Apr 26 2026

1957 – Paths of Glory

It’s an American anti-war film, directed by Stanley Kubrick when he was just 28 years old (wow). The screenplay he co-wrote with Calder Willingham and Jim Thompson is adapted from the 1935 novel of the same name, which in turn is based on the true Souain corporals affair that happened during WWI. The film mainly stars Kirk Douglas as Colonel Dax, the commanding officer of soldiers who refuse to continue to act out a suicide attack. I watched it on YouTube (free in Germany) here.

Is it even possible to make an anti-war film? That was the question media commentator Broey Deschanel asked herself in this video essay in a reaction to Alex Garland’s Warfare from last year. It’s supposed to be gritty, raw and show war exactly how it is, and in doing so critique its pointlessness. The essay goes on to cite many more examples, e.g. All Quiet on the Western Front or Platoon, but argues that war from the soldier’s point of view always comes with a caveat, with a point of view, there may be deceit on how these soldiers came to war, but never 100% innocence. Only movies like Grave of the Fireflies can truly be anti-war, since they depict the consequences of war on children.

Fair point, but this movie is pretty damning in its critique, especially for an almost 70-year-old movie. When I started watching it, with the typical trench warfare scenes we are accustomed to and which are marvelously depicted in 1917, for example, I thought it was going to be the typical “war is hell” type of story. I wondered why the prologue with the two generals was there in the beginning, it didn’t seem anti-war at all.

But then around a third of the movie in, it dawns on you that it’s not about the horrible trench fighting at all, but an indictment of the rulers at the top. They treat battles like pieces on a board, casualties are rattled off as percentages to be moved around – all before they go back to their civilized parties and gatherings. If some inconvenience is discovered it gets buried under legalese or the offended party gets bought off with a promotion. All the while the simple soldier is just fodder, where your fate is decided by the (un)luck of the draw quite literally.

I liked this movie so much. So quiet in its portrayal of injustice, yet so adept at simply showing it. Add to that an amazing battle scene, where a part of a company is seen storming onto the barbed wire battlefield, most soldiers knowing it is a suicide mission, a mistake, with the chances of success slim at best. The desperation of the three soldiers, who are chosen for all the wrong reasons to take the fall for the blunder of the general is also shocking to see. That Kubrick guy has a bright future ahead of him, but even this, his first so-called masterpiece is really that!

Add to that the nagging discomfort that it is based on true events – a French general really did order his artillery to fire on his own trenches after demoralized soldiers refused to leave them and he ordered the execution of seemingly random soldiers of the company resulting in the death by firing squad of four of them (in the movie it’s three). Only 2 hours later would their sentences have been commuted and 19 years later they were fully exonerated. The whole ordeal changed the way military courts were held in France. And this movie was banned in Switzerland and France until the 70s. It shows you how even 40 years later, the establishment would rather get rid of uncomfortable situations than address the mistakes made by the senior commanders and upper class rulers.

So is it a truly 100% anti-war film as the thesis above proclaimed there aren’t any? No, it valorizes the soldier too much to be truly that, but it’s quite effective otherwise and in that I commend it!

Apr 12 2026

1956 – The Searchers

It’s an American epic Western directed by John Ford and written by Frank Nugent based on the 1954 novel by Alan Le May. It stars John Wayne as Ethan Edwards and Jeffrey Hunter as his adopted nephew Martin Pawley as they spend years searching for their abducted niece / sister. It was shot on VistaVision and processed by Technicolor making the landscape of Monument Valley really stand out for this movie. I rented it on Apple TV for 3.99 Eur.

Look, I have never been a fan of Westerns. It’s probably unfair to them, because I never gave them a chance, but already as a kid, I had no interest in playing “cowboys and indians”. By now, similar to Superhero / comic book movies, I have seen a few, but by far not many, especially none of the classics of Sergio Leone and/or Clint Eastwood. And often it is, because revered stuff, I just find boring: the stoic hero, spouting wisdoms like “that’s the way of life” or the hours of scenery on horseback. I recently came across this critique of Yellowstone by SkipIntro. Oh, my guy, I don’t even care about the conservative bend, I just found it boring, even though everybody was raving about it. The treatment of Beth was so problematic, it’s like that girl that says: “hey, I wasn’t groomed, I CHOSE to sleep this much older guy when I was 15”. I saw like 3-4 episodes and turned it off.

