It’s a Southern Goth dramatic film directed by Elia Kazan. It is based on the famous, Pulitzer winning play by Tennesee Williams. In fact, all main actors, but Vivien Leigh also played in the original play (in the play it was Jessica Tandy in a role that made her famous). It stars Marlon Brando as Stanley, Vivien Leigh as Blanche, Kim Hunter as Stella and Karl Malden as Mitch. I rented it on Apple TV for 3.99 Eur.
For the longest time, I hated costume dramas, it was always just who marries who and the intrigue, gossip and “behind the scenes” of it all. But in the last few years, I’ve come around some of the movies, mainly because I can finally imagine how high stakes it was that you end up with the right man. It was the choice between leading a coddled life and being destitute. I now appreciate how intelligent and a bit conniving the Winona Ryder character had to be in The Age of Innocence to hold on to her man, but seeming aloof at the same time. No wonder Marty choose to direct that movie right along the gangster movies, those societal rules are as strict as Mafia code.
In that sense, this movie intrigued me right from the start. Will Blanche make it so that Mitch might rescue her in marriage or will her brute brother in law Stanley screw everything up? The psychological game between these two was also very intriguing, how far can you show the disdain for the other person without mucking it up with the person in the middle – Stella, the wife and the sister?
And in a very poignant scene on the docks along the water it also becomes clear how Blanche suffered because she made the wrong choice. Fell in love with a gay young man, married him and suffered until one night all that frustration just blurted out and he killed himself in desperation. A very impactful monologue on a wrong choice made, even if she loved him.
Unfortunately that’s as far as it goes. Stanley is just too brutish. Even though Brando is good looking, the second he hits his wife, which surprisingly is very early in the movie, I loathed every scene he was in. Exposing Blanche is cruel and driving her to insanity implied sexual assault is just icing on the “eww, this guy really is an asshole” cake.
But Vivien Leigh is not a sympathetic character either. She is to represent the fall of the South, where tradition goes to die in the hands of a Polish immigrant. Where all the antics are forgiven as long as you have property (Belle Reve), but you are a fallen woman when not, slowly going insane.
So in that sense, great performances, great allure. But the stuff that really interested me – whether she could somehow make it work with Mitch – never really got going. And the stuff that didn’t interest me – the psychological torture these two submitted the other to – got so melodramatic and bitter that the final, though sad, just left me cold. These people deserve to wither.
It’s a romantic comedy directed by George Cukor. It’s based on the 1946 play by Garson Kanin of the same name. Since Cukor apparently disliked Kanin, he did not share credit with him or the playwright Albert Mannheimer. It stars Judy Holliday as Billie Dawn (in her Oscar winning role), Broderick Crawford as Harry Brock and William Holden as Paul Verrall. I rented it on YouTube for 3.99 Eur.
Happy New Year, everybody. I never did write that summary of my first year of “100 years of movies”. Ah, never mind; it wasn’t going to be that interesting anyway. The theme is mainly that working on scratching out a list let’s you in on so many amazing movies (like “M” or “To Be or Not To Be”), but also some real clunkers (I am still stewing on how unlikable the protagonist of “Bicycle Thieves” is). You need the patience to go through it, so that the discovery of gems is even more rewarding. In summary, I am really happy, I undertook this project and I am really interested what I will discover in the 3rd year (movies from the 80s and 90s are my most-watched decades). Anyway, my essays in 2026 will cover the movie years 1950-1974, a period of significant change in cinema. It starts with Hollywood still being in a high, but very soon will be attacked by HUAC and people having TVs in their homes. But it will come out of the slump at the end of the 60s with a whole of individual auteurs, away from the rigid studio system into a more gritty, realistic cinema. I am really interested in the journey. Let’s begin.
