Wednesday, April 9, 2014

On M

M is a somewhat interesting film though ignoring the ending I feel it wouldn’t be considered worth watching even considering the fact that it’s over eighty years old.  The version I saw was nearly two hours long.  There evidently is a version (as it tells me at the end of the film) about ninety minutes long which seems to suit the plot of the movie far better.  In-fact it seems that all the important scenes of this film clock-in at about sixty minutes if not less.  Though as I’ve said it is the ending deserves our consideration.
The ending of the film consists of the child murderer being caught by the cities criminals and a mock trial taking place.  The Murderer confesses that he is mad and has no control over what he does.  However this seems to conflict with his teasing the police by either sending them or the newspaper notes similar to The Riddler in Batman comics who is seen as the archetype Narcissist.  He says that he is a different type of criminal than the thieves who caught him, because as-where he cannot control his actions, they are simply either lazy or inept and therefore resort to common burglary.  Our modern justice system would overall agree with him if they found him insane and unable to control his actions.
 However, a more Marxist analysis shows us that the working-class thieves are not wholly immoral people, and to the extent they are immoral it is because of the exploitation of their “superiors” that have brought them to the state and condition of being that they are.  After all, they catch the killer which the police were unable to do, though they seem to do so at-least in-part for their own self-interest to cease the police’s constant monitoring of their activities; being far-too ignorant to realize there’s a difference between a murderer who kills to cover his tracks in theft (i.e. out of material necessity) and one who kills children out of psychotic pleasure or impulse (i.e. out of psychosis).  And it is he who kills out of bloodlust or psychological reasons that is beyond the help of Socialism and every man and woman receiving proper living conditions.  But this too is an incorrect interpretation of Materialism and therefore of Marxism.

Materialism holds that we are simply matter, and therefore our psyches or “souls” are as-well.  Though the murderer or violent thug should be put to death when he is committing an atrocious act – failing to prevent him of such for fear of lethal force is the sin of heroes such as Superman and Batman – overall he should be confined from the general populous and given every opportunity to reenter society or at-least to live somewhat decently apart from it.  For though there is much for neurologists and psychologists to learn of the human condition, we have the basic means to at-least counteract if not relatively “cure” most sufferers of mental disease and psychological affliction.  In ancient societies it was rational to put the insane and barbaric to death because they had no means of curing them.  Just as it is rational and just today to put the corrupt Businessman and Statesman to death for their massive corruption and corrupting factors of society which putrefy the world and men’s souls far-more than any Ted Bundy could.  The state of our prisons and mental hospitals show how ineffective cruelty, malice and the primitive Conservative psychology of punishment and suffering (seen in Christianity as well-as most other worldly religions) as compared to the forgiving nature of Materialism and Determinism, free from the Deontologist Kantian view; liberated by science and compassion.

No comments:

Post a Comment