum Brooke Shields that postpartum depression doesn't exist
Sometimes he doesn't even need an actor. He'll act out a whole trial scene on stage, just talking to an empty chair.
Oh how the times have changed. âConservatives are in fact in Hollywood, too. Itâs not all leftists. But since theyâre conservative they donât make a scene about their politicsâ. He didnât say this word for word but that was essentially what he was saying.
God that was weird. And painful.
Some* actors. Different directorial styles like different management or teaching styles work better for some people than for others, and everyone has their own personal strengths and preferences in this regard.
Some actors like having a very clear and defined job to do, others like it to be more nebulous and up to the actor to work out on set. Some actors like as many takes as necessary to get their/the director's vision, some feel like more than a few takes is just busywork and not going to improve anything. Some actors like specific and particular direction others like more improv oriented filming circumstances. And so on.
Having worked theatre personally as well as knowing a number of people who work in film/television.
True, I guess what i meant to say is actors like clint eastwood. Hes been acting for decades and has an established reputation and style, so i imagine that he knows what to do on set and the director knows what to expect from him. It makes sense to me that he would take that same approach to filmmaking.
He's also known not to yell action. He just says okay go ahead.
He said he decided to do that when he was on rawhide in the 60s. Directors yelling action would spook the horses so he decided he didn't want to do that because it took time to calm them down.
Wouldn't be surprised if it kind of works the same for humans too, tbh
And that thing they loudly clap down (to sync the sound)?
Doesn't have the human element of putting pressure on you
Well, you've obviously never experienced the clap, because it's very stressful.
Indeed I haven't (plus I thought we were just speculating).
But since you're implying you have real-world experience with movie production: is it even necessary with modern tools?
I wasn't alluding to the movies, actually.
Ok
He was making a joke about an STD (the clap). r/woosh
Ah, thanks! English is not my first language so I didn't know that :)
I don't have Hollywood experience but I can definitely say it's rather helpful to sync up various mic recordings with the video footage in any editing I've done. They might have something better or more fancy at the pro level but I kinda doubt it, with how simple and effective it is.
Is that why clapperboards 'clap'? I always wondered why!
It is indeed! It's easier to identify the start of the take because of the spike in the sound's waveform :)
It's also useful for syncing (and ensuring they remain synced) audio and video in post-production. The waveform gives a very clear identifier for when the sound is supposed to happen, and the clap is obviously a very clear and distinct sound.
My ex directed me in a few projects when he was in school. All he ever said when it was go-time was a very calm: rollinâ.
I never experienced that before or since. It made for a very relaxed atmosphere on set. Granted he was an asshole in every other aspect of his life, but when he was in the directorâs chair? Totally zen.
I learned this from the Blank Check podcast. Griffinâs impression of Eastwood saying âok, go aheadâ always makes me laugh.
Although not famous for his movies, Jonathan "Two Takes" Frakes (the actor who played Riker on Star Trek: TNG, for those of you who aren't into Star Trek) has a reputation of always delivering when he directs a Star Trek episode, and also doesn't waste anyone's time. Hence the nickname.
Like the other commenter said: being an actor before becoming director probably has something to do with that.
Bill plays a mean bone.
Frakes episodes are always a treat.
Years ago I got to listen to Hillary Swank talk.
She said there were times where she'd rehearse with another actor then she'd just here "Okay, perfect. Moving on" because Clint would just run the camera and use the rehearsal.
I also got to have a drink with Steve Campanelli, Eastwoods camera op for most of his movies. He said during Million Dollar Baby he was set up for a shot, laying on his back with Hillary Swank about 18" from his face and before action got called she looked at him and said "Am I doing a good job?"
SC: Yeah, I think so. Why?
HS: Clint hasn't talked to me in three days.
SC: Oh, he only talks to actors if he doesn't like what you're doing.
HS: Oh....
Apparently the way he directs actors when he's in a scene with them is by changing his performance. I guess his mindset is "Well, if they're not reacting how I want, I must be doing something wrong."
So instead of giving them notes, he gives himself the notes and lets them work off him. It's a really cool way to look at things.
That's really fascinating.
It's stuff like this that makes me love film festivals so much. You get to hear these stories that you normally wouldn't.
Clint is so chill he often doesn't even call "action", he just waits and goes "alright go ahead".
âAct⊠if you want. <3â
Well that worked well on Unforgiven and a few others, but he certainly has some movies where it turned out pretty poorly.
he also has made some craaaaaapppy movies because of that
It also got us "Here's doddering old Eastwood with two Cartel prostitutes." I think when he's acting in the movie, it has a way higher chance to be jerking himself off.
Look up how horribly he treated his former personal and professional partner Sandra Locke, Eastwood is not a nice guy.
*theyâre
Thank you for your service.
Also got that masterpiece scene of Bradley copper holding a fake baby in American sniper from that
Definitely on track to be a hundred year old Oscar winner,and it sounds like avoiding stress and bullshit might be his secret!
John Ford was known for only doing one or two takes per shot, too
There a anecdote about it from Matt Damon from his Cannes 2021 masterclass. He want to do a another take on the set of "Hereafter" and ask Clint Eastwood for it: Eastwood watch him disconcerted and tell him: "Do you want to waste everybody goddamn time ?"
Yeaaaaah but not all of his movies are masterpieces. Most of them are dog shit and poorly acted/written. But the ones that hit, hit hard, like Unforgiven.
Micromanagers look competent to those above them despite their negative impact on productivity so I suspect it's a perception thing.
Yea, Iâm sure studio execs looooved working with KubrickâŠ
C22
[deleted]
Same logic for people that think all great music comes from drugs.
Not all, but a lot.
Edit: Well, I'm clearly neither witty nor funny.
The thing is, it taking drugs is quite common in artistic circle. So having a artist be a drug user is almost just the statistical average. There is on the other hand little to no evidence that drugs have any impact on the quality or the quantity of the work. This doesn't mean that it doesn't impact it, but we have almost no scientific evidence to prove it.
Honestly thereâs little scientific evidence because thereâs been little legitimate studies. We are only now getting around to really testing the effects of many of these psychedelics and such on different things now because it was illegal/taboo for the longest time.
There has been some studies granted but there could be ohh so many more.
We flat out donât have a full understanding of the effects of some of these drugs. No one can say anything with any certainty yet because frankly there just isnât enough well peer reviewed studies
And with the artistic community as a whole. Is it that artistic people are more likely to do mind altering drugs or is that people that would do mind altering drugs are more likely to be artistic?
Hard to say with some hard and in-depth studies on these things which as I mentioned above havenât been very widespread (yet).
I absolutely agree with you.
If I had to give it a guess, id probably say artists are more likely to do drugs rather than vice versa. While there also hasn't been a boatload of studies done on it, I believe there's been some noticed correlation between people with higher intelligence being more likely to indulge in drug use as well. That connection also isn't fully understood but it appears to be a thing for whatever reason.
Maybe artistically minded people fall into the same category? Their brains work differently than non-artistic or less creative people and as such, find themselves more likely to indulge in unique or novel experiences. Idk, im just speculating. Could be total bullshit for all I know. Im just thinking that there has to be some reason artists use drugs more than non artists.
My personal anecdote is that drugs hide your true personality and mind (with moderate to heavy use), unless you're on them. So if you're a heavy user you would need them to create, and wouldn't need them if you aren't.
Again this is my own personal experience but it feels pretty accurate from the research I've looked at.
I really doubt that you can use the scientific method to measure artistic quality.
The misconception is that drugs make people more creative.
What is likely is that the drug affects the style of music. New drug, new style of music, new trend.
The Beatles are a good example of that.
Cocaine 80s are my favourite.
EDIT:
The Beatles credit smoking marijuana with boosting their writing, while some suggest Pablo Picasso's artwork was inspired by weed.
'The Journal of Beatles Studies', published by Liverpool University Press, is the first journal to establish The Beatles as an object of scholarly research.
A recent study on the affects of Marijuana on creativity.
Heng, Y. T., Barnes, C. M., & Yam, K. C. (2022).
Cannabis use does not increase actual creativity but biases evaluations of creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fapl0000599
Also, cause and effect isnât clear. People who are open to new experiences might be inherently more creative. And they also may be more likely to use drugs, but that doesnât mean the drugs contributed to the creativity. It could be that the same personality factors that make drug use more likely make creativity more likely.
Choosing a career in music is impulsive and not a wise decision.
The kind of person that does that (me) likely used drugs (not me, but have tried when offered, so me?).
Hilarious I got downvoted like entire decades and genres of music aren't directly influenced by the drug of that time.
e.g. selling crack & the (not even taking) communities affected by crack.
Contemporary Rap has been influenced by "Lean' Promethazine, Cough Syrup and Alcohol.
Promethazine is prescribed for Sleep issues and makes the user drowsy. The music made whilst under the influence of "Lean" is slow, filled with reverb, depressive lyrics and dirge style chord progressions, and slow arpeggiated melodic percussion instruments deep into the mix that drag.
The lyrics often mention depression and themes of mental health, which someone whom has a prescription for Promethazine would be familiar with.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence and has nothing to do with the drugs though.
Edit:A recent study.
Heng, Y. T., Barnes, C. M., & Yam, K. C. (2022).
Cannabis use does not increase actual creativity but biases evaluations of creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding? doi=10.1037%2Fapl0000599
Drugs influencing the style of music doesn't negate the idea that drugs help with creativity. If anything, it's the opposite? The Beatles' use of psychedelics certainly influenced the style of their music, and that music then became beloved by millions of people worldwide who aren't interested in psychedelics.
You also outright say it's a "misconception" that drugs make people more creative, when there's isn't enough evidence to support that, and there is scientific evidence to suggest that drugs like psychedelics can change people's mental processes in a way that positively influences their creativity.
The Beatles credit smoking marijuana with boosting their writing, while some suggest Pablo Picasso's artwork was inspired by weed.
'The Journal of Beatles Studies', published by Liverpool University Press, is the first journal to establish The Beatles as an object of scholarly research.
The scientific literature on marijuana and creativity is mixed, and is effected by different factors like dose, strain, set and setting, and the individual that takes it.
There's also evidence that psychedelics can have a positive impact on creativity.
And again, your point about drugs influencing the style of music supports the idea that drugs influences creativity. The artistic process is complex and there's no universally agreed upon solid measure of creativity in the arts. There's also no objective measure of "good" and "bad" art. I think the fact that drugs can have various different strong effects on cognitive processes is a good sign that they do influence artistic creativity, and in some cases that can lead to significant artistic success. It's obviously not as simple as "take any drug, make better art" though.
I followed your MIC.com links, and found one without a 404 error.
It's from 2017, and the Mic.com article is from 2020.
So the opinion is based on 'data" before this current study. I can't find a link to any of the "data".
Even the expert says that it doesn't make creative people more creative. My assumption is that professional musicians would be classed as creative. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053810017303744?via%3Dihub
People like Hunter S. Thompson, Bukowski and Miles Davisâ drug use was so heavy, how can you separate the two?
