User talk:LUMINARIMEDICIEPSICOLOGI

Remakes

IMDb does mention the 1951 remake of this movie but there is nothing about a 1956 remake. Does anyone have a source for this information.

Haven't found it yet. Was in maybe only released in Germany or perhaps in a language other than German or English? Ellsworth 23:01, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

The description of the 1951 remake in this article is redundant with the actual article on the remake. Considering the length of the article, perhaps a merge would be appropriate?

Move back to "(movie)"

I moved the page back to "(1931 movie)" (rather than "1931 film") because that's what we decided on a long time ago and have been practising ever since. Also, all links to this article are to the "movie" version. <KF> 23:02, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Fritz Haarmann; SA

Does anyone have anything citable on the degree of connection to the story of the real-world child-murderer (well, youth-murderer) Fritz Haarmann? Or to the SA men who, around that time, were hunted down by Communists, turned over to the government, and given slap-on-the-wrist sentences? I'd like to get both into the article, but have nothing citable. ~- Jmabel | Talk 19:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There's some good material in this PDF, but it appears to be a student paper. I'd have given it an "A", but that doesn't make it citable. - Jmabel | Talk 19:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Peter Kurten

This somewhat more citable source suggests a connection to child-murderer Peter Kurten, of whom I had not previously been aware. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Kangaroo Court

I'd also like to add more (but lack citable sources) on the kangaroo court of criminal "experts in law" and, in particular their refusal to countenance an insanity plea, in particular that his insanity makes him all the worse in their view. Also, the subtheme of how his blatant crimes make it hard for them to get on with their day-to-day crimes. There is clearly a lot of social comment here, but it would be personal view for me to extrapolate it (especially since I haven't seen the film in about 20 years). Does someone have some citable sources on any of this? This is a much more interesting and important film than our article currently conveys. - Jmabel | Talk 20:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Film noir

I'd disagree that this film is film noir. In my opinion, it's German Expressionism. I thought the first film noir was supposed to be The Maltese Falcon, which wasn't released until 1941.Ashfan83 16:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

But isn't film noir based heavily on the techniques of the German experessionists? So in film noir you'd find elements from German experssionism. Although to say that M is just German expressionism or just film noir is largly incorrect. Also, so say that The Maltese Falcon was the first film noir is probally taking liberties with the nature of genre. There is often no concrete starting point or finishing point for a genre and very often the first film hailed as a new genre by critics is often not the true first film in the new genre. There are prototypes which preceeded it and i believe M can be described in that way. Ex con87 (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Questionable link

Would someone with higher-speed access than I please look into the "watch the film" link? What exactly is it? In particular, have they colorized (I'm guessing from the static page that they have, in which case we should indicate that it is an altered version of the film). Do you have to watch through ads to see it? Etc. Not sure if it is an appropriate link or not. - Jmabel | Talk 03:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Pedophile theme?

I saw this a while ago... but, I don't really think so? Why is this here (does anyone know?) gren グレン 17:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? It is a film about a man who is obsessed with little girls, approaches them in a more or less erotic way (the specifics of any acts are off-camer, but his attraction is clearly sexual), and then murders them. How would that not be a pedophile theme? - Jmabel | Talk 02:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If you carefully read the text of the placards you will find he did not only kill girls but boys, too. There is no information about a sexual context. Beckert gets his "fulfilment" in killing these children. --Colag (talk) 09:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

origin

the director says it was not based on the real-life case, why does the article still feel it can make that claim? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.43.122.217 (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Image

We can't have a fair-use image on a page if there's a free image available. We need to have free images as much as possible. —Chowbok ☠ 19:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it not WP:Film policy to put a film poster in the infobox instead of a screenshot? Andrzejbanas 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That's assuming both are fair-use, which is usually the case. M, however, is a public domain film, so a screenshot is public domain as well. WP:FUC states that we can never use a fair-use image if a free image exists that we can use instead... and being an official policy, it trumps WP:Film, which are just project guidelines.—Chowbok ☠ 20:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A poster provides information a screenshot cannot, per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Archive 13#Public domain films and infobox. Also, the commons image doesn't state the source beyond "film". Unique transfers may be copyrighted. Doctor Sunshine talk 03:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Per the discussion"? One person said that he would prefer posters, and you agreed. That hardly constitutes policy. Every image provides information that another image does not; if it didn't, it would be the same picture. Just saying the image is different isn't an argument that we should keep it. What unique, encyclopedic information does this poster contain?