Anyway, perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps there is something I am missing in these Westerns. Perhaps, now that I am a bit older myself, I will understand “the old ways”, finally get what John Wayne was all about. I already missed Stagecoach (see my 1939 post on how I seem to have missed most iconic movies of that year), but perhaps this movie, that some say is the greatest Western of all time, will do?

So what are the themes here? A confederate soldier Ethan Edwards comes to his brother and big family in Texas. The going is tough and many have given up making a living out in the land there. There are some other families, like some Swedish immigrants (the Jorgensens), who are good friends with the Edwards family. They have also adopted an orphan, half white, half comanche named Martin Pawley. Already in this introduction, you are made to think that these families are more righteous, because they are out here living the hard life. Add to that the threat of the Indians, who are mad that the white man is taking their land away and murdering their people. And that is exactly what happens; while the men are out on a distraction, the Indians raid the Edwards farm, burn it, kill the parents and son and kidnap their two daughters. The elder is raped and killed quickly, but the younger Debbie is taken by the chief ‘Scar’.

So begins a 7 year search by Ethan and the adopted son Martin to find Debbie. By the time they finally find a 15-year old Debbie, she has assimilated and doesn’t want to go home at first. Here is where the other theme of the movie comes in – the deep-seated hatred of Ethan of the Indians. His racism is so big that he considers murdering his own niece, because she is tainted in his head. But it’s a constant struggle. For example, in the beginning he is barely capable of talking to “half-breed” Martin, but by the end he leaves him everything he owns in his will.

You are not supposed to root for the jerk that is Ethan. He is a wanderer and self-righteous asshole. First, he remains unapologetic Confederate, even wearing the coat 3 years after the war has ended (who goes to their family only 3 years after?). Also, even in the very beginning, you see there is something going on between him and his sister-in-law. And that is before he goes on his 7-year search. But Martin isn’t without blame either – he leaves the girl he is supposedly in love with and only writes her one letter in 5 years. In that sense, it makes it super hard to be on the side of the two: a bigoted prick and a sexist idiot. Apparently that is wanted by the director and it is what gets the conversation going.

And I get that, people are complicated and you can’t go through life with a 2020s lens and I can also do nuance. But the treatment the movie makes of Look (an Indian woman Martin betroths by mistake) is not one bit funny, but super tragic. In that sense, it seems that Ford went out of his way to explain the racism and circumstances of violence between the Whites and the Indians, that he conveniently forgot about the whole sexism thing, which doesn’t get a nuanced take.

Unfortunately that means that I am still not enamoured with Westerns. Very entertaining watch, but not easy and it left me mostly angry (maybe if movies are supposed to elicit emotions out of you, perhaps it was successful). The scenery is great, especially for 1956, the cinematography and action scenes are amazing. But I have to mention my favorite movie of all time Thelma and Louise again and how they drive through Monument Valley, which is most of the scenery here. I’d rather have the modern setting, than the brooding cowboy.

Mar 29 2026

1955 – The Night of the Hunter

It’s an American Southern-Gothic thriller, at times a horror film set during the Depression. It was directed by Charles Laughton in his only feature win (go out on top, I guess). Its screenplay was written by James Agee based on the same-named book by Davis Grubb, which itself was inspired by the serial killer Harry Powers (“The Bluebeard of Quiet Dell”) who was hanged in 1932. It stars Robert Mitchum as the preacher Harry Powell, Shelley Winters as Willa Harper, the woman he is misleading and features a great child performance by Billy Chapin as John Harper. I saw it on YouTube in their collection of free movies here (this seems to be new, but I don’t know if it is just for Germany).

In Berlin there is the legend of the “Hauptmann von Köpenick“. This was an ordinary shoemaker, who in 1906 dressed up as a military captain with a stolen uniform. He was able to convince a whole company of soldiers to accompany him to arrest the mayor of the town of Köpenick (incorporated into Berlin in 1920) and managed to rob the city treasury. There’s a whole secondary motive in that he wanted to get identification, because he was banished from the city, but that was never achieved, I think. On the way to the arrest he bought the soldiers beers and managed to rile them up against the innocent mayor. In fact, according to legend, many other officers joined them along the way on their crusade against the mayor. He wasn’t caught in the original coup, only 10 days later, because he had bragged to some of his friends about pulling this off.