Jack White, at least from what I heard him say in the past, has never been into drugs or alcohol.
Then you have someone like George Carlin who used marijuana as âperformance enhancing drugâ, very sparingly. Heâd write his material then get high and âpunch it upâ, but he said it was like 1 toke and not regular at all, a few times a year iirc.
People are so different Iâm not sure there is a definitive answer. Some people take certain drugs and create great works under the influence, others do it totally clean and then thereâs a lot of in between.
Iâm not even really sure how youâd study this. It is near impossible to contemporarily judge the real value of a piece of music or art. What it influences is so important to its value and that takes time.
Sober by Tool, I think, is one of the most compelling arguments against drugs being a muse and I think the logic there makes a lot of sense.
I will find a center in you
I will chew it up and leave
I will work to elevate you
Just enough to bring you down
âŠbut that is one perspective from a great group of musicians speaking to a friend and from their personal experience. Even this view, that the drugs are ultimately a destructive force that will limit your ceiling and lower your floor, probably comes from the perspective of someone who had deep issues with substance abuse and is not applicable to everyone.
Itâs complicated I guess.
Dunno why youâre being downvoted so much. Without psychedelic drug use in the 60âs we never would have had psychedelic rock, Woodstock, the whole counter-culture movement. The drugs most definitely fueled the music and culture of that time.
The people downvoting you have never heard of Bill Hicks.
The famous muscian Bill Hicks?
He did a bit on that topic
The famous comedian Bill Hicks.
Itâs true! See: the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Fleetwood Mac, Nirvana, Amy Winehouse⊠the list just goes on and on and on and on
Yeah I refuse to believe Wagner wasn't furiously doing lines of coke while working on compositions
Ja, okay
snoooooorrrt
On second thought ich do want neun French horn after all, ja. Ja ja ja ja ja. Sehr gut sehr gut sehr gut
Elmo.
Drugs made all their music get worse
Definitely agree for the most part. I think thereâs also something to be said as far as coherence to a solid and competent artistic vision as well.
99/100 it probably makes everything worse. But if youâve got a strong vision or method and you treat the human elements of your art as parts to be whipped into compliance I could see how being an abusive dickhead of a director can make a better film if you donât make important human elements quit completely.
The more important detail of that being, as someone that loves movies, itâs still completely unacceptable.
An abusive director might make a great film but Iâd call him a bad director in that overall sense because one major skill set should be your ability to manage people and be a good boss in general.
No one likes their boss all of the time, generally, thatâs part of needing to direct and critique people whose paycheck you have some control over by keeping them on.
But thereâs a big difference between âmy boss really insists Iâm not doing my job right but I think I am, god damnit weâll do it again I guessâ and being slapped or thrown down stairs repeatedly for a better shot.
[deleted]
I feel like you didnât understand my comment properly because we agree. Sorry if I didnât communicate effectively.
I feel like you don't understand the word "acting".
If they can't act then they shouldn't be on set.
Physical harm is unnecessary, that's what stunts, angles, SFX and editing are for.
Psychological harm is also unnecessary, act.
[deleted]
Jfc go read the fourth and fifth paragraphs again
In the same vein, i despised The Shining. Something was really off with Shelley Duvall, and made the movie unwatchable. Years later i learned of all the things she had to endure, and everything just made sense.
Thing is, that person's comment doesn't really apply to Kubrick at all.
From "Lolita" onwards all of his films are widely praised and met with critical acclaim. He was a very shitty man but made amazing films.
It's the age old debate of "can we separate the art from the artist?" (There's no clear answer)
Ah yes, the Kevin Spacey effect.
Comparing Kubrick to Spacey's level of "separating art from the artist" is a joke
It was only meant to be ascribed to the last line, not about Kubrick; can we separate the art from the artist?
It depends on the art, the artist, and the viewer
His treatment of Shelly Duvall aside, Kubrick seemed to have been liked by most of his cast and crew.
I don't know who told you that but Kubrick was notorious for being a difficult director to work with.
Yeah, Harvey Keitel famously had enough of his shit and quit after being asked to do nearly a hundred takes on a really basic scene in Eyes Wide Shut. He was supposed to be the doctor character.
My opinion is the exact opposite. Shellyâs oddness adds so much to the tone of the movie.
âOddnessâ = Emotional trauma irl
Well not all of her scenes are influenced by emotional trauma
Itâs not her oddness u/GuilleX was talking about. Itâs the fact that Kubrick essentially tortured that performance out of her and it showed.
This is too true. No matter how hard anyone tries to tell the person above them that the micromanagement is killing the team, it still persists.
I'm a new manager in my current workplace and I have gotten multiple feedback points from my team about how they like that I trust them to do their job stepping in only when politics/deadline shifts occur.
It comes from hating being micromanaged myself and I think it might help me progress in my career a decent bit.
It will and it won't. There will be times where you must micromanage whether you like it or not. Like when your bosses boss demands it.
Just remember to turn it off when you can. Its an easy rabbit hole to go down.
All the wrong people are going to like your management style though. From a good boss and coworker standpoint you will be liked by the employees you oversee and they will think youâre an effective manager.
Your boss is going to think you donât do enough and that youâre not engaging with your workers enough.
I'm not saying that I am completely hands off and I am doing some management training through my current company to shore up gaps in my style.
I do engage with my reports weekly as a team and bi-weekly individually as well as on an as needed basis. If they need me, they tell me and we discuss action items.
I keep my schedule open as much as I can to support my team while also getting my hands dirty when the time comes. My boss is about teamwork and collaboration and I am as well.
I am not wholly new to the idea of managing reports, but I am a strong believer in self directed work and owning projects. I appreciate the insight though.
Trusted employees are more productive and are lwss likely to quit. Your managers will likely see that too. Keep doing what you're doing. If your employees require hand holding, why did you hire them in the first place? Sounds like you get it. The best and most successful managers I've seen were hands off unless needed or unless training. These managers all had 15+ yrs in their roles and were highly regarded within the companies the operated. My new, micromanaging managers have been the ones stretched thin, with high turnover and less productivity on their teams. This leads to their managers breathing down their necks more and them carrying too much of the functional load of the team rather than focusing on managerial support tasks.
Micromanagers look competent to those above them despite their negative impact on productivity so I suspect it's a perception thing.
You know my director?
I might frame this piece of wisdom.
[deleted]
Yeah but we are talking about it in the context of being an asshole director means things like throwing your actor down stairs repeatedly and literally abusing your cast and whatnot
Sounds more like a survivorship bias thing to me. We don't hear of the terrible movies of control freak directors.
We do know of the many many amazing movies that don't have people on the helm that treat their crew like shit. Take someone like James Cameron. While he can be hard on his actors, it's not in a demeaning way. He expects a lot of commitment from everybody, including himself.
No it doesnât. A lot of shitty directors (or insert any profession) people are like that as well. The successful ones just stand out more. Being a colossal dickhead is just one of those things that some people find to be a more effective way to get what they want from people working beneath them. Really no different than people who find being rude to waitstaff or demanding to speak to managers at retail stores an effective way to get what they want.
I find wait staff treatment an incredibly efficient way to tell who's a shit piece. You're measured by how you act when you don't have to.
I often wonder the same. Many of the "legendary" directors were also huge pricks. Sometimes I can understand that it's the whole shtick of being "uncompromising in creating art" or whatever, but sometimes I wonder if they weren't just satisfying some sadistic urges.
Many of the "legendary" directors were also huge pricks.
Many of the shitty directors were also huge pricks. This is confirmation bias, in the sense that we see movies that did well, see how their directors are pricks and assume "it's what it takes to make a great movie" but hundreds of shitty movies are made by pricks every years and nobody is batting an eye.
It's not crazy to think that a directorial position, where the director has power over a lot of people to make something that they perceive as very important, will bring out the dick in them (figuratively AND literally in some case).
Also many amazing films are made by wonderful, kind directors, but that doesn't quite make for good clickbait
Yeah I don't think I've ever heard anything particularly negative about Spielberg, Carpenter, or Ridley Scott.
[deleted]
Dude's been doing it for decades and every clip of him I see on set he still just seems super excited even after all these years lol
There is a video of him directing Drew Barrymore on the set of E.T. during a emotional scene. It's great and calm
I love Scott but he was a tyrant on the set of Blade Runner to the point where Ford and the crew started wearing shirts that said âI SURVIVED BLADE RUNNER.â
In spite of that BR remains one of my all time favorite films and I consider âMâ by Fritz Lang to be what I think is the best Film ever made.
I struggle to reconcile those two ideas myself (them being, the greatness of the films superimposed with the toll it took to make them.)
Ope, didn't realize that. That's shitty to learn.
There was a lot going on there, Scottâs brother died recently at that time and he was going over budget and the studio was giving him tons of pressure. Also the movie itself was a VERY difficult shoot with script changes happening often and the initial test screenings going very poorly. Sounded like a terrible experience all around.
Donât take this personally: Your comment is a great example of another thing that is wrong with our perception of celebrities. The alternative to a "narcissist" is a "wonderful, kind" person. Most people and probably most directors are neither.
I think they were just giving an example of the opposite end of the spectrum to illustrate a point, not explicitly classifying everyone to one or the other.
I think you're right, and not just with celebrity worship. But I'm not sure this is a great example of your point.
Also when making a movie the director wants their vision, TONS of money is on the line, while filming the work hours are insane, and their is a big time crunch.
Oh yes. Like my father, the southern Baptist minister and narcissist.
And some are just passable human beings.
My point was just: making a GREAT movie doesn't require being an asshole, and being an asshole doesn't make greater movies. It's just a trait often found in the industry and shouldn't be linked to the quality of the movie.
we see this and assume
Speak for yourself
It's "we" in a general sense, I'm not including every single humans in this, and no particular one either.
It's a way to easily mention people who defend directors like Stanley Kubrick, Michael Bay, Alfred Hitchcock, [etc], by saying "anything for the good of the movie". Of course I'm not expecting 100% of the population to really think that you need to abuse your actors to get a great performance out of them. But a large part do think it will contribute to the quality of a movie so I used "we" as a general pronoun.
This is also the stereotype for famous chefs.
My personal uninformed opinion is that they're underqualified people trying to achieve a personal goal, with very high personal stakes, that relies on the competence of others. Being a movie director isn't just being an artist, you're also a boss responsible for managing employees and that is an entirely different skills set than getting the right image in frame. It's more than just actors, it's lighting, costuming, set design, stunt coordination, safety crews etc.
It's like being Picasso without arms. You have to make other people paint your picture somehow if you want it to come into existence.
But Picasso was a misogynist prick too...
I blame him for the unrealistic body standards in media today
And then there was Twiggy
He really was.
I guess, in comparison to similiar power positions, being a director has this unique kind to it, like being a puppeteer. Probably addicting.
I have always been wondering what kind of person wants to direct. There certainly are many aspects that will bring out- or attract - the Sadistic personalities. And with that I donât mean whips and chains, but somebody who thrives on the power to control another human being.
