1943 – The life and death of Colonel Blimp

1943 – The life and death of Colonel Blimp

It’s an english epic biography of an english soldier, with elements of war, romance and friendship. It was produced by Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger. It stars Roger Livesey as Clive Candy, Anton Walbrook as Theo Kretschmar-Schuldorff and a very young Deborah Kerr in 3 pivotal roles in Candy’s life. This movie also, thankfully was on YouTube.

We have now reached 1943 and while on the outside World War II is raging, also the number of movies being produced are certainly going down; there were only a third of many movies being made that year than in 1939. Also the themes are changing to include the raging war, but just as last year’s movie, one has to be careful not to fall into outright propaganda movies.

So, this one fit the bill, which was a quite critical of the English mindset of the beginning of the 20th century, with its colonialism, its supposed noblesse oblige, but all through the eyes of a quite naive English soldier stuck in the 19th century with allusions to honor and a carefully smoothed over history (for example, making light of the Boer concentration camps). One aspect I liked, is that that the movie didn’t tell you about it, you’re like two thirds of the way in and it dawns on you, “oh, that’s why it doesn’t sit right, it’s a critique of the old chap, not a celebration!”.

The way his obsession for a woman is manifested in him falling for the same type over and over again – heh, Deborah Kerr playing three roles in three important phases of Clive’s life. Creepy, but sweet at the same time. Thankfully, they’re all three quite independent women, the one in the middle marrying him to go off to see the world.

Another eye-rolling aspect is the “wall of trophies” he has in his own and which serves as a plot device to mark the passage of time. It is quite ridiculous how he accumulates these taxidermy mounts, the most cringe worthy being a whole elephant head. He even puts up a picture of his dead wife prominently in that room. We feel the uncomfortableness that Theo displays when he is shown the room.

But the most poignant point of the movie comes in the form of a speech comes right at the end. Clive is still steeped in his old ways of fighting right until the start of the Second World War. It reminded me of some aspects of Hillary Clinton’s campaign: Michelle Obama’s “When they go low, we go high” or her bringing up the dead Syrian toddler on the beach breaking he heart. It was a dirty fight and to a dirty fight you don’t bring appeals to honor or dignity. The movie explicitly has a speech about it from Theo:

“i don’t think you won it. we lost it — but you lost something, too. you forgot to learn the moral. because victory was yours, you failed to learn your lesson twenty years ago: this is not a gentleman’s war. this time you’re fighting for your very existence against the most devilish idea ever created by a human brain: nazism. and if you lose, there won’t be a return match next year… perhaps not even for a hundred years.”

And he’s like that the whole movie, surprised that the Germans would torture the English to get the location of a bridge, while his own soldiers do the same as soon as he leaves. When he greets Theo in a sea of Germans in the English POW camp like he was running into a friend at the movie theater and is surprised that his counterpart is quiet and reserved.

It’s Theo that ends up being the most fascinating protagonist of the movie. Even when he doesn’t appear through large parts of the movie, his presence is there on Clive throughout. And when he does come back to plead to be accepted by the English we learn how his whole world (view) has been slowly, but surely been destroyed. The sadness of eyes, when he says he lost his two sons… they’re now good Nazis.

I saw “One Battle After Another” last weekend, excellent movie, highly recommend it! And it told the themes of fighting for justice, how sometimes you have to fight dirty or perhaps to go against “the rules” to do right, precisely because the rules are often done by evil people. Also here, in the end, the Colonel sees the need to fight for what’s right, not for the ceremonial rules.

Lastly, some more technical aspects that need to be mentioned, but I’d rather let Scorsese introduce them for me. For a movie about someone’s life, the movie is actually very sparse in telling the most traditional aspects of it – battles won, marriages, deaths – they all get hinted at in newspaper clippings, but never shown. Rather, it is more a collections of meetings which at first don’t seem to mean much, but will define him for the rest of his life. Even the significant duel between Theo and Clive has a ceremonial and ritualistic preparation aspect that goes on for many, many minutes, but when the duel starts, the camera cuts away to the snow. It isn’t important, the build-up is, because it tells us about the type of battle and consequences that it will have.

The other aspect, is the behind the scenes stuff. Clive was supposed to be played by Laurence Olivier, but this was opposed to by Winston Churchill. Roger Livesey brings an amazing performance – this typical english speech, where they don’t even unclench their jaw – so authentic, but so jarring it made me like the movie less. The movie in general was opposed by the war department for the sympathetic depiction of a German soldier and its English critiques detailed above. In a recollection from Powell, he says that he had an interview with the war minister and he had to bluntly ask him if they were going to forbid them outright to make the film. He said something like: “Oh my dear fellow, we can’t possibly forbid you. That wouldn’t do at all. But don’t make it or you’ll never get a knighthood.” So they made it and Powell never got his supposed knighthood. Very on the nose, that one. Ha!

