Jun 22 2026

1961 – The Children’s Hour

It’s a psychological drama produced and directed by William Wyler (oh, hello again) with a screenplay by John Michael Hayes, based on the 1934 play of the same title by Lillian Hellman, which itself is inspired by a real case in 1810 that happened to two ladies running a school in Scotland. It stars Audrey Hepburn as Karen and Shirley MacLaine as Martha who run a girls school and find themselves in social and financial ruin after a student accuses them of engaging in a lesbian relationship. I saw it on YouTube here.

Sorry, I am a day late. I was on a little family trip and World Cup is on, so my interests are with that for the moment, hehe. I was even contemplating whether to just skip a week, but since I did watch this movie last night, I count it as being on time. Looking back, it would’ve coincided with June 28th better as it’s the anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, but hey, all of June is Pride Month! Choosing this movie was fairly random, it seemed interesting, I liked both actresses, was not in the mood for a Samurai Kurosawa movie (Yojimbo) and weirdly I have seen a lot of 1961 movies.

So the premise of the movie is fairly simple to tell: a reckless student in an all-girls boarding school accuses the two women who run it of having a romantic relationship and the repercussions that scandalous accusation bring. You know how often we say that children should rule the world, then it would be a better place? Nah, children are the worst, because they often have no idea how bad the consequences of their actions are. Here this kid, who is like 12-13 thoroughly destroys the lives of two women just out of spite, because she didn’t want to be punished for her lies. She manipulates her fellow students with blackmail and fully gaslights her grandmother into her evil story.

I liked the premise very much. It offered so many possibilities. It fully passes the Bechdel test, lol. Unfortunately, the movie has two flaws that take somebody completely out of it.

(a) it’s so badly acted – everybody is running around screaming and whaling their intentions to each other in such a dramatic way. James Gardner, who plays Karen’s love interested even sings his lines in that typical “Hey, I’m acting” way. Horrible, it took me out of the movie. The only person that saves the movie is Audrey Hepburn, with the quiet hurt, but also dignity that she can convey in her eyes. It really saved the movie. The rest of the cast (yes, even Shirley MacLaine, as much as it pains me to write this) is horrible.

(b) Oh the melodrama! I really didn’t know if it was supposed to be camp, but they sure didn’t present it that way. Rather than quietly explore something of what could’ve been, it’s just a bunch of howling and shrieking that leads to a very disappointing ending, even for 1961 and especially for 2026 – it’s just too Hays coded. Man, how far we have come!

Glad I watched it, but unfortunately, it didn’t speak to me, precisely because it wasn’t brave enough to really tackle the subject.

Jun 7 2026

1960 – Psycho

It’s an American horror film produced and directed by Alfred Hitchcock, with a screenplay by Joseph Stefano based on a novel by Robert Bloch. It stars Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates and Janet Leigh as Marion Crane, a woman on the run who stops by the Bates Motel. It’s considered one of the most influential horror movies of all time. I rented it on Apple TV for 3.99 Eur.

The 60s! We’ve arrived at a new decade where in the beginning there will be huge movie productions: sandal epics like Ben-Hur or big production musicals, but then a slump will hit by the end of the decade, be it because of the decline of the studio system, because of the rise of TV at home or because of a general disillusionment of the Boomer generation. No matter, the 70s will give us gritty, realistic cinema, so I am quite ready for the ride from glamour to rawness.

Heh, we’ve arrived at yet another one of my big gaps in my filmography, one of the most famous horror movies ever and considered a true masterpiece by Alfred Hitchcock. I did try to see it once, when I was like 12 or so and found it boring, because it wasn’t about somebody being stabbed at all, it was about this boring secretary – did I get the right movie? Watchingw it live on some movie channel in 1991, I couldn’t just stop and check and quickly switched to something else. Now, in 2026, I have been thoroughly spoiled, on both the famous scene (the one I was looking for) and the resolution. I did still want to see it, though, and make up my own mind whether it was good.