I mean, it's probably the same type of person who likes being the DM of a D&D group. Speaking from experience, I have a story I want to introduce to my friends and I want them to experience it in a certain manner.
If you love movies and you want to tell a story through that medium, there's really only one way to do that, be a director.
It's less about controlling people and more about controlling how the story is told, at least for most people anyway.
That tracks. There are many wonderful DMs/GMs, but there are also a hell of a lot of assholes who assume it's their right to control everything about a game and the players are there to either be puppeted or tormented for a "good" game.
Like any other guy yearning to become a boss. In any other profession.
I know itâs more about the idea of a metaphorical puppeteer pulling actual living peopleâs strings but I find the concept of a power mad literal puppeteer being an uncompromising megalomaniac with his marionettes pretty hilarious.
Being John Malkovich (1999)
Cusack wasnât what Iâd call particularly intimidating though
He's an asshole
Definitely. Wouldnât call him particularly domineering and megalomaniacal though.
I love and work In film in Chicago where he's based. I would say otherwise.
Malkovich? Malkovich Malkovich.
Many are also nice.
Kubrick put a snake in A Clockwork Orange only because he found out Malcolm McDowell was terrified of them. That always struck me as so bizarrely petty and cruel.
One of my favorite bits of trivia is that John Boorman cast both Helen Mirren and Nicol Williamson in "Excalibur" because he knew they hated each other and felt this would translate well since their respective characters hate each other as well.
No doubt about sadism.
People pretend that "of course you need to be perfectionist to make something good", pretend it's for some greater good, but forget that the yearn to make the perfect movie is still inherently a personal selfish wish.
That's why I hate all this Reddit circlejerk about Gordon Ramsay. Who are we all kidding? He's "just" a chef. He's not trying to save a patient in the kitchen.
All that asshole behavior just to get a star so he can sleep better at night.
Don't come with that "it's just for show, in the UK version he's nicer" lame ass excuse. He made it a point to look that way.
And in the UK version, there were still parts where he shouts for no reason. .
You don't have to be an asshole to be a great chef, why do we normalize this behavior?
Tippi Hedren had the audacity to spurn the advances of Alfred Hitchcock. She was sexually assaulted before it was even a term.
[deleted]
this kind of accident was not avoidable.
I mean, they probably could have avoided it by not making the movie...
Holy shit 70+ people injured and some of them were attacked multiple times? It's shocking to me that no one was killed. What a fantastically bad idea of a movie.
I remember a phrase describing the movie like, "Absolutely no animals were harmed in the making of this movie. 75 cast and crew members were."
Directors have a saying: "Actors are worthless, empty headed homuculi' but the right one in the right role can change the world."
You crying? You cry when I tell you to cry. So reabsorb that disgusting droplet of salt and bad choices back into your doughy body. And then call your mother to see if you can be reabsorbed back into her doughy body or so help me God, I will take that tear, I will freeze it, and I will stab you in the eye with it, you waste of a soul-shaped hole forgotten by God.
Is this a reference to something Iâm not getting?
The show community
Ah, ok thank you
Pappa?
Streets ahead!
Honestly that whole role was so hilarious I kind of forgot it was a parody of over-controlling directors
Stop arousing me.
Chang?
Hitchcock said it during his period in England (or maybe at the beginning of his american period). But when you read Hitchcock/Truffaut you see that he change his mind throught the years
Iâm just trying to fucking help you, you understand me? Iâm just being a fucking collaborator! Iâm trying to help you figure out the fucking picture, okay, bitch? Iâm not here to be fucking yelled at! I havenât been working on this thing for three fucking years to have some fucking cunt yell at me in front of the crew! Iâm trying to help you, bitch!
Some artists have a very, very narrow vision of what they want their art to be. A lot of times this manifests into âcontrol freaksâ like Prince who didnât release lots the things he created because they didnât fit his vision.
Sometimes you get literal psychos like this who throw people down the stairs 12 times for âperfectionâ.
Hereâs a Rick and Morty video that kind of explores the topic.
Hereâs a Rick and Morty video that kind of explores the topic.
How do people not find this shit super annoying?
The people that actually had to do the work (not Dan or Justin) were super fuckin annoyed and I assume that was the last time they tried that shit.
Pretty much this. Filmmaking is very collaborative, but itâs still supposed to be the directors vision and they get the credit or blame for it so it develops a controlling behavior.
When really itâs the editorâs world and weâre all just living in it đ
The editor: oh thatâs a nice movie you made, it will love my scissors cutting it up
Good point, but that seems like a terrible video on the topic. Justin drank during filming one time?
Itâs about Dan forcing two of his subordinates to listen to Justin get drunk and talk about killing himself and generally act like a big ass hole for âartâ. And then, later, heâs a douche about it directly addressing the subordinates on camera.
Say whatever you want about this event but thatâs a work place and thatâs unprofessional.
Well, ok, but I'm still not getting the connection. Or not a very good one.
How many times have people shown up to your job and gotten drunk because it âmakes them betterâ?
Itâs not ok to get drunk at work. Your coworkers have the right to a drug free work environment. Iâd hope they were given the option.
wow they're so quirky
There is a great YouTube vid on the subject (specifically movie directors) titled âDICKS: Do you need to be one to be a successful leader?â.
Not sure I can link it here so I wonât
Why are so many great directors such colossal dickheads?
This is true of many successful people, and not just in the film industry.
âGreatness and madness are next door neighbours; and they borrow each otherâs sugar. You donât get there without the other.â
Maybe those are the ones that are willing to do whatever it takes for the sake of art or whatever. Treating their actors like simply art materials they can use to make their perfect composition, and not treating them as humans with boundaries to respect.
[removed]
This is a copy-paste comment bot.
https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/101zvgz/comment/j2r5wev/
Personally I think it's their willingness to destroy business relationships, peer respect, and literally anything to get to the final product which is identical to their vision. No compromise. A normal person would see the strain on their cast and crew abd empathy would kick in to make them compromise on a result. But someone like Hitchcock or Kubrick would take much longer to get to that point.
They would never reach that point. If the humans they have in place aren't capable for any reason, they can be replaced by other humans. They would never ever compromise what they want for the well-being of anyone else.
Well, we're discussing the examples of directors breaking their actors. Physically and mentally. Of which there are many examples in great films, so it definitely does reach that point.
Greatness and goodness are too often antonyms
Francis Ford Coppola talked once about how being a director is one of the only roles/positions left in Western society that is openly dictatorial. Throw in some auteur sensibilities and you got a recipe for that kinda shit.
I think thatâs across all artistic ventures. Chefs, musicians, dancers, etc.
Because theyâre narcissists and donât view other people as humans but extensions or tools for their own designs
There is a culture in the film industry where the director is god it creates a lot of toxic work environments and general incompetence , source I work in the film industry.
Edit: the best directors in my opinion are the ones who have a family, so you know they arenât going to waste time and they are eager to get the day done so they can get everyone home to their family.
The worst are the ones married to the industry, long wasteful days, tedious bullshit, constant changes on the fly.
I think itâs more that they became control freak assholes because they were so good at what they did.
Hitchcock wasnât though, dude rarely even came on set lol. Just did storyboards so detailed it was impossible to fuck up
Eastwood was a nice guy, one take type.
Looking at modern directors: Tarantinoâs a dick, Wes Anderson seems awfully nice, no complaints from Nolan, Spielberg Iâve not heard outstandingly bad stuff about - at least not to my memory
I mean, Spielberg is apparently the nicest guy according to most that worked with him so it's not necessary to be a dick in order to be legendary.
Why are so many great directors such colossal dickheads?
The word you're looking for is "abuser".
More like these people are extremely talented to begin with and they begin to trust their own instincts and abilities to a point where they know the "correct" way to do something and they refuse to compromise their vision. And why should they, because they are genius. And this is the most important scene in the film. It must be done correctly.
The success overwhelms you and maybe sometimes you fail to realize your commitment to doing stuff your way might be to the anguish of another. Maybe there is a little fear baked into it too. People are used to seeing you perform to a certain standard so you do what it takes to meet that standard. And expect others to suffer the same way.
Being cruel to others (see Hitchcock) or a rapist (see Weinstein) should never be excused, no matter the outcome. We could really have done without The Birds of it meant an actor was able to continue working after and didn't suffer PTSD.
The world would be just fine without some products, services, and works of art that were pushed through by sociopaths. This whole tortured genius (see Musk) bullshit needs to end. We really, really don't need them.
Iâve even felt that it can detract from a performance. I know Shelly Duvallâs performance in The Shinning is iconic, but the scenes where it was known she was intentionally exhausted between takes (like when she confronts Jack in the main hall with the baseball bat, Kubrick infamously made her retake that scene 127 times) just read very oddly. Between takes sheâs suddenly acting like she has run 4 marathons when she hasnât done anything physically extraneous at that point in the film. You can say its just her wracked with fear but it just seems completely off to me. She acts like sheâs drugged.
The thing is, we don't have the alternative of these 'iconic' scenes done in a humane way. We'll never know if Shelley Duval would have been able to give us something amazing without the abuse.
J/K, of course we know. Duval is one of the greatest actors of our time, she absolutely could have done something mind blowing without being treated the way she was.
The circlejerk around legendary directors is bullshit. Needs to stop.
Reminds me of the movie Whiplash. So many people see the abusive mentor as a hero and a necessary component for the protagonist to become a great drummer, but what actually happened was that the protagonist gave up on his dream. It was mere coincidence that he ran into Fletcher again and did his solo.
It's ironic that Fletcher criticises the "good job" mentality and when Neiman asks "what if you discourage someone to the point that they abandon their dreams?" and Fletcher answers something like "the next master wouldn't let himself be discouraged". Why would positive reinforcement, love and respect stop a master but abuse that leads to self harm help?
Wasn't defending, just mimicking/writing from their point of view. Also, Weinstein isn't in this category.
I know it's easy to call out abusive people, but at this point, if you're going to make these morality-driven arguments, we might as well refer to all of Hollywood as a cesspool that society is better off without... The Tippie Hedren thing could be completely avoided, if she simply said "no, fuck you, Mr. Hitchcock, I'll go get my degree instead".
I'm not excusing his actions (and I'm not trying to victim blame), but the fact that she chose to sacrifice her well-being for a shot at cinematic fame tells you a lot about the personal values of the people who seek stardom (which is only perpetuated by society's fascination and glorification of the entire industry).
I would wager that 90% of people in Hollywood (actors, directors, aspiring starlets) are out of their minds... not Dahmer level, but they are so out of touch with reality that it makes it impossible to sympathize with any of them. Even Ryan Gosling had an interview where he said everyone there is "interesting" because they all throw their lives away for a 0.001% chance of infinite fame, glory, and money. Gosling was pretty charitable with that assessment because I would replace "interesting" with "back shit insane".
The industry isn't just the famous faces you see, it's the thousands of cast and crew who are working on their craft just like anyone in any industry. It is absolutely victim-blaming to say that Hedrin was some kind of glory-hunting sociopath with a twisted moral compass. We have glorified celebrity and excuse its excesses. But there are hundreds of films made every year by people who don't abuse those around them.