One of my favorite TV shows is Better Call Saul. I could go wax poetic about it, especially now that Rhea Seehorn is finally getting awards recognition for Pluribus, but a major standout is the cinematography. Colors, shapes, angles and costumes all have meaning. The references within the show are also superb, from the books characters read and the songs they listen to, down to the food consumed. And, of course, the movies. In the climax of the final season, the midpoint of the season and the real breaking point of the whole series is Plan and Execution (just look at that IMDB score 9.9!). Before the shocking final act, Jimmy and Kim are just relaxing, celebrating, having some wine and watching a movie. Which movie? Well “Born Yesterday”, of course – the scene where Billie goes “the proper study of mankind is man (’cause that includes women, too)”. In the next episode the movie comically goes on playing, but I won’t give anything away. In any case, the choice of that movie and that quote made me curious about it.
I had seen the middling remake with Melanie Griffith before. Look, I do have a soft spot for Melanie Griffith, I don’t know why, but I can hardly recall anything about the movie, only that she wanders to the dictionary time and time again – so it’s forgettable, but not as bad as many people say. But what finally put this movie on my big watchlist was BKR’s 1950s Oscar race video essay. All About Eve is without a doubt the movie that turned me towards old movies, how good they could be. Bette Davis was just so fascinating to watch, so magnetic. It was unfathomable how anybody else could’ve won the race. But then, that 1950s race supposedly was legendary, because it also included Gloria Swanson for Sunset Boulevard, which was also amazing (though I am still on the Bette Davis train). What could’ve surpassed those performances?!?!? Judy Holiday’s performance apparently – so I had to watch it.
And yes, all three lead performances are amazing. Judy Holliday does have a natural charisma, and slips into the role very comfortably. At first I thought that voice would be grating on me, but she manages to change it ever so slightly over the course of starting to become a bit more educated that at the end you wanted to hear what she was going to say for herself, it had a touch of assuredness. Her “ditzy, dumb blond” performance is so iconic, she played it just a year later in front of the Pat McCarran’s Senate Internal Security Committee for apparently sympathizing with communists – no idea whether the Senate bought her performance or whether she didn’t really have any connections with communists, but she never suffered any consequences in her acting career from that subpoena. In any case, also also Broderick Crawford’s performance was amazing. I immediately bought his unlikable, but powerful dumb oaf performance. The scene where Harry and Billie are playing cards is mesmerizing: her for winning every hand and having a weird system in shuffling the cards; him, for wanting to assert power, but still yearning for those minutes with her, the way he slams the deck, but then looks at her. Fascinating! And William Holden? He is okay, but let’s face it, he is mainly eye candy. Haha.
Ok, so how about the themes of the movie? They are quite simplistic. The movie implies that Billie had her awakening through the study of politics in just a few weeks. That’s not how it works, of course, education takes time. In that sense, the process is presented almost childishly, packaged with sexism and derision and an odd Americana tinge (glorifying the architecture of Washington DC). But the lines the movie delivers are powerful. The way they equate selfishness to fascism immediately makes one think of the current president of the United States. The way Billie tells the senator that money shouldn’t put any person above his constituents immediately brings up images of Elon Musk. Her journey of self-discovery is fascinating to watch, even if it is not realistic.
In that sense, the delivery of the message is a little too plump. Harry is a convenient villain – loud and couth. The audience from the first scene knows he’s the bad guy, the way he treats the hotel staff and splashes around with his money. Of course, the breaking moment is when he hits Billie, of course he gets his comeuppance through his greed in the end (that is the mildest of spoilers, come on, you know the moral center will win).
So the theme of the movie seems to be that “knowledge is power,” yadda yadda, very liberal values, which is why the movie is often loved in liberal circles. Yet the movie conveniently forgets about the silent villain in the back, the knowledgeable lawyer Jim. He knows which politicians to buy and exactly how far to go with the law without getting into trouble. He could have been Assistant Attorney General, yet he willingly lets himself get lured to the dark, but very lucrative, side. Conveniently, the movie ties the main story up too neatly with a bow and just scratches the surface of the matter. If it is an invitation to further educate oneself, it is very superficially delivered; if it is a warning to stand for your principles no matter the lure of riches, it’s not very successful. I am probably being too harsh on the movie in this last paragraph, but that’s how I felt about the delivery of the message. But it is an entertaining romp, so I should not dissuade you to watch it from that viewpoint.