As for your statement that a "unique transfer may be copyrighted"... I've never heard that. Do you have a source?—Chowbok ☠ 04:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the poster identifies the film and illustrates an example of how it was originally marketed. The poster's much more likely to be in the public domain, after 76 years or so, than the image you've uploaded with nary a scratch or speck on it. However, I was unable to determine whether the company still exists, let alone copyright status. I believe the ill is on you to prove that your image is public domain but to start you can check the back of any DVD. For example, the Criterion M states it's under "exclusive license from Atlantic-Film S.A." and copyrighted to the same and Criterion. Also see derivative work. Where exactly did you find the image? Doctor Sunshine talk 23:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Plot problems

Changed this:

The judges are at such a height (2nd and 4th are the tallest) where they make the letter 'M.' This picture suggests, especially after Beckert's sincere oration, that society, not Beckert, is the Murder that is referenced in the title.

The first sentence is inaccurate (just watched the movie; the judges' heads do not form an M, but a triangle) and the second seems to contain original research. Furthermore, I added the real ending of the movie, which is the actual message that Lang meant to convey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarathustra327 (talk • contribs)

Just watched it again on Ovation channel. The last two lines Frau Beckman says are that we must watch our children more closely. "We all must." Not that (only) parents should watch their children more closely as the article states. Lmonteros (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My brain! My poor, poor brain!

At some point last year, I encountered "M". I can't figure out where, but I think it may have been MST3K, because that's where I know most old movies from. Does anyone know if M was covered on MST3K? That's all I need to know to figure out where I saw this. Crazyboy899 (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I very much doubt it could have been MST3K - they only made fun of really bad films that deserved it, and M hardly falls under that category.--131.111.213.41 (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Schränker

Cast It is not Herr Schränker but Der Schränker as this is not a name but the criminal "profession" of this man. His actual name is not given. Schränker is derived from the German word Schrank (cupboard, closet, safe) here used in the meaning of strongbox / safe. So Der Schränker is a person who uses to break up safes. The word is not used any more today. --Colag (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:M poster.jpg

Image:M poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Georg John

Your implicit suggestion that maybe somebody should do an article on him (instead of red linking the name) makes sense. According to IMDB, he was in 131 movies. Internet Movie Data Base, Georg John. I know nothing about him and this is beyond my expertise. However, he might be a good subject for an article. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Stan

I don't know anything about Georg John either. My point was that with an actor from that long ago, if no one's written an aricle about them so far, it's unlikely that someone's going to write one spontaneously anytime soon, so it's better to leave them unlinked unless there are plans to make an article in the immediate future. With more contemporary actors (or other film professionals) it's a somewhat different story, as it's a bit more likely that an article will be made about them, so leaving them redlinked makes some sense. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 18:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it's been take care of. Happy editing 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Stan

You should give people the chance to create such an article before removing the red link (within 8 minutes!). However, Thanks for your help at the Georg John article. HerkusMonte (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, you should create the article first, and then change the links, that's more sensible and avoids the redlink reversion problem altogethr. The timing of my reversion is irrelevant, I just happened to be editing when the change came in, and would have reverted a redlink if I saw it 3 minutes or 3 hours after the edit was made.

You're very welcome for the help on the article - I may have a couple of things to add still.Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Stanley Kauffman review

Try here. Stanley Kauffman, "M" Criterion collection, review, etc. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Stan

The text of the review is not there, just a mention that it is included with the DVD. Abato piscorum (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)