"I'm not trying to victim blame"
*Proceeds to victim blame very hard
The term is "bat shit" and you sound like a victim blamer.
I would wager that 90% of people in Hollywood (actors, directors, aspiring starlets) are out of their minds... not Dahmer level, but they are so out of touch with reality that it makes it impossible to sympathize with any of them.
I really think you need to consider the implications of how casually and baselessly you are dehumanizing a large number of people you don't know. It doesn't really have a huge effect here, but this type of logic is the exact thing that has justified atrocities time immemorial.
This is textbook victim blaming
I'm wondering if this has to do with technology. I'm imagining that, while you can do seemingly infinite takes now on digital film, the art of editing has increased exponentially. The lighting does not have to be perfect and scenes can be hodgepodged together if needed for a more "perfect" take.
That isn't to takeaway from the craft of directing. I'm thinking that 50 years ago directors were rewarded for being cruel and incessant. Whereas now, it makes a little less sense given CGI, editing, etc.
We have to differentiate dickheads, over demanding.
What is described above is just a completely asshole and abusive person. But there are directors that have fame of being harsh, rude, or too demanding, but that's because they want to take the emotions out of the actors, not just the average performance mode the usually use. And a foreign person making you release some feelings or getting out of some confort zones, is not an easy thing to swallow.
Itâs because direction is like generalship. It relies upon a willingness to coordinate and use people as a means to an end.
Ii think it might just come down to getting result. A shitty director who's a dick will likely get called out, a great director wouldn't. Like the old thing about ugly people having better personalities.
Artists have a certain "need to have their way" style of control. It's the same with Actors, musicians, etc.
Chances are their films would've been exactly the same without abusive behaviour, but the entitlement brings it along with.
Because you only hear about the dickheads. A lot of bad directors are assholes too. Same thing with nice people and everyone in between.
Kubrick, for example, was an extreme human being, but not an asshole. Even Lars con trier is said to be a troubled genius, but not a dickhead
Them not caring about actors (and production team) gives them more creative freedom. They can realise ideas that would have otherwise been not possible. You know like saudis or chinese building crazy projects
Kind of, yeah. In a way. Thereâs a a lot keep straight when shooting a film and if youâre a good director you know when youâre getting something thatâs not the right âvibeâ in a take.
Although itâs possible to be a control freak and not an asshole too.
Aside from some things people pointed out about the art aspect and the idea that bad directors can be pricks too, some of it is MASSIVE stress. Let's put it this way, you're in charge of millions of dollars and hundreds of people and if it goes badly you may never be given another opportunity again. I have a friend that spent over $100k making an indie movie and there were periods where he looked like death just trying to organize this smaller scale film.
Method Directing.
I have forgotten much of what I once knew about director's and Kubrick specifically. But Kubrick made the best movies anyone ever has, in my opinion.
Whether it was necessary to be a fuckhead to your actors to achieve this? Whole other question.
The only example I can think of now is Elem Klimov's Come and See.
It seems to me that you couldn't have gotten as perfect a performance from that main character kid without the trauma he endured to get to that point.
But that simply moves the question to a new space: Is art enjoyed by/used for catharsis and discovery by millions of people worth potentially forever traumatizing a single indivudual?
I dunno.... probably not!?
Reminds me of how george c scott was forced to play the general role way over the top by Kubrick.
For Dr. Strangelove⊠where he was playing the general that went insane⊠and started W.W.3âŠ
I canât imagine what he was thinking. /s
George c scott didn't play the role of the insane general.
Personally i do believe you have to be somewhat crazy and give zero shit about other people if you want to be a great artist of any kind, compromise doesn't result in great enduring art. I would hate to be that kind of person and would not touch them with a 10 feet pole, but i can admire them from afar
There's uncompromising and then there's Tarantino putting Uma Thurman into an unsafe vehicle against the stunt coordinator's recommendation and causing permanent injury.
Psychology experiments used to have a disturbing lack of ethics (Milgram, Zimbardo) but we now recognise not only that the experiments were bad for the participants, but that they may not have even told us what we thought they did.
We improve our ethical standards over time on so many things. The arts should be no different.
Same goes for psychological "experiments" on animals. Unethical, cruel, and ultimately pointless. (Except for the experimenters getting wads of grant money to live off of.)
Yeah and i know i'll get downvoted for this, but if an artists wants to create something and couldnt fulfill their vision because of moral, ethical, or legal grounds, the resulting product is not art, just a sanitized product
.... what
you do realize by saying that you're basically advocating for things like child porn, right?
You hear "art without restrictions" and first thing that comes to your mind is "child porn"? Brah i dont want to find out what kind of "art" you're into
No, I read "if an artists wants to create something and couldnt fulfill their vision because of moral, ethical, or legal grounds, the resulting product is not art, just a sanitized product" which is an absolutely bonkers statement.
Yeah, artists, and I dont consider child porn-makers to be artists
I'm not going to continue this conversation, but re-read what you said.
You're saying art ought not need to abide by laws and ethics. So you're saying torturing and/or murdering actors is okay, or harming animals is all good in the name of artistic expression, and far more.
I vehemently disagree, and I say this as someone who previously had a career as an artist.
Emphasis on the "previously"
I still create art, albeit on an amateur basis, and cruelty to living things is most definitely not art.
I agree with you, well put.
You're down voted but there are many examples of this. Michael Jordan is known to be a colossal asshole, but his skills on the court are second to none.
Just look at Whiplash and you'll get the answer
J. K. Simmons is the villain of that movie.
People with vision are often frustrated with lack of buy-in by staff. Imagine you are trying to create a great piece of art, but the crew view it as just another job, and if they have to do more work on one job than another, they aren't getting paid more to work any harder.
You also have assholes, and the confusion between people who scream at you to get better results with poor communication and people who scream at you because they can isn't a nuance most people give a shit about at the end of the day.
Can you source these claims? I canât find a single German primary source for any of this.
Edit; I found a volume, âDas Dokument des Grauensâ that (also unsourced) chronicles this incident, and it only ever mentions tensions between Lorre and Lang, who did not see eye to eye, escalating to Lorre trying to get out of his contract and then vowing to never work with Lang again. No mention is made of stunt work, it seemed to have been mostly about work ethics and Lorreâs other theatre commitments.
I think I know why this movie had an accurate portrayal of a psychopath
(Spoiler) It always seemed a little contradictory to me, that the killer is writing taunting letters to the police bragging about his crimes and threatening more killings, but later claims to have no memory of committing the crimes and no control over his actions, which he's shocked and horrified to read about after the fact.
Arguably, that makes it even more realistic, if you watch the movie from the perspective that Peter Lorre's character is lying when confronted. But either way, he's shown to be a relatively 'normal', harmless looking guy (even though the police concentrate their search among the city's criminal underworld, despite telling the public that the killer would seem exactly that way - normal, respectable, trustworthy enough to lure kids) which was a big deal for the time. Great movie overall.
It's like what Coppola did to Martin Sheen in the opening of Apocalypse Now maybe? A cruel environment, bringing out greatness. I didn't know Lang was mistreating Lorre but it definitely jives with the haunted quality of the latter's extraordinary monologue.
[deleted]
Yes. But I didn't say Coppola forced Sheen to do anything (And, incidentally, you don't have to force someone to do something in order to exploit them) From the sounds of it though, most of the people involved in the movie were a mess at the time.
[deleted]
I don't think it's a question of Lorre being made into a better actor but rather the environment bringing something out. Compare this to what the jungle did to Herzog during the shooting of Fitzcarraldo.
There are also rumors that Lang killed his first wife.
It was Peter Lorre who was thrown down the stairs, and he was forced to be chucked down the stairs over a dozen times before Lang was happy with the take. Twenty years later Lang asked Lorre to work with him again and Lorre refused.
Today that would have resulted in an expensive lawsuit and quite possibly doomed the production.
That's why the Screen Actors Guild was formed. Actors were often mistreated. Boris Karloff one of the founding members supposedly injured his back after James Whale forced him to run up a hill carrying Colin Clive during the filming of Frankenstein.
The story is mentioned in Boris Karloff: The Man Behind the Monster.
If you can watch on tubi or shudder or have some other means you can see the story at around 19:00 to 20:30.
If a director needs to resort to these methods to make a decent movie, they aren't a very good director. The best directors make excellent movies that actors want to be in for the experience alone.
Bullshit. He made two of the greatest movies of all time. Stop pearlclutching.
And? A better director could have done the same without torturing the actors and crew. If your boss tossed you down some stairs to make you better at delivering pizzas, I don't think you'd say someone calling them an asshole was clutching their pearls.
A better director could have done the same without torturing the actors and crew
Well, they didn't. Him being an asshole doesn't make him bad at his job, what completely asinine logic.
Again, he is the boss. The manager of the film set. An abusive boss is bad at their job, regardless of how good their results are. Being a director isn't just about making good movies, no matter what pretentious film bros try to say. Being someone that people don't want to work with makes you a worse director. Making movies that don't return a profit is also a flaw (though the producers often have a hand in that as well). These are both part of the job, unrelated to the actual quality of a film.
[removed]
Who uses retarded as an insult anymore? Are you from 2012 wtf?
Being a great artist is about producing great art. You could certainly argue that he's a great artist. Being a director is a job. And being good at that job is only partly about being a good artist. The other aspects are also important.
If we're going by the quality of the movies exclusively, do we include all of the "okay" movies he made or do we only discuss the good ones? Sure, he made M and Metropolis, but he also made quite a few meh movies as well. Maybe his later movies could have been improved if he were able to get better actors to want to work with him. Maybe he just got lucky with those two big hits. Who knows?
So did the actors. And writers. He didn't create art alone.
Twenty years later Lang asked Lorre to work with him again and Lorre refused.
As he should.
Thanks for giving me all the reason I need to not watch this movie.
Huston got him for The Maltese Falcon.
He had a very distinctive manner of speaking, nicht wahr?
Damn it why couldn't it have been Chuck Lorre instead.
It holds up pretty well. I saw it some years ago and I was surprised by how exciting it was. Also the topics that are talked about are still here today; privacy, police, crime. It's weird that we haven't really moved on much in that way
Probably the most well-made film I've ever seen... The composition of scenes like Lorre's shadow looming over the "Wanted" poster where the young girl was playing, the editing of the police and mafia meetings being so cleverly interleaved with one another to draw parallels between the groups, the smoothness of the transition sequences, the lively and vigorous performance of all the actors, the philosophical themes so passionately debated near the end - a splendid film in every way!
The crazy part for me is that we are four years into the talkie era and it's Lang first attempt with this new technology, yet the use of sound it's extraordinary modern. It starts with a group of children playing and singing a song about the murderer, then a clock strikes and its followed by an eerie silence indicating one child's disappearance. There's also a fabulous sequence where a man reads a poster about about the murderer's search and his voice becomes integrated with a montage of the ongoing police work. And then of course there's the whole leitmotif of In the Hall of the Mountain King. It was quite an achievement.
