1948 – Bicycle Thieves

1948 – Bicycle Thieves – (Ladri di biciclette)

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!

1947 – The Lady from Shanghai

1947 – The Lady from Shanghai

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.

1946 – Gilda

1946 – Gilda

It’s an american noir directed by Charles Vidor. It stars Rita Hayworth as Gilda, Glenn Ford as Johnny Farrell and George Macready as Ballin Mundson in a deliciously elegant antagonist role. It’s the story about a gambler rediscovering his old girlfriend in Argentina, only she’s out for revenge and is married to his new boss. I rented it on Apple TV for 3.99 Eur.

One of the reasons movies are so special to us is they often transport us to a world that is far beyond our reach. Whether it’s a fantasy adventure like Lord of the Rings or a historic epic like Gladiator, heck, even a Western like The Searchers, you are wholly in an unfamiliar setting. What has become less and less prevalent, are movies about far away lands, the exoticism, coupled with opportunity of a clean slate. Even growing up, the movies of the 80s and 90s were often: “I did a crime, I’m going to Mexico!”. 80 years ago, every country outside our own seemed ripe and full of possibilities, because we didn’t know any better. The world of sophisticated and elegant actors, a dream to journey on for riches.

Today, nothing is exotic anymore, every little cafe in the middle of nowhere has a Google review and GPS makes sure you aren’t lost even in the deepest jungle or the most arid landscape. I’ve been fascinated this year reading about Point Nemo or the adventures of wandering to Bir Tawil, the last truly unknown places. It seems I am not alone with this feeling, one of my favorite YouTubers expressed as much for the way we travel, in that it somehow lost its magic.

So it was nice to travel back in time with this movie, to a place where you could Tabula Rasa your way in – Buenos Aires, Argentina (and also Montevideo later) seemed exotic enough. The war had just ended, the world full of possibilities for gamblers and sinners to start anew.

And boy does this movie look great. It’s not for nothing that Andy Dupree was stricken by Rita Hayworth and put her up on that wall in The Shawshank Redemption, that flick with the hair inmortailized. The hip action in her songs – what amazing rendition of Put the Blame on Mame dubbed in by Anita Ellis. And even old Johnny chap is very nice on the eyes. I only ever knew him for being Pa Kent in Superman, but that smirk and the way he leans… swoon. And the electricity between them is crackling, apparently it was real and they become “on again, off again” lovers during the filming of the movie.

But the plot is a convoluted mess, haha. As I said, go for the exotics, the elegance, the worldliness, but not for the story. Of course the villain is somehow involved with the Germans. Of course the elegant local policeman will be the one handing out sage advice. Of course our hero is a plucky american, a little rough on the edges, but with a little gamble in him, he’ll get what he want. At least the ending didn’t quite adhere to noir tropes. So an entertaining movie all around and a great escape to a time when you could just “escape” to Argentina – just don’t try looking for logic and please overlook the millions of plot holes.

1945 – Brief Encounter

1945 – Brief Encounter

It is a British romantic tragedy directed by David Lean from a screenplay by Noel Coward based on a 1936 one-act play Still Life. It stars Celia Johnson as Laura and Trevor Howard as Alec. I saw it on YouTube thanks to the wonderful restoration by the British Film Institute, the David Lean Foundation and Digital restoration by CineImage

I feel like my life has settled into a comfortable routine nowadays. It’s great, I get to travel the world and do amazing science and get to meet super interesting people. And then I get to go home to a kind and loving family. I have no money troubles, no illnesses, no major burdens. But one thing, I do try to do every so often, is to realize the uniqueness that lives in that routine, the small things you know. It occurred to me when I heard yet another person complaining about air travel, how we have forgotten how magical it is that we get into a metal flying tube and are at our destinations so quickly it was unimaginable just 120 years ago. It’s a bit like being in love sometimes, grateful for it, your senses are more tuned to the world around you and you see the good in everything.

I think that is what I take from this movie the most. It’s about a love story between two married people, that was so brief, it didn’t even fully get off the ground. It was so powerful for them, it makes it seem so powerful to us, too. Yet life around them goes on as normal, I like the little “will they, won’t they” routine the train conductor has with the refreshment room lady or how the kids are petulant, but nice. When they’re in love, suddenly everything, even a lady playing the base weirdly is wildly funny or an excursion to an old stone bridge meaningful.

Did I buy into the romance? Yes, I did. Celia Johnson plays the part marvelously, strikes just the correct balance (for that time acting, at least) to make us see and believe what she is going through. Her change in face when she is lying to her friend on the phone asking her to cover for her to when she hangs up, is well portrayed to us. And Trevor Howard makes it very easy for us, the audience, to fall for him, too. I also like the realism on how it won’t last – like what are they supposed to run away together? It takes me back to one of the final scenes in “The Bridges of Madison County“, how she is clinging to the door handle, but doesn’t act on it.