The story has a mixed resonance in Germany. On the one hand, it is seen as a genius move. Nobody was actually harmed and it is seen more as a prank than an actual crime. In fact, he was later pardoned less than 2 years later by the Kaiser and he made some extra cash posing for postcards in his fake uniform until World War I. The 1956 movie with Heinz Rühmann also has a very satirical tone (though there is some biting critique described below in there). Even today, you find statues of the captain all around Köpenick and he’s mostly seen with red cheeks and a smile.

However, the legend also tells of a cautionary tale of blindly following a figure of authority. Especially after World War II, Germans had to reckon that “just following orders” is not actually a valid excuse and that figures of authority may be wrong or that some of them are not to be trusted. It is this legacy that is still alive in Berlin today as the Berliner Ensemble just started a series of monologues on the “Hauptmann von Köpenick“.

It’s this theme that this 1955 movie picks up. A con man, impersonating a preacher is a serial killer that steals the money of widows. It is not clear how many he has killed (6 or 12) by the time he arrives along the Ohio River in the midst of the Depression. In jail he meets a man sentenced to death in a robbery that left two dead, but the $10,000 he stole never appeared. After the hanging he befriends the widow and even marries her in the quest to find the money. The eldest son, who had to swear never to tell anybody where the money is, sees right through him, but he fails to convince anybody else. How could you doubt such a nice preacher that delivers such eloquent sermons out of nowhere?!?!?

And it’s the oozing charisma of Robert Mitchum that really draws you in. He manages to manipulate the mother into feeling guilty that she was the one who killed her husband, because she asked him for worldly possessions. Even when she finally accepts that her son was telling the truth, she first starts praying, so strong is the brainwashing the fake preacher did. Add to that the cinematography that Charles Laughton used throughout the movie, his explicit inspiration from German expressionism of the 1920s and it makes for a truly haunting movie. I kept thinking about certain scenes for hours, not because they were overly deep, but because they were so eerie. For example, there is a shot of a car on the bottom of the river with seaweed around it that is truly haunting, like a ghost. Or a shot where Harry Powell is framed against a bright background on a horse, inescapable, humming a melody that makes him so scary.

It’s a downright tragedy that the movie bombed and Charles Laughton saw himself as a failure and never directed or produced anything again. One and done with a masterpiece, I guess! The movie is over 70 years old and there are some dated resolutions, like the ending. But even there, it features a traumatic response by the son that wasn’t typical in movies of that time, so I can’t fully fault the resolution. It’s truly a great movie with some great performances, even the kids acted well, which was a novelty at the time. I can thoroughly recommend this thriller!

Mar 15 2026

1954 – La Strada

1954 – La Strada (The Road)

It’s an italian road movie directed by Federico Fellini. It stars Anthony Quinn as Zampano and Fellini’s wife Giulletta Masina as Gelsonima as a pair traveling Italy with a sort of circus act. It’s included with Germany’s Amazon Prime subscription.

The Oscars are tonight! I know the spectacle is not as esteemed as it once was, but I do enjoy the conversation around it, since inevitably I find out about a movie or performance that wasn’t on my radar. This year I am rooting for Sentimental Value, but I know that it won’t win much. Definitely not best movie – the social commentary on One Battle After Another or Sinners is just too big this year. Not best director – also here PTA or Ryan Coogler would come before Joachim Trier. Not best actress – Renate Reinsve gives the best performance of the year; an exercise of communicating so much without saying anything, but Oscars usually go for “most” acting, so Jesse Buckley will win it for Hamnet. But one Oscar that the movie stands good chances of winning is Best International Film, which often are also very good movies (though often very serious).

So why not go with the first International Feature Film that won the Academy Award (back then called “Best Foreign Language Film”), Federico Fellini’s La Strada? After all, Fellini managed to win the prize 4 times in total, though never the actual Best Director Oscar. There’s a huge gap in my filmography here, I have never seen a Fellini movie, no “La Dolce Vita“, no “8 1/2“, so I thought I would start with one of his earlier works.

The movie is about a traveling strongman Zampano who buys Gelsomina, a woman with developmental disability, from her mother to become her wife / companion. His act is breaking a chain around his chest with his muscles and Gelsonima should now provide some comic relief and musical numbers to enhance this somewhat simple act. He treats her quite badly during the time they are together: hits her, insults her, leaves her on the streets the whole night while going off with another woman – just treats her like a piece of garbage. Things escalate when they meet Il Matto (The Fool), another traveling circus-man culminating in a tragic end for the characters.