Also, if you haven't, check out Akira Kurosawa's High and Low, it always seemed to me like the spiritual successor of M.
the use of sound it's extraordinary modern
We perceive it as modern because of the tremendous impact it had and continues to have on film production. What we witness in M is the birth of modern sound design. Films today still use the same techniques because they have become part of the language of film for us -- when something is that effective on audiences, directors reuse the same techniques over and over again. Audiences come to expect what Lang pioneered, and they react the same way to those techniques (they just work! Who knows why). He did it so effectively in M that it seems ahead of its time when we view it today.
Similar to Casablanca being "full of clicheés" yet forming the bowl those clicheés stem from in subsequent movies.
The OG Cliche
High and Low is wonderful.
The lack of Sound in some scenes are weird from modern perspective tho
Just rewatched after many years and on the first scene w/o any Sound i checked my speakers and turning them off and on again. Maybe it is some cutted footage that was cut in way later.
The camera lingering on Inspector Lohmann's crotch is.. interesting as well.
I watched this film a few months ago and enjoyed it. One thing that stuck out to me (as someone who's rather unfamiliar with pre-WW2 films) was that the film doesn't seem to have a protagonist/lead character that the audience can latch onto.
Is that something common in old (German) films? A relic of silent movies?
The lead character is the city itself (supposed to be Berlin). That's why the title in German is "M - A City Is Searching A Murderer".
It's as much as social commentary as it is a psychological horror-thriller. The police, the criminals, the homeless, the common people, they all interact here. The search for the murderer is a way they bond, but it also expresses their relations to each other. For example, the homeless have no other choice but to help those who pay them, the commoners are struck with anger and anxiety, the police have to fight with bureaucracy and the criminals foiling their plans, and the criminals want to portray themselves as caring for the people for ulterior purposes. The movie is a commentary on public sentiment, mob justice and mass hysteria - all things that were prevalent at the time and signs for the upcoming Nazi era.
The bigger theme is mass hysteria. The public are scared, and are told by police and the media that the killer is most likely someone ordinary, who easily blends in among them. So you have friends turning on friends, neighbor accusing neighbor, random people accused of being the murderer, extreme paranoia about anyone talking to kids, hypervigilance, and even the criminal underworld are panicked, fuming about humane treatment of the mentally ill, justifying vigilantism. The killer causes a panic, which justifies unethical behavior by the police and results in 'normal' people becoming paranoid and delusional. All it takes is that spark of an external threat, fear of the 'other'.
[deleted]
What movement was it?
Probably the rise of the Social Democratic Party of Germany. They became popular in Germany but were excluded from government, and played a key role in the Germany Revolution post WW1 that changed Germany from a monarchy to a constitutional republic.
Would it also be social commentary on what the Brown Shirts were doing?
Sounds like an approach that outside of documentaries I'd only expect to see in propaganda films, tbh. You know, showing a romanticized depiction of [any political orientation, really] with everyone working together, or showing why something is dysfunctional.
edit: I'm talking about the "no leads" approach, not about the society being interconnected part.
It's not all that rare an approach as you would think and it's only really political in the sense that in this particular Film the city happened to be one recent epicenter of political and industrial revolution. Also when the entire movie is silent it's easier for people to admit a City can be a character than when there are lots of speaking characters inhabiting a protagonist (or antagonist).
More modern examples might be Taxi Driver, Lost in Translation, Blade Runner, Trainspotting, City of God...
That's not even going to movies that MENTION the City in the Title: In Bruges, Midnight in Paris, once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Fargo
I was referring to the "no real main leads" part. Most of these movies do have main leads.
Oh that's just what movies are like without a century of celebrity culture and mega-conglomerates production companies promoting fame and fortune to everyone up-and-comer they sign.
Look at other artforms than blockbuster Films and yeah, again, it's more common when there's not a financial incentive driving the mainstream to worship "stardom." The Festival driven Film industry outside the US is a good place to start.
That's not something new - withing barely a decade of silent movies existing, movie superstars were a thing.
Uh hmm... vast majority of celebrities written and talked about in media at the time were the directors, at least until the talkie era begins in the mid 20s. There are a few Vaudevillian exceptions like Buster and Charlie, but even they weren't "Superstars" until after their spotlight when they had legacies that other newcomers were building on.
You're just talking about the ones we still talk about now. There were plenty of silent movie era superstars that we've now forgotten by anyone except people who are really into films from that time period.
Uhh it isn't exactly like there's a bunch of lost knowledge my dude. We know exactly who the newspapers and radios were talking about, we know that Mass Media and international celebrity catering to a public audience are 20th century inventions.
You can't have the worlds first "superstars" before the era of celebrity stardom has even picked up steam - star is barely even a slang term for celebrity yet. Before movies and industrialized cities, mass entertainment consisted of books, dances (live local musicians of whatever quality you had), and maybe a few times a year for a holiday you would have a traveling theater type performance. Stage actors were often called "mummers" as slang for deviant trickster type scoundrels. Theaters had to be built, projectors had to be bought and set up outside of the places where they were manufactured all while electrified infrastructure is barely just spreading out from past telegraph poles until practically WW1
You're changing topics from the first decades of silent movies to stage actors before film existed.
It's the same topic because it's the same time period and same audiences! The invention of projectors didn't just spawn brand new audiences out of thin air? They had to compete with existing entertainment and convince audiences the lackof performers dialogue (spoken stage theater exists) was worth the camera effects and other benefits of film.
Have you seen the movie? The city is very much the protagonist and it is not unified. It's actually starting to unravel alarmingly to the point that the underworld gets more involved for reasons (I don't want to give too much away)
"everyone working together" is not what happens in the movie, nor does it portray at something dysfunctional in the overall movie. Sure there are dysfunctions but it is here and there in minor ways and not an ever present symptom of society. People are afraid and sensibility gives way to irrational behavior.
I'm not talking about M, and yes I have the DVD. I was giving an example of how I envision something similar would appear in propaganda films.
This film sounds fascinating, but as a modern viewer I donât think I have the attention span to watch it - the filming, acting, black and white and writing would just be too different from modern movies and TV.
This is exactly why the film is so great. The protagonist is the city as Purrppassion pointed out and the rising tension is slow and deliberate. Itâs brilliant.
There was a great book called âBerlin Alexanderplatzâ that came out a few years before M that also basically made the city the protagonist and only now and then meets recurring people in their life in the city. Fascinating read.
I'm no expert, but I think that's common in older films because older films are more like filmed stage plays and an ensemble cast is very common in stage plays.
It's not necessarily common to not have an obvious lead character in silent movies, but the characters are often not as fleshed out, being overall more archetypical. I've seen a lot of silent movies and while some movies can be more about events rather than a protagonist, you also have movies focused on specific characters. From the 1910s much of Victor Sjöström's work comes to mind, like Terje Vigen (1917) and Körkarlen (1921) or The Dying Swan (1917) by Yevgeni Bauer. In the 1920s film starts to develop more of a separate language from the theater traditions it relied on before, and you start getting movies like The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) by Carl Th. Dreyer and Sunrise (1927) by F. W. Murnau (also Nosferatu and Faust), not to mention Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin among many, many others.
The "adolescence" of cinema (especially the 1920s) was also very experimental, so depending on how you look at it, you could argue that it was more common than it is today to not have clear protagonists that you followed. Dziga Vertov's work like Man With a Movie Camera (1929) is one example, or movies in the somewhat popular genre of city-symphonies like Berlin: die Sinfonie der GroĂstadt (1927), which also has Berlin as a kind of protagonist. Another example of a movie without a clear (human) protagonist could be Battleship Potemkin (1925) by Sergei Eisenstein. Then you also have really experimental stuff like dadaist films like the hilarious Ballet MĂ©canique (1924) by Fernand LĂ©ger and Dudley Murphy. All of the above are silent movies, though some of them had specific music meant to accompany them.
To me, M was the first film I saw from the early years of cinema that felt truly modern and had a structure and style of storytelling I recognized as something I'd expect from a film. There were of course elements from other movies that felt modern, like the close-ups and expressions of Joan of Arc and the presence Sjöström had in Terje Vigen, but M got the mix down. The change from silent movies to talkies played a big part as well, but there more to it than just spoken dialogue.
I'm not a film historian, but I do have a master in film and media studies. Film (and media) history was a large part of the first year of the bachelor. Perhaps someone more specialized can give more insight.
TL;DR - maybe more common during the silent movie era, but not specifically a German thing.
That's relatively common for the time, including American "Pre-Code" films. Prior to 1934, you see a lot more moral ambiguity, and a lot more crime films where the criminals are somewhat sympathetic characters just trying to survive - an especially popular sympathy during the Depression.
It was the Hayes Code that later forced the cartoony good/evil "crime doesn't pay" message, which came into effect after the decline of the "gangster film" as a big genre. Its closest replacement was "Film Noir", where you often have a flawed hero taking down the criminals - little bit similar to Inspector Lohmann in "M", getting the information by trickery and harassment rather than just ordinary investigation.
No most silent movies (at least the ones who stays in history) and german films of this period have clear protagonists. In this movie it's the city, in the others it's human characters
Tbh, Iâm tired of movies forcing in an audience surrogate.
Is this the same film that has the famous quote about Switzerland and cuckoo clocks?
if anyone wants to skip to the end or otherwise remind themselves of when Peter Lorre announced to the world that he was goddamn brilliant - here's the finale monologue.
Sadly, the translated subtitles don't do the monologue justice
[deleted]
I got the impression that Lorre's monologue was nuanced, pained, and genuine. The judge responds in a way that tells you how simply he sees it, and nothing will be learned or gained from the interaction. I think the idea is that Lorre despairs in his situation, but the judge invalidates that despair only to paint society with the despair that these monsters exist, and we choose to treat them like they are as simple as bank robbers.
Also amusing is the dichotomy of a man telling them that he must kill to gain silence from himself, only to be told that society must kill him to gain silence from itself.
You. I like you. What very deep wild insight into a very dark reality.
I think censors forced Fritz Lang to shoehorn in that scene with the judge. I don't think it was intended to be included in the original movie, but it's been a long while since I have read about it, so I could be wrong.
I wonder if Peter's performance inspired Andy Serkis's Smeagol
Damn glad someone else noticed that
In the song "year of the cat" there's a line about Peter Lorre contemplating a crime...
He play in a lot of criminal movies in his period in England and in the United States too
I would be astonished if not!
Well there's a weird niche I didn't ever expect to be interested in, 1930s German thriller movies.
Check out The Testament of Dr Mabuse, also by Fritz Lang (the last film he did before he fled Germany). It might just be even better!
It was the golden age of german cinema.
[deleted]
Organ and tablas, because of course.
Naturally.
I'm sure there were some sharps and flats about.