Look, horror isn’t my favorite genre. I was fascinated by the forbidden fruit of it, staying up late to watch the Nightmare on Elm Street or Friday the 13th movies and other horror movies when I was way too young. Just recently, I was recalling a particularly gruesome scene from Puppetmaster with the Leech Woman – I was not supposed to watch this so young. Needless to say, more than 35 years later, it still is in my mind, yeech. But by the time most people enjoy horror movies, I was way grown out of it. I still enjoyed Scream in high school (mostly for the hot actors), but just laughed at people being scared by The Blair Witch Project. It seems horror is having a small renaissance currently with Obsession and Backrooms conquering the box office way over other fare like the Star Wars Mandalorian movie, so let’s go with the vibe of horror 2026 and complete my filmography in the process – Psycho it is.

What can one say about such a famous movie that hasn’t been said before? Well, it is a bit dated on the horror front. There is maybe one sequence where I would’ve been on the edge of my seat, had I not been spoiled. So, even though it created a lot of the horror tropes, those forbidden horror movies from the 80s have desensitized me so much that some suspense from a 1960 movie sequence elicits only a small raised eyebrow from me. Psycho supposedly is based on Ed Gein, the butcher of Plainfield, a local hermit who stole bodies from graveyards and kept bones and other body parts as keepsakes in addition to murdering two women. So I think just 3 years after the discovery of his disturbing home, it would’ve been more horrific in people’s minds, especially before other notorious serial killers from the 1970s.

What really stands out, however, are the technical details. Already in Vertigo, the fall from the tower was dizzying, but here I felt even more disoriented by a fall from the stairs. The music score is classic, yet hits perfectly. The shadow play on Norman Bates’ face is just perfect – makes one totally uncomfortable; I really like that he went back to black and white for this one as it emphasized the feeling of confinement very well. And Anthony Perkins really puts on a great performance, the whole transformation from “oh, that poor boy, he really seems quite nice” to “oh my god, psycho…” is masterfully executed. Happy to have really seen it and not just parts of it. It was an enjoyable time, albeit not going to be on my top movies of the year – I was just too spoiled for it.

May 24 2026

1959 – Ben Hur

It’s one of those definitions of an Epic – a sprawling story, about the life of the hero and all the trials he has to go through to fulfill his mission. It was directed by William Wyler (hi again, after Roman Holiday), produced by Sam Zimbalist (15 million dollar gamble paying off wonderfully) and starring Charlton Heston in the main role as Judah Ben Hur. It won 11 Academy Awards, the most before Titanic and Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King matched it. I rented it on Apple TV for 3.99 Eur.

One of the big reasons I love movies is the love my parents had for them. We were one of the first families to get a VCR and would drive to the only Video Store in Town. As a small child, it was an easy Sunday activity to go to the theaters and once we got cable, we would often watch movies with my dad from breakfast to 3pm, when we would be hungry for lunch. Yeah, so many movies discovered with my dad. As you know, there was no Video on Demand and they became lazy going to the Video Store, since movie channels showed them 24/7. However, you had to be lucky to sort of stumble into one movie beginning and there was no curations, so there was a lot of crap, often.

Yet, I look fondly at those Sundays, me watching stuff, I probably shouldn’t have. Just recently I was having a debate about The Color of Money being a good movie, actually! Who did I watch it with? My billiard playing dad. Obscure stuff, which I still love, like Moon Over Parador making fun of dictatorships in Latin America, but also cinephile stuff like Cinema Paradiso, which he would endlessly comment over. One Sunday that I still remember fondly is when we watched Spartacus, I immediately rolled my eyes at him, complaining that we shouldn’t watch these old, long movies and asking why we couldn’t watch a comedy. He just said calmly that this is supposed to be good and this is what we were going to watch today, and man, did I love it. I always loved movies I didn’t fully understand as a kid; they gave me room to grow and keep asking questions.

That movie and many Epics like it, are often what we watch them for – taking us to faraway places, times and cultures. And since I loved Spartacus that much, I figured I fill that gap in my filmography and watch another Epic of that time – one that is mostly known for the chariot scene, its long runtime, the many Academy Awards it won and the many extras the movie employed (8000). I did not know it also involved Jesus in a big way, so was a bit surprised my mom told me it’s more of an Easter movie when I told her I was watching it (now I get it).