This was not an easy watch. The monotony of life on the road with the same dumb act over and over again is grating. The abuse Gelsomina experiences is spirit crushing. There are small moments of happiness or moments of realization, the way she learns to play the one tune on the trumpet, only for it to crumble down again. As such, I did not like the experience of watching the movie.

But it stays with you thanks to the wonderful performances of the two main characters (and the Fool to some extent). How Gelsomina tries to give Zampano yet another chance, how Zampano is brutishly in love with her, yet can’t express it. You all feel it from the performances. And so I will cheat and leave the review of another letterboxd user here, captured so well what the movie leaves:

Sometimes in life we meet someone special even if we don’t realize it until we’ve moved past them. Someone you find who is kind, curious, maybe a little bit innocent and maybe a little bit naive, but nonetheless someone you can take in under your wing. It’s a favor you’re doing them, showing them the ropes of life and teaching them things they never knew about before.

Though you were strangers at one point you grow closer to each other, closer to their eyes and their smile until you can see them in your sleep. You start to look forward to the presence of their company until you start to miss them when you’re away. No matter, you always come back. That’s just how reliant you are with each other.

Soon you become inseparable, familiar with each other’s quirks and habits as well as what irritates the other. Sometimes it can’t be helped, these irritations I mean, especially when it comes from them. You can’t be helped, getting upset I mean, especially because you’re so close to them. Sometimes it’s so much you need to leave. No matter, you always come back. That’s just how dependent you are on each other.

Until one day they irritate you so much that you leave and never come back. You wasted your time on them, on giving them everything you could when you could’ve just let them go on their way. Good bye, good riddance, and good luck with your life. You won’t be a part of it anymore.

… and then one day you look back and remember those days. You realize you gave them all you could, except your compassion, your patience, your understanding, your kindness. Why didn’t you give those too? Because you loved them, you loved them and didn’t want to accept that. Because to do so would be to truly let them into your heart, and that’s a closeness you just weren’t ready for – even if they were.

Mar 1 2026

1953 – Roman Holiday

It is a romantic comedy directed by William Wyler, starring Audrey Hepburn as the princess (in her introduction and Oscar winning role) and Gregory Peck as the sleazy reporter wanting to make money out of the princess. Several blacklisted people worked on the film, such as the writer Dalton Trumbo and assistant director Bernard Vorhaus, who worked anonymously and were only later given credit. The movie was filmed entirely on location in Rome by Cinecittà Studios and follows various famous tourist locations. I rented it on Apple TV for 3.99 Eur.

The last two weeks have been fairly light fare in my movie and TV watching. Some romantic comedies, most of them quite middling (with the exception of Eternity, which I adored and would probably made it onto my top 5 movies of 2025). On the TV side, I did start the newest season of Bridgerton, but am not fully binge-watching it. This season, apparently, is about how a maid can make it into society – a Cinderella story as old as time. In Bridgerton it even features an evil stepmother. The opposite story – about a lady from high society falling for a commoner is not quite as common, but also is quite popular – think Aladdin, Titanic or even Dirty Dancing. But the story that is iconic until today from real life is the doomed relationship between Princess Margaret and Peter Townsend.

It is that theme which the movie picks up (though apparently Paramount had to release an official statement to the Royal Family that Princess Anne was not based on Princess Margaret): burdened by duty and official events, Princess Anne longs for a while outside of court. When a stranger picks her up, she spins up a story, how she’s a runaway student and enjoys a day doing fun stuff in Rome. Little does she know that the stranger knows exactly who she is and is giving her the fun day as a way to keep her on a leash for his story he’s selling (plus he needs pictures as proof he was with her at all these locations).

And what a fun day they have – that’s the movie. Nothing super deep here, but it’s so much fun to watch these two romp around Rome, their chase on a Vespa, their joke at the Bocca della Verità, the various Palazzi, etc. It’s surreal sometimes, seeing the Trevi Fountain so empty and even a few children swimming on the rocks; today it’s so crowded that they now charge for admission.

It just works. In that sense, I continue my two-week “watch movies without much deep meaning”; and that’s not a bad thing. Audrey Hepburn really is that wonderful. The romance really is palpable between the two leads. The ending does work, but I won’t give it away (enough to say that the two leads were approached for a sequel, which then never materialized). So I am glad, I saw this movie, quite entertaining.