More like German thrillers from 1930-1933
Thatâs incredible especially for the 30s. But I hope nobody overheard me watching that because it sounds like a hitler speech
Fun fact (well, it's not really fun at all): This clip was used in Nazi propaganda (namely The Eternal Jew), like "Here the Jew Peter Lorre confesses that Jews are obsessively, uncontrollably evil".
It's a mix of the recording quality of that time and speaking habits of that time.
All German sounds like a Hitler speech.
All Hitler speeches sound German too.
You are onto something here.
It's like that chicken and the egg dilema.
In what way? Hitler didn't invent shouting or German.
It was a joke.
I wouldn't quit my day job
Powerful stuff. On that scene alone though it doesn't appear to be a very accurate depiction of psychopathy at all. For a start, psychopaths rarely kill, at least not any more than the general population. If they do it's out of pragmatism, i.e. if it were of some benefit to them, not sadism, or any sort of compulsion. They wouldn't feel guilty about it if they did, they lack the capacity to empathise. For almost all psychopaths, the inconvenience (jail, getting hurt by a defensive victim) outweighs any benefit.
Secondly he seems to display genuine regret that he is compelled to kill. Whether that's down to empathy or just the torment of "the voices" isn't clear but that leads me to point 3
Hearing voices isn't a common trait with psychopathy alone, it's associated with schizophrenia or other psychosis (not the same as psychopathy). Schizophrenia though is another completely misrepresented illness, and schizophrenics aren't any more likely to kill than anyone else, and are actually at greater risk of being a victim of violent crime.
Now if this whole scene was just an act for the court, then maybe (I haven't seen the rest of the film. Scenes where he is alone would likely put the debate to bed if he shows the same behaviour)
You bring up a great point. Honestly you really have me thinking. This stuff is way out of my depth. I have to admit I know nothing about these aberrations. I read philosophy which likes to ponder in all. You have certainly made me more curious to learn more. Like what drives someone supposedly detached to specific attachment and to our horror it is the stuff of nightmares. Damn. Just damn.
Thatâs some incredible acting. That mix of fear and hatred must be really difficult to communicate through acting but Peter Lorre does it so well here.
That Kevin McCallister is a real sonofabitch
i knew i wasn't the only one who got reminded of Home Alone
My first thought
whistles menacingly
In the Hall Of The Mountain King
Run y'all! Omar comin'!
I first saw this when I was at a university film night about thirty years ago, and I still remember it as being one the most impactful films of its kind that I've seen. I've only watched a couple of Lorre's other film roles in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and Casablanca, but his acting performance in M especially in the criminal court scene is stunning.
Peter Lorre was an enormous talent. If you haven't seen it, his screen time in "Arsenic and Old Lace" is also outstanding.
Thanks for the tip on his role in Arsenic and Old Lace, I'll look it up.
Fortunate enough to have caught this one in theaters for the first time ever seeing it just a few weeks ago. It was great
Where was that?
[removed]
I think he meant where could you catch it in theaters
Guess it's like finding out how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie pop.
He's asking what theater
Everybody needs to watch this at least once.
Fun fact about M: the ~~nursery rhyme~~ tune (by Grieg) that the killer whistles as he stalks the children he murders was sung by director Fritz Lang's wife at the time, Thea von Harbou, who would go on to be loyal to the Nazi regime and would make several movies under it (while Fritz, now divorced from her, fled to America).
So, when you hear that whistling in M that is literally the sound of a Nazi coming for Germany's children.
EDIT: I'd forgotten that it was actually a whistled rendition of In the Hall of the Mountain King, so edited to reflect that.
Have you got a source for that? I was under the impression it was Fritz himself
That's what Lang said in an interview with Gene Phillips. German wikipedia gives the film magazine Focus on Film as source for "Lang zufolge stammt das Pfeifen von ihm selbst â es verfehle die Melodie, aber das passe zum abseitigen Geist des Mörders." meaning "According to Lang, the whistling came from himself - it missed the melody, but that fit the killer's off-kilter spirit."
There is a rhyme in the movie sung by some children however, and that was changed from "Warte, warte nur ein Weilchen, dann kommt Haarmann auch zu dir/just you wait a little while, then Haarmann will come to you, too" into dropping the Haarmann part. Originally, this song was about Fritz Haarmann, another German serial killer.
Sounds about right, thanks
I'll try to dig out where I read that and edit this comment when I find it. As I recall it was in an essay about the movie somewhere online but there are quite a few of those so it may take a while.
Thanks mate because your version is certainly more entertaining and chilling
I remember my film teacher would whistle the tune while we watched this movie. Still creepy to this day.
Link about the psychopath claim.
Famous for the helluva finale monologue, and the famed "kangaroo court" scene.
Any academics who were up to date with clinical diagnoses would know that "psychopath" is not a term that's used in current terminology.
True, my mom is a psychologist and she hates when people use the term âpsychopathâ so casually. Even âsociopathâ isnât a proper term anymore; itâs called ASD now (antisocial personality disorder).
It's ASPD. ASD is the acronym for autism spectrum disorder.
When the public finds a term they like, it's like a dog with a bone. It doesn't matter what a professional says.
These words were once used by professionals, and that is how those terms got normalized into broader society. Besides, it takes a long time for new terminology to filter through to a society of hundreds of millions of people.
I mean it also doesnât help that psychology changes terms, I feel, way more frequently then most other fields.
I don't think that's a fault, in science one should always be ready to invalidate their hypothesis â think how recently homosexuality was considered an illness
Thatâs not a fair comparison. Retard and idiot where medical terms until the field changed it, and now they are considered rude.
Afaik nothing about the âillnessâ changed just the name, or what people call it.
Huh? Those are both terms that were used for different things and are now discredited, yes things changed â has little to do with my comment tho so neat!
What are you talking about?
Why isnât it APD?
It's ASPD (ASD is autism spectrum disorder). And it may not overlap perfectly with psychopathy, which may also include some narcissistic, histrionic, and borderline personality disorders.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7236162/
The new terms like "antisocial personality disorder" are vague and meaningless. They were designed to be. If you just read the words "antisocial personality" you might think it refers to someone who is shy, has agoraphobia, or prefers animals to people. Maybe even teenage rebellion. Its obfuscation. Psychiatrists may not like it, but when lay people hear the word "sociopath" or "psychopath," we all have a similar idea of what we're talking about - and its not pathological shyness.
Similar to the use of the term "developmental delay" to replace MR that was used to substitute the term mentally retarded. Retarded is a medical term that became mainstream.
Developmental delay implies that the patient simply needs time to catch up the there peers. Nope, that kid is retarded for life.
Please, everyone, think of the psychopaths
All of you
[deleted]
Yeah gotta be honest I think the child-killer is the monster
+1 goin with child killer as well
[deleted]
I don't wanna pop your bubble here dude, but you make absolutely no sense with this one, chief.
You are dealing in an abstract dichotomy with an out of context quote used to promote an assumption based on a single, common and sensible viewpoint.
My username is HEIL9000, of course I support fascism. MussoKinky was taken.
"I like wearing pants" -- Adolf Hitler
My god, you two have so much in common.
[deleted]
You know, I would have given you props for pointing out your name, but there's no need to insult others. I wasn't insulting you.
o cool
That's because you support fascism.
That's an insult dingus.
Just because someone hates one criminal more than another criminal doesn't mean they support one country from 80 years ago's abuse of laws regarding that crime.
Before you fire up those misguided pedagogical cylinders, stop hearing hoofbeats and thinking zebra
Hitler killed wayyyyy more children than the psychopath did in the movie.
I am having trouble following your argument, though. Killing children = good? Saving children from murder = fascism? Hitler fascist until he murdered children, so now he is good and "we can all be monsters" like him?
Clan loses 5 kids to sabertooth tiger. Caveman sandmaler - Why fight it? Tigers got to eat too.
[deleted]
Don't bet on it.
Someone, in a thread like this one a few years ago, claimed that the most genuine, true-to-life "psychopath" ever filmed was Tommy Lee Jones's character in Norman Mailer's "The Executioner's Song". Having known a fair number of criminals, I have to agree with this 100%.
I think "The Executioner's Song" isn't mentioned as often as others because it was a made-for-TV movie, if I'm not mistaken. But it's eerily accurate. The superficial charm, impulsiveness, and hair-trigger rage is exactly right.
I just rewatched this movie last year. It still holds up, it is a masterpiece; the writing is great and genuinely thought-provoking, the visuals are great and Peter Lorre's performance is incredible.
highly original art, I'm not sure that cinema will ever again attain these heights - perhaps a new medium will come along to do for the 21st century what cinema did for the 20th.
I think within 50 years the movies will be beamed into our minds much like dreams or daydreams but much more vividly. Somewhat like Elon Musk's Neuralink but for the visual cortex.
How do you feel about Man Bites Dog?
For my money, best psychopath in a film is in the 1983 film Angst.
Man Bites Dog is a good pick though.
Yeah, 'Angst' is creepy and the cinematography makes it seem as if it was filmed as the events took place. Now I'm going to have to go watch that one again.
I've only seen it once a few years ago, but scenes from the film still randomly pop into my head every so often.
Big fan of man bites dog.
Wow. I wouldn't have thought to see this film mentioned in /r/movies.
I sometimes whistle In The Hall Of The Mountain King to weed out any movie buffs or psychopaths
I guess I should watch this huh
HBO Max
I guess I should pirate this, huh.
Public domain, bitches!
https://archive.org/details/m1931_201912
Nice
đŽââ ïž
Many libraries have the DVD with extras
The Michael Fassbender character from Inglourious Basterds, Archie Hicox, would probably have been quite familiar with this film since he was an expert on the German movie industry.
Presumably very familiar, given he wrote a book on cinema in the Weimar Republic (âa study of German cinema in the twentiesâ)
Anytime a German movie is ever mentioned, particularly an old one, my mind always immediately goes to Inglourious Basterds
For over-the-top war movies, I would submit Telly Savalas in "The Dirty Dozen" as being a pretty great psychopath as well.
Studied this in my film class at university. Great film
Gripping and suspenseful. I was not expecting to be as blown away as I was. Interesting facts: https://donfilmstudios.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/interesting-facts-on-the-movie-m-by-fritz-lang/
One of my favorite punk bands, The World/Inferno Friendship Society, did a concept album about Peter Lorre's life called "Addicted to Bad Ideas." The album cover is a reference to this poster.
https://youtu.be/sWLZo8QGVyM
If wacky punk music with sax and violins and lyrics about Peter Lorre's morphine addiction appeal to you, check it out. Phenomenal band that I miss terribly. Their singer died just a year or two ago.
If I remember correctly, this is the first film with offscreen diagetic sound.
This is currently streaming on HBOMax if anyone was looking for it.
I have this tattooed on the back of my hand. My forearm is a metropolis piece. Fritz Lang is amazing and M was his Sistine Chapel.
Edit: photo
This is one of the few films I own that was made before 1960. I donât like the acting style of older films. Itâs mostly corny to me. But M is diamond hard in its presentation. In a way that wasnât really normal for decades.