Man, it did not disappoint. The chariot scene was awesome, of course, but more than that, the way he navigates the circumstances, Also impressive the scenery from Jerusalem, to the ships, to Nazareth, to grand Rome. The way the friendship between Messala and Judah deteriorates to hatred – the major gay energy in their first scene together, apparently wanted by the screenwriter Gore Vidal unbeknownst to Charlton Heston. The way leprosy was depicted. And of course, the major theme of how you find peace in yourself after your life has been filled with revenge.

I was afraid of the runtime, of course, and I did have to stop a few times along the way. But that was, because we have guests this weekend and not because the movie was boring. The music was a bit corny (especially that 50s choir style at the end of the movie), well, compared to the similar Gladiator, but when I see how far we have come in comparison to The Adventures of Robin Hood, this is miles above. Some of the costumes look cheap, but that doesn’t distract from the movie (I’m looking at you The Odyssey criticism by just looking at costumes). Charlton Heston was not a savory character, especially with his politics later in life, but here he plays the role he is supposed to superbly. Somebody recently said to me that she can’t really watch movies like Indiana Jones or similar anymore, what with the male hero prancing around and letting everybody know he is the “male hero of the movie.” I disagree; the escapism is exactly the point.

All in all, well deserved of its many Academy Awards and even though it’s not a perfect movie, it’s super entertaining and its mission to transport us away from our modern worries for a few hours is accomplished well!

May 10 2026

1958 – Elevator to the Gallows (Ascenseur pour l’échafaud)

1958 – Elevator to the Gallows

It’s a French crime thriller directed by Louis Malle. Technically, it’s not Nouvelle Vague (French New Wave), which is more rooted in the early 60s, but it lies in this transition, borrowing elements from American movies, like the film noir aspects, but adding in the meandering elements of French cinema, like the amazing soundtrack from Miles Davis (who spent a few years in Paris, and always saw the city as a creative hub for his career). It stars Jeanne Moreau as Florence Carala, the wife of a prominent arms dealer, and Maurice Ronet as Julien Tavernier, her lover and husband’s murderer, whose whole plot unravels when he becomes trapped in an elevator. I rented it on Amazon Video for 3.99 Eur.

There’s an old saying attributed to Bill Gates that says “We overestimate how much things change in 2 years and underestimate how much the change in 10”. When you are living through a decade, you hardly notice the changes, yet when you look back at pictures from yourself in the 90s, it is distinct from pictures in the 2000s or 2010s. Add in to that the music, or even different smells to enhance your memory and suddenly that decade feels so distinct and so separated from your life today, even though it is so familiar and was important in shaping you to what you are today.

The same thing happens to me even in decades where I wasn’t even alive, perhaps even more so, since the elements of style are really the only things that you have to anchor yourself to that time. And so it happens in this movie that through the style elements—the fashion, the smoking, the functional furniture, the changing style of the cars, but most importantly the jazz music score—you feel transported to late 50s, early 60s Paris. I swear, I could smell the stench of those cigarillos they smoke at the motel, or the wood of the pencils being sharpened, even Louis’s leather jacket.

I have been too afraid of tackling French New Wave cinema, apprehensive that I won’t understand its allusions to art, its sensuality, etc. So I thought that I would first watch something that still had enough American influence and a crime mystery to overcome that. Little did I know that the straightforward series of misunderstandings that make up the story is somewhat its weakest part, and the sensual, feeling, artsy stuff was the best (so cool, really so cool).

I also liked how understatedly funny and cynical the movie was at the same time. The jolly German tourist making fun of the adventures the French have gone on since WWII—Algeria, Indochina—acts as a biting commentary against those getting rich off these wars. Or the woman searching for her lover on the streets of Paris; it looks so sensual, so sexy when the rain is falling and you don’t know whether it’s tears or rain running down her face. But then you realize the irony that she is going from a sandwich shop, to a normal bar, to a gambling parlor, and lastly landing in an underground bar—every station a further step down in Parisian society. When she finally arrives arrested at the police station, nobody can quite fathom she is the rich wife of a man of tremendous standing in society.

But of course, the score is what is best about the movie and places it into the pantheon of groundbreaking cinema. I am by no means jazz’s biggest fan, but for this movie it was perfect, making it simply smooth and cool. Funny how that is; sometimes the biggest factors in squarely placing our memories into a specific time and place are not images, but smells and sounds. This movie did that perfectly.

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!