The movies this is most compared to, is the “Before-Trilogy” by Richard Linklater, the giddiness of the first encounter on the train, the played upon non-chalance in the second movie and the setting in of the realism in the third movie. It’s not just me, one of the top comments on Letterboxd is a misquote from Before Sunset (my favorite one of the three): “Baby, you’re going to miss your train!” (she says plane in the movie) and it’s all we can think of, that Laura (of Brief Encounter now) should give in to her feelings. Sadly, I do give the slight edge to the “Before Trilogy” in that sense, “Brief Encounter” is just a tad too melodramatic.

The final interesting aspect, which I didn’t know, was the music. In the background it kept playing the second movement of Sergei Rachmaninoff’s Piano Concerto No. 2, but we do now know it by the name “All by myself” made mostly famous by Celine Dion. If you don’t know the story of that note, how it gives you chills how she sang it after he husband died, I fully recommend this YouTube video David Neely made of the song. Anyway, I kept thinking about the sadness of the song as I watched the movie and it fit so perfectly. Well done, David Lean! I am now a bit more melancholic and romanic, but tuned to what is happening around me, thankful for what it has given me.

1944 – Arsenic and Old Lace

1944 – Arsenic and Old Lace

It’s a dark screwball comedy directed by Frank Capra and starring mainly Cary Grant as Mortimer Brewster. It’s based on a play with the same name by Joseph Kesselring, which was very successful, so it was stipulated that the film would not be released until its Broadway run ended. I rented in on YouTube, since both Apple and Amazon only had the German version here for sale.

The leaves have been falling like crazy these last few days here in Berlin. Fall is here and with it pumpkins (soups, pies, lattes, jack-o-lanterns, …), corn mazes (though there aren’t as many as in the past…) and Halloween stuff! Also movies; from marathons the streaming services releasing a bunch of horror movies to the over the air TV channels issuing their Halloween night schedule (apparently it’s actual Halloween marathon this year). So this movie fit right into the season, its whole plot unfolding over Halloween night. Plus, it’s not scary, but a macabre, black comedy.

As to what makes it dark – well it’s two extremely sweet, old ladies murdering lonely older gentlemen (they just bagged their 12th victim in the windowsill) out of pity. It’s wrong, but when you look at them, how they prance around the hall with their arsenic infused wine, you can’t help but laugh. They’re pleasant, give toys to the poor, are in good standing with the police and clergy, how can you not love them? And in their sweetness, they don’t feel remorse either. In fact, there’s quite some commentary over how some people do some truly horrible things in the name of pity, going over the heads of the victims, but present themselves as honorable citizens.

But the movie doesn’t linger on this too long. It’s more on the desperation of their nephew to save his aunts from the police by trying to pin it on his delusional younger brother “Teddy”, who things he’s the actual Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy has buried the bodies in the basement (no, that’s not a metaphor) thinking it’s Panama and they were victims of yellow fever. Getting him interned in an insane asylum is a way to bury… ahem… to keep the skeletons in the closet.

But then hilarity ensues when Mortimer’s other estranged brother Jonathan shows up with his sidekick Dr. Einstein (Peter Lorre is really becoming my favorite actor in this blog, he again is a reason why the whole plot doesn’t fall apart). He’s become quite a killer, I mean criminal on his own also claiming a dozen murders on his side of the ledger. Can Mortimer remain sane with all things crashing upon his once very simple world? The murderous aunts, the crazy brothers, one evil, one naive, his new wive, the police, the director of the asylum, the taxi driver in front of his house, etc., etc., Yes, at a certain point it becomes slapstick and the conclusion is also quite rushed, but in the middle it is quite funny, being punctuated by Cary Grant’s excellent over-the-top acting. His “deer in the headlights” look is especially great and we feel for him when he mumbles to himself trying to hatch a scheme to get out of the newest comeuppance driving a dent into the old plan.

It is quite clear that the movie was born out of a play. The whole thing takes place in the main room of the aunts’ house, with some elements on the outside or the stairs, but which can fit the stage quite comfortably. It’s a plus and minus an some points. Plus, because it keeps everything contained and there are no long excursions into a distraction to the main plot, but minus, because it retains too much of the play character. It’s not like filming the play of Hamilton and calling it a movie and there are some cinematic elements (close-ups, the shot from the stairs, the music, …), but overall the movie made me even curiouser about the play. There was even a line where the brother Jonathan grows incensed because the plastic surgery has made him look like Frankenstein’s monster. Everybody says: “He looks like Boris Karloff!”, which makes him angry. Well, in the Broadway play, he was played by the actual Boris Karloff.

So, final verdict. I laughed in quite a few places, so yes, very successful in that, but don’t go around looking for the heart we see just 2 years later in Frank Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life. It never leaves its screwball roots and as such is a good time and some very good, funny lines, but not much more behind it. Hey, it’s Halloween in 1944, sometimes you just want amusement!