It’s a Japanese drama film directed by the great Yasujirō Ozu. It stars Chishû Ryû as Shukishi Somiya (the father) and Setsuko Hara as Noriko Somiya (the daughter). The plot is about a 27 year old woman taking care of her widowed father, and the societal pressure that she experiences, because she’s not married yet; even her father is even trying to convince her of this. It’s the first of the so-called “Noriko trilogy” in which Setsuko Hara plaus a woman named Noriko on each one – the other two being “Early Summer” and the much more famous “Tokyo Story“. I saw it on YouTube here.
People love telling others what to do, what they should spend their money on, how they should raise their kids, heck, even if, when, and how many kids they should have. In today’s society it is often seen as meddling, we have become quite individualistic, but we forget that often this advice comes from a place of good, that people actually care.
That is basically what I felt while watching the movie. In the beginning, I grew, if not angry, then annoyed at the aunt interfering in her niece’s life and even convincing her brother. But by the end she was so happy, convinced that good fortune was going to come upon their family, that even the father plays that game.
It’s a testament to the movie that I am still ambivalent about what the right path is. On the one hand, hey, it’s her life, she should decide what to do with it. On the other hand, it’s not like she’s harboring some grand plan or passion that would be destroyed if she got married. No, she just doesn’t want things to change. But in a society in late 1940s Japan, where everybody is still reeling from the war, personal fulfillment sort of takes a back seat.
Ok, so the themes seem pretty clear, how about the execution? Be ready for it to be slow. But so slow, that you get lost in that Japan with an amazing cinematography. At one point, they visit Kyoto and the pictures are so vivid, I swear, I could almost see color. And the slowness helps in discerning the feelings of everyone. How somebody says something matter-of-factly, but the camera lingers on a face, a sake cup, a dress for just long enough to let us know what’s really going on.
Most of the time that was fine, great even. However, at some points it became so slow as to become tedious. For example, there is a visit to a traditional Noh theater, which just drags and drags, I became restless and missed a realization, which thankfully was explained later.
I am quite happy that I chose this 25th movie as my last of 2025, it makes you contemplative heading into the New Year. I really loved this little project so far, picking out the next movie every 2 weeks, discovering something new or finally scratching something off an inner mental list. Next blog post will be a quick one with a ranking and then off we go with 1950-1974 in 2026! But for now, Happy New Year, may it bring you joy, health, good luck and of course… great movies!
It’s an Italian neorealist drama film directed by Vittorio De Sica. It stars totally unknown actors Lamberto Maggiorani as the father (Antonio) and Enzo Staiola as the son (Bruno), who are looking for a stolen bike in poverty stricken post-WWII Italy. I saw it on YouTube, thanks to this amazing list I found on there. I chose it because it was at one time (1952) rated number 1 in Sight an Sound’s Greatest Movie of all time.
As a kid, I loved my bike. Rode it up and down our little neighborhood in the afternoons, down dirt paths, trying to get amazing jumps in. On the weekend my dad would take me to the BMX park and I would dive into the bowl with joy and try (and fail) some jumps on the half pipe. I even dreamt of my bike, that I could fly over the big cliff near our house, that I would win some bike race. I wasn’t even super good at it; I just loved the bike. Not for nothing, at one point I could recite you the lines of Pee-wee’s Big Adventure, by heart. Poor Peewee’s beautiful red bike (mine was red, too) gets stolen and he has to track it down all over America, what’s not to like?
I was also captivated by the two staples of Italian cinema when I was young: Cinema Paradiso and Life is Beautiful. Both are centered around the relationship between a boy and his father figure and both boys are so cute to look at. The pictures I had seen of Bruno in this movie seemed enough to convince me to watch this movie.