The Night of the Hunter <âif you like M
Seventh Seal
Sunset Boulevard
Alexander Nevsky
The Bridge Over the River Kwai
Best Years of Our Lives
The Searchers
It Happened One Night
A Night at the Opera
Rope
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
Those are just some named off the top off my head that arenât anywhere near cheesy
A streetcar named desire and on the waterfront are kinda directly responsible for modern acting styles
Yep! Marlon Brando and everyone else were amazing in those movies.
I would add Casablanca to that list.
I put it off for so long because I doubted that it could live up to its reputation but it really deserves its place as one of the best films ever made.
Gets better every time you watch it too!
Good choices!
I'll add:
Witness for the Prosecution
Nothing New On The Western Front
Das Testament des Dr. Mabuse
North by Northwest
Das Testament des Dr. Mabuse
My favorite German Expressionist movie is "The Laugh Laugh" but I admit I stayed away from German Expressionism because I felt that they can be "Overacted" sometimes like Metropolis/Caligari/etc.
I agree Mabuse is great and the other movies are good additions too.
I think in general you're quite correct... expressionist art is not meant to be naturalistic, it emphasizes aspects, concepts and emotions, it distorts and abstracts, often to the point of losing all semblance of concrete representation. A tendency for stylized acting in expressionist cinema is certainly often a part of that.
Of course, the predominant stage-acting styles of the times also play a part.
I can certainly understand how that's not everyone's cup of tea.
M is rather tame in that regard - it's mostly quite naturalistic in its visual content, dialogue and plot (though not in its camera-work). "Mabuse" is a lot closer to other expressionist cinema in that regard... I think it's a good movie, but maybe not fitting for a list of movies from before the 60s to watch when you don't like the overacted style of old movies.
... for that purpose, I might want to replace that with one of the adaptations of the works of Dashiell Hammett or Raymond Chandler.
High and Low
Freaks
The Third Man
Sunset Boulevard is depressing. And the dead chimp is far more shocking than it should be.
I know how often "underrated" is thrown around, but I think William Holden is a very underrated actor. Sunset Blvd, Bridge, Stalag, Network .
Well, I mean, underrated here, but that's kinda to be expected since his last award winning/big role was in 1976.
I only saw The Best Years of Our Lives in the last ten years. Just thinking about Cathy O'Donnellâs Wilma helping Homer with his pajamas gets me.
My dad's favorite movie of all time is "It's a Wonderful Life" but even he's like "Yeah, there's nothing wrong with Best Years of Our Lives winning Best Picture that year."
On the Waterfront
Night of the Hunter is fantastic.
The Grand Illusion
Iâve seen all of these except Alexander Nevsky and Best Years of Our Lives. I own Night of the Hunter, Seventh Seal, Searchers, and Rope
Awesome to hear! Nevsky has one of the most famous scenes in cinema history, so getting around to see it eventually would be good.
You're painting with a really broad brush there. Variation in acting styles existed before 1960.
For example, look for films starring Sterling Hayden (e.g. The Killing), and then tell me if the acting is "corny" or melodramatic or whatever.
Extremely broad. I get not liking the over the top style that came with silent films and early talkies but âpre-1960â covers a lot of eras.
Sterling Hayden mops the floor with any mortal actor from any era though lol
Oh fuck General Ripper!
That long hold on him where he lays it all out for Mandrake is impossible to look away from.
Looks like I'll be downloading some more of his movies.
Oh that man's precious bodily fluids.
"Decades" is wrong, but there's still a stark difference between pre-Code and post-Code films for that kind of realism, especially in movies related to any kind of social issues. There are a handful of great exceptions to the rule, but overall it's just a different feeling.
Yep or Montgomery Clift
Yeah the acting is a bit presentational in style but Lorre can't seem to help exuding a sense of real pain.
I wonder, and I'm sure it exists somewhere, if there's footage of an actual child murderer expressing their (assumed) torment on video for us to watch as an interesting comparison
I donât like the acting style of older films.
I sometimes feel the same way, but some older movies where I really enjoyed the acting are The 400 Blows, Citizen Kane, and A Streetcar Named Desire
I don't watch many old movies but 12 angry men is absolutely brilliant. I was blown away by the performances and how gripped I was by the movie. Definitely a must watch.
Not that old, but watched "session 9" the other day. Would recommend!
Ben Hur (1959) would like a firm word with you.
Poster I've been eyeing for this movie: https://needledesign.bigcartel.com/product/m-1931-noirvember-ap
I compare it to Heat in its juxtaposition of police and criminals[edit: as arbiters of justice]
Weimar era social ambiguity versus a modern equivalent, I suppose.
Gamers, Is this what Bioshock infinite was referencing with the mark of the imposter poster?
https://i.pinimg.com/236x/ec/95/d3/ec95d37550105f31d3c0e2aa4aed2540.jpg
Could be but I think it's more likely just a simple reference to the biblical mark of the beast.
I would say there is a pretty good chance, yes.
Unfortunately, Lorre's character doesn't get nearly enough screentime. Not that it's otherwise a dull picture, but he's so good that it's very easy to imagine him carrying the whole picture and they mostly try to make him more menacing by keeping him offscreen, which I feel wasn't the best choice.
It's not supposed to be a horror movie or character study, it's a social commentary on the different classes and groups in Germany.
Also, consider that this was 1931 and most of what we understand as "filmmaking narrative principles" didn't exist yet.
Peter Lorre played a pedophile murderer hunted by criminals during the day, at night he worked as a comic. He gave one of the greatest performances in film history. It's based on a real story of The Vampire of DĂŒsseldorf. What a great movie, OP. Thanks for posting.
My favourite movie! Lang is a master!
I remember watching this in my German Film class. Was Def a great film.
Just a few weeks ago it the middle of the night, I heard someone whistling In the Hall Of The Mountain King by my window in the streets below. Sent literal chills down my spine.
This movie is so ground breaking for film in so many ways; the cinematography, the story, the audio (that whistle!) its depictions of social strata and government, suspense, mature themes. I can't think I'd too many earlier films that were firing on all cylinders like this movie was. And it holds up almost a 100 years later; the pacing, the themes, the suspense, the depictions of human behavior
Took a class in uni called Film & History and saw this during one week; absolutely loved it. Terrifying, even by todayâs standards.
Also notable for a very interesting 1951 remake by Joseph Losey (of The Servant and The Go-Between fame). What it lacks in terms of an unforgettable central performance - David Wayne is fine, but you're never gonna beat Peter Lorre and there's no point trying - it makes up for in its reframing of the story as a hardboiled James Ellroyesque LA noir, capturing the city at a very particular, much-mythologized point in its history - even the legendary Bradbury Building ("You might remember me from such films as Blade Runner and DOA!") figures into a key sequence.
...And, oh hey, it's on YouTube in its entirety. Which is nice.
Also, Home Alone had an homage to this film when Joe Pesci's character burned an M into his hand on the McAlister's doorknob!
When is the âmost accurate depiction of a psychopathâ gimmick finally gonna fall out of public favour?
This movie was decades ahead of its time.
You may remember me from such films as "Dial M for Murderousness"
Great film. there is a reference to this in cyberpunk 2077.
At least according to TV Tropes, Peter Lorre's shouting in character of "YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DO THIS TO ME!" was at least partially in response to Lang's treatment of him, especially really being kicked with iron boots.
It's been on my List on HBO Max for years - and I finally watched it yesterday! Good movie, disturbing as it should be. Love classic movies and learning about the way that movies used to be made, no matter how they were made.
I got this movie during a Reddit Christmas exchange years ago. As I remember, it was actually a really good movie.
I should watch it again.
There is one shot in that movie that I cannot figure out. Its a shot that starts from the streets and moves through an open window into a pub. I sometimes still think about it.
One of my favorite movies of all time
No self respecting academic psychiatrist would ever use the term âpsychopathâ.
M is basically a fully modern movie but itâs the thirties. The camera movement is incredible. It is about a child killer being on the loose, the specialist and police bungle their investigation of the killer but are putting insane heat on regular criminals. So the underworld bands together to find the guy.
Home alone 2 alternative poster
Just saw this a few days ago for the first time and I can't believe I hadn't seen it earlier. It's truly magnificent.
i thought "no country for old men" is the most accurate psychopath film
"You shall know the False Shepard... By His Mark!"
Supposedly streamable on HBO Max, just impossible to search for a movie named "M".
I got it searching for "Fritz" and scrolling until Fritz Lang popped up. Also, fuck HBO Max for removing Westworld and Raised by Wolves.
So glad I got rid of that app. It had some gems but Jesus Christ were they tough to find.
I get it free with my internet. Not sure I'd pay for it.
added to my list
A truly amazing film and performance by Peter Lorie
It is available on archive.org
Also, remade in 1951 in the US
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0043766/
The scene at the end where Peter Lorre is defending himself and his actions will stick with me forever. Deep down you feel yourself conflicted as he basically cries out for help. Great great movie.
Man, I didnât know Robert Der Nero was that old
Tied with the Long Goodbye as my favorite movie. So Damned good.
Looks like Harryâs hand from Home Alone
Definitely not the greatest film ever made. That honor goes to the hit film Morbius (2022)
Why is their a poster of Harryâs hand from Home Alone?
Watched it a couple months ago for the first time. Beautifully done.
I just watched this film for the first time, inspired by this post, and was completely blown away. I cannot even believe it was made in 1931. Before the Holocaust. Barely after the implementation of sound in filmmaking. The themes are painful to ponder knowing it was made only a few short years before the rise of the Nazi regime in Germany. Fucking made my hairs stand on end. "It can't be that bad, can it?"
It's just completely shocking to me how incredible this film is, and that as a film lover (American unfortunately lol) I've never even heard of it till I saw this post.
Thank you, OP đ
So... Were they trying to reference this movie in Home Alone?
You know when Hary burns his hand on the doorknob and it brands an M into his palm?
Absolutely. Also Indiana Jones.
Oh the medallion in the Nazi hand... Hmmm
Anyone else see this 'M' on his hand and think of the burned 'M' on Harry's hand?
Great movie. That soundtrack is kinda wild.
If anyone is wondering, it's a level of psychopathy. Directors that abuse their cast are not visionaries, they're not perfectionists striving for the perfect take - they're cunts, utter twats. They're doing a simply less sexual harvey weinstein. It's all an abuse of power. Like a security guard that wished they were a cop. Dangeeois.
These films are not exceptional because of this. And while I'm here, kubrick making actors repeat an unheard of amount of takes has not resulted in exceptional scenes, in fact, when i was young and didn't know fuck all, I actually thought Adam Baldwin was fucking pish at acting - based on what I'd learn would be an infamous scene where kubrick had him repeat and repeat till he got it right. He didn't get it right tbh. His acting in that scene feels forced, tired and crappy and not due to the story.
You don't deserve downvotes here, it's absolutely abuse â a director who cannot get a performance without abusing their cast is a poor director, maybe not comprehensively, but still poor in one incredibly important aspect.
Wrong.