But then… I kinda hated this movie. First of all, the bleakness – yes, of course, post war Italy is bleak. People are fighting for survival, there aren’t any jobs around. But that’s just it, everybody is miserable, everybody is suffering, of course some people are going to resort to stealing. I could just simply no warm up to the main character. So self righteous, as if he deserved special treatment, as if he is the only one to be believed by the police. He gets all indignant and impatient when his wife goes to see a fortune-teller and nags at her, but then he goes to see her himself and whines that his wife nags at him. But the worst is his treatment of his son, he constantly yells at him when all he’s trying to do is to help his father. Poor kid falls and gets scraped in the rain, gets beaten by his old man and in the end is berated for having such a dead beat dad.
And the movie drags, too. It gets boring after a while to go from street to street of Antonio accusing yet another person of stealing his damn bike. There are some scenes, which are cute, for example Bruno eating his mozzarella sandwich (yum!), but I had to stop the movie at several points, because I was bored. Sorry, but I will just go back to Pee-Wee and let Antonio wallow in his misery.
This is my second-to-last entry for this year and I don’t want to end my last entry on a sour note, so before I leave, I want to wish you, some happy holidays and merry Christmas! Thanks for reading the blog!
It’s an american film noir produced and directed by Orson Welles and also stars him along Rita Hayworth as the two main characters. Welles’s screenplay is based on the novel “If I Die Before I Wake” by Sherwood King. It’s about a drifter sailor and how he gets caught up between a corrupt lawyer and his mysterious wife. I rented in on Apple TV for 3.99 Eur
You know what I like having grown up in a different country than I live now? Even though, I fully understand the culture and I can adapt fully, I know of different ways something can be looked at or done. It often leaves a smirk on my face when somebody is enraged that they’re being questioned about the way “they have always done it” or the unwillingness to adapt to new circumstances. I see that in other kids that grew up as citizens of the world and not married to one country, they have a sort of pragmatism about the world without succumbing to cynicism.
So it is here that I chose to have a second movie in a row with Rita Hayworth, because she plays this woman that grew up in China and calls herself a gambler of the world – it just seemed so interesting. Her way of talking, her familiarity about the Chinese culture in the far too few scenes in San Francisco, were fully intriguing. And it left me wondering, she was clearly a very knowledgable person of the world – what was her backstory?
Unfortunately, the film itself has many, many shortcomings. Allegedly, the film is about 60 minutes longer, but Welles was forced to cut a lot out by the studio. It shows. The story is quite abrupt in some places. In my review I had said, the movie needed a good editor, but perhaps when you have to cut that much, well then it doesn’t matter, it’s always going to be janky. As said above, I so would’ve loved to hear more about Elsa’s backstory. No, instead we get weird courtroom scenes, where Mr. Bannister plays the fool on purpose.
In my review, I had also said that the movie went style over substance, but perhaps too much of the substance was cut away in post. But boy, it is stylish; we’re in beautiful locations at sea and in Mexico, where everybody is sweaty and boozed up. The scenes in San Francisco are more muted, but much more elegant, even Chinatown looks enticing, like a whole other world. These scenes were both filmed on location and it ballooned the cost of the movie, but it does look amazing (like you can see the beach of Acapulco in the background and people walking on it, so it’s not a set). And the ending is what sells it to a lot of people, the hall of mirrors giving us a dizzying, disorientating feeling. Even that, was 20 minutes, cut down to just 3, a shame. Rita Hayworth, of course, steals the show as the femme fatale and even Orson Welles would’ve been charismatic and great if not for that very, very strange Irish accent he’s trying to sell (and sometimes forgets to enact).
And lastly, the melodrama. Nah, this time it was ratcheted up to 11 with the violin in the background trying to tug at your feelings. I just wasn’t sold on it. That’s the thing with melodramas, it’s very hard to argue when people get sold on them, sometimes they work and sometimes they just leave people cold. A lot of people like this B-movie noir (I did also seek it out for its quite good, but not excellent reviews), so it is a personal taste, it just didn’t appeal to me.
Tanya's Astro Blog 