Shinji's hand
âI'm so fucked up.â
I think of Westley Allan Dodd. A child killer who requested death and lamented his wasted life.
I wanna see it
One of my all-time favorites. Saw it in my intro to film class my freshman year of college. It's a big part of the reason I'm so passionate about film. Always nice to see it get some attention on here!
So not that I really know anything but reading a lot here. Iâm really more reminded that American Psycho (the movie I know nothing of I think the book). He doesnât feel bad ever heâs just afraid of being punished. So many things but like he hurts others to directly benefit hisself be it lust or reputation. Things wholly self serving. Iâm not going to go into the ending as Iâm sure there are those that havenât seen the movie might read this but that level of detachment coupled with the calculation of gain sound like the machine like basis for a psychopath even if that term is no longer used. The category used to exist and to some extent still will always linger. We may develop better terminology to be more precise but at one time this term was a useful tool to identify a group walking among us. Not that weâre ânormalâ per say but it described an actual subset.
Masturbation, the film ok... A fast climax
Would kill for a Marty or fincher remake
Ich have eine stimma energy kindt
Funny coincidence, just watched this for the first time last Friday. Very solid camera work for 1931, and expectedly great acting/story. There's a running thread about police incompetency, wild how that's always been a thing in society apparently lol.
If your Lang ain't Fritz you ain't move-ing hard enough
Harry?
Took me a minute to realize it wasn't featuring Robert "Der Nero" :D
Sorry..... ;|
Interesting post, given that Germany bred and elevated one of the biggest murdering psychopaths in human history (Hitler, for the slow-thinkers out there).
There are a lot of movies that are similar to this movie, it may be better or bad But they added a German touch to this film, which made it feel special
I bet the film sucks ass.
What they mean is the film was referenced by old Psychologist in texts books and became its an old film people treat it like the bible.
M for MarioâŠ
Yeah no.
Bruder der Film war trash
I wanted to say that I'm no academics, but I kinda am.
However, I agree.
My husband and I are watching the IMDB 100 and we have rated this last on the list of the 20 we watched so far. We hated it lol.
It's assuring you both share bad taste.
Looks like the album cover for system of a down
Itâs a me!
Great movie. Orson Welles had a cameo, IIRC
The false prophet. And all it took was baseball!
We watched this in my film analysis class in college. Great film.
I saw this in film class last year. It was a really interesting watch.
Where can I watch it? Is it available on any of the major streaming services?
It's on Criterion Channel, though you might not consider that "major". Great service if you are interested in old cinema.
Question, is the red balloon in the beginning of Heavy Rain a reference to this movie?
Finally someone posts here a movie outside of Hollywood. Thank you
Haha I saw his other move Metropolis in berlin a few months back, It was really good for such and old movie, 1929 or something i think
In one of my college psychology classes we watched this and a few other films (persona, the hours etc) for reference to different mental illnesses
From what I understand, the film is inspired by a real child serial killer from the time. I don't think I've ever been as close to throwing up reading a Wikipedia page on a person.
I had no idea the filmed starred Robert der Nero . Must have been one of his earlier roles.
Source?
sigma edits incoming
Am I the only one who only knew this movie existed because I typed M into my search bar expecting autocomplete and hit enter but it did not autocomplete?
[deleted]
The problem was early movie sound recording had to be done on the stage, no looping, and film equipment was loud. Silent movies did have movement.
Just watched the Austrian funny people movie. Iâll have to check this out too.
Spoiler alert for anyone who wants to go into this movie blind, but Peter Lorre was a tour de force in this movie. His monologue to the "court of the underground" was amazing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-QKd37uFug&t=159s
im guna go watch it on showboxmovies right now thanks
Does the M stand for murder?
"Du hast aber einen schönen Ball"
A terrifying movie.
I have a copy of this dvd from when it first came out, this and metropolis are some of my favorite movies
Get ready for MetFlix
Itâs a landmark in cinematography as well
That hand looks so uncanny. It appears human, yet unsettlingly inhuman at the same time.
M is the gold standard of very old movies that still hold up today
This scene was recreated when Harry in Home Alone attempted to open the front door and his palm was branded with an M from the hot knob. It would be funny if they did that as a call back to this film.
This has been on my list forever, but now Iâm watching it.
Another great depiction of a psychopath is in No Country for Old Men. Iâm currently reading the book.
Fritz Lang was a film genius.
Bioshock infinite?
I'll check it out after work. thanks.
Fritz Lang a fucking OG I'll never forget Metropolis.
I don't remember that bit in Casino Royale.
âMany, many smart people say so.â
I was just talking about this movie, itâs very chilling
Genuinely a legendary and phenomenal film
I watched it randomly a few years ago and have loved it ever since
So good! Way before itâs time.
A long-lost Argentine "re-imagining" from the 1950s, El Vampiro Negro was recently restored and, for my money, really improved on a lot of issues I had with M
Why is an accurate depiction of a psychopath an enticement to anyone?
I hope this is available for streaming somewhere.
Fritz Lang is a cinematic Master. This film, Metropolis... so far ahead of their time, and just a thrill to watch. I love watching things like this and then immediately watching a modern day film just to really see how far cinema has come since these films were made. It's truly amazing what people were able to accomplish back in this era compared to how simple those same effects are today with a computer.
7 out 10 psychopaths agree that this film accurately portrays them.
The other 3 were never heard from again....
On HBOMAX btw
MANOS
Save
Iâve been looking for this movie for quite sometime. The fact that criminals were also helping to find the killer was mind blowing to me. It takes a wolf to hunt a wolf though
I need to see this film.
Favorite film of all time
We watched this in film class, brilliant film.
This movie took smoking to another level.
Starring Robert Der Nero
whistles
Does anyone know one could watch this movie?
Nice
Thea von Harbou wrote the screenplay for all his good movies. Also fun fact mr Lang told that best review for his movies he received after americans made a terrible remake.
It's also notable for being the true last gasp of Weimar free expression before the Nazis took over.
I can't count how many times I've accidentally searched this movie trying to type "m." for mobile websites.
France all over again đ€Ł
That's crazy, I saw a separate post earlier today of somebody that got a tattoo of this poster. I guess I have to watch this movie now.
Also one of the more valuable film posters. Glorious.
I got a poster of this movie from Etsy yk
I have a giant (like 5 feet tall) poster of this on my living room wall! (Itâs a weird super tall room so I had to get something large scale.) I love the movie, and âMâ is my first initial.
Such a good film. Kinda goes in some strange directions but it still works. Peter Lorre is an all-time great and cast perfectly here.
Eliza..
One of the most overrated films in history, along with Citizen Kane.
Don't forget it's the first psychological thriller ever made
Supposedly based on The Vampire of Dusseldorf, Peter KĂŒrten, although Fritz Lang denied it.
Funnily enough, the movie is indeed called "The Vampire of DĂŒsseldorf" here in Brazil!
Did Brazil miss the part where the whole film takes place in Berlin?
[deleted]
First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin.
The Muppet movies are getting dark.
"Schindler's List in Space" is pretty deep
I was thinking of Leonard Cohen but any reminder of The Muppets Take Manhattan is brilliant thank you. As a little kid that was my favorite Muppet movie. (At the time, there were only three. It was also the fashion to wear onions on our belts. )
Truly
Muppets march on Manhattan
RIP Leonard
This cohensides with my music tastes
Berlin? Yes, I know it well. I stabbed a woman in a bar in Berlin
Nowhere. Near. Berlin.
Bratislava!!!
Nowhere near Berlin!!!
Nie wieder Berlin.
Pretty sure all the Nazi's hiding out in South America back in the day knew.
Pre-war Berlin was so beautiful as well. Fuck them nazis.
Konigsberg too :(
It was also one of the most liberal and tolerant cities in the world. A hub for movies, music, plays, art, and a thriving LGBTQ community. The Nazis fuck things up for everyone, no matter what Era they rear their shitty fascist faces in. Do your part, mess with a Nazi today.
That was Argentina not Brazil.
That's what they want you to think.... /S
No most did hide out in Argentina. It's wild to read the history of it too. Josef Mengele did die swimming around Brasil though. Dude got off too easy.
*Nazis
Could be worse, the film could be set in cologne.
That smells fishy...
Precious hamburgers?
What's wrong with Köln?
Cologne and DĂŒsseldorf have a strong Rivalry.
Thank you! I didn't know.
Brazil sounds like it has an American knowledge of European geography.
It's called "The Monster of DĂŒsseldorf" in Italy too.
I guess the actual crime case was really really famous at the time.
[deleted]
My dad fucking loves Randy Newman and when I asked him why, having only known him from Toy Story, he showed me some of his darker/more directly satirical songs, particularly âShort Peopleâ âUnder the Harlem Moonâ and âRednecksâ.
After that I viewed âYou Got a Friend In Meâ with a whoooole new light.
I also fucking love Randy Newman. Thanks for sharing.
Rednecks is so good
Short people was a hit when I was very young but I can still remember it. âShort people got no reason to liveâ. And there is a verse that keeps going aster that one âThey got little eyes and mouth that go beep beepâ. It was a nutty song. I remember the radio host talking about how offended people are but that people should lighten up. Thatâs how the 1970âs were for better or for worse I did like some of it. I think as a whole our country has gone too far and has a giant pole up its ass over everything.
In my country "you've got a friend in me" was used in an awareness campaign about date rape to bring attention to the fact that most rapists are known by the victim. It was slowed down and really haunting. Completely ruined the song for me.
High school freshman English in '79, several verses of Newman's "Sail Away" was the first thing we were assigned in class â to pick out what the author was trying to say.
Bonus Newman: "Louisiana 1927"
Gorgeous, heartbreaking song. Highly recommended.
[deleted]
In his defense, he made a name for himself as a darkly humorous and ironic musician, not as a singer of kid's songs. Flight of the Conchords aren't exactly kid-appropriate, but if you brought your child to see them because Jermaine sang "Shiny" in Moana, that'd be on you.
Damn, I just read up on this guy, what a crazy amout of crimes in such a short time. And a lot of murders and attacks targetting children aswell. Truly a devil.
Weimar Republic had lots of weird issues and perceived âcorruptionsâ like this, random crime as well as organised crime, and their film industry reflected that, especially Lang.
Was he eventually murdered ?
*thinking of another director
I believe the Nazis actually came after him but he escaped. Goebbels was specifically interested in controlling him.
*reading up now..
Itâs meant to be based on a number of killers but itâs very obvious a lot is based on kurten
Which, in combination with Lang's film, inspired Randy Newman's "In Germany Before The War", one of the most quietly frightening songs I've ever heard (and all the more frightening for how lush and beautiful it is).
I'd recommend the last podcast on the left series on him. Dude was a monster.
Hail yourself!
He even mused if hed feel anything after his head was cut off.
Hail yourself!
And "M" was in turn a big influence on Blade Runner
I was born in DĂŒsseldorf and dat is why they call me Rolf!
I love a good Mel Brooks reference.
Better than DĂŒssel!
Donât make me get my dumbbell