1942 – To Be or Not to Be

1942 – To Be or Not to Be

It’s an american black comedy directed by Ernst Lubitsch. It stars Carole Lombard and Jack Benny as Maria and Joseph Tura in a biting satire of the Nazi invasion of Poland and a theater troupe’s rebellion against them. I am happy, I found it on YouTube. Incidentally it was Carol Lombard’s last film, her crashing on an airplane during the movie’s post-production. There is even a rumor that some dialogue of the movie was edited to remove the line “”What can happen on a plane?” out of respect for the circumstances surrounding her death, but that has never been confirmed. Clark Gable never recovered from her death, all quite tragic. I recommend this episode of Star Wars season from the “You Must Remember This” podcast for the whole story.

Jimmy Kimmel was summarily fired this week after saying that the “MAGA gang” was “desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them” and of trying to “score political points from it”. I don’t know how this is going to play out (Disney’s stock seems to be in free fall as of September 18th), but I was so reminded of this movie, which I saw a few days back when it happened. In the beginning of this movie a polish theater group is putting on a production about Hitler, but they later decide to go with the tamer “Hamlet” to appease the looming threat of the Nazis. Eventually it dawns too late on most Poles that there is no appealing to fascists, no matter how flattering they were to Hitler. In the end, the actors rise to the occasion and are quite successful in their operation, mainly using their weapons of acting and improvisation to get out of iffy situations.

I really loved this movie. Around me, I have always heard how great the alternate history of Inglorious Basterds is; nah, while Landa is indeed an amazing villain, I found this movie much funnier, but subversive at the same time. Add to that that the war was still going on during that time and the US entered it while this movie was being filmed. The full atrocities hadn’t been committed yet, yet this movie already knew exactly how to strike a nerve. And then it’s really laugh out funny – “so they call me concentration camp ehrhardt?” or “Schulz!”, I suddenly get a smirk on my face.

But most of all, I believe it is a movie of our time! Naturally, it is always easy with today’s lenses on to root against the Nazis, but it applies to many resistance fights there exist in the world today if one thinks about it a bit more. And I don’t mean some nebulous fascism concept, I mean standing up for our values. In one scene, Maria Tura is enticed to betray her country with all sorts of material goods and comforts; she immediately retorts with her conscience (in an absolute amazing diva mode throughout the whole runtime). Would we do the same today or do we often take the easy route of material comfort?

Casablanca tends to be remembered as *the* movie of 1942 that dealt with Nazi themes and a great love story. And it is good, but I honestly responded to the satire of this movie much more than the schmaltzy romance of the former. It is comedians and laughter that will save us in the end!

1941 – The Maltese Falcon

1941 – The Maltese Falcon

It’s an American film noir movie written and directed by John Huston in his directorial debut. It stars Humphrey Bogart as private investigator Sam Spade, Mary Astor as his femme fatale client and the great Peter Lorre as one of the villains. It is based on a 1930 novel by Dashiell Hammett and is actually a remake of a 1931 movie. I rented it on AppleTV for 3.99 Eur.

Tell me if you’ve heard this one: a bombshell of a woman walks into a private eye agency. In there, she meets a drizzled, cynical detective. He is sceptical of the woman’s story, but agrees to take on the case. In it ensues a fantastical, intriguing story, along with a romantic subplot with the knockout femme fatale of a woman. The weary and sardonic hero escapes all sort of tight situations with his cool, almost aloof demeanor, but in the end he must choose between a life with the tragic woman or righteousness. Of course he chooses the latter leading to the demise of the doomed woman. Yes, that is the plot of many hard-boiled film noirs and it is for this one, too. The actual Maltese Falcon is just a plot device to get the story going.

What makes this one special then? For one, it launched both Humphrey Bogart as a leading man and a blue-ribbon John Huston as a director into the stratosphere of greatness. It would be just the next year that Bogart would play the lead it Casablanca, I don’t think this would’ve happened without this movie. I am not a big fan of Bogey – he sure does have a big head on a small body and his weary face just signifies that, not wisdom.

“The Maltese Falcon” also is one of the pioneers of this style of hard-boiled story. There were detective stories before, but this look that I described in the first paragraph, is premiered by this one, especially the weird fast-talking way of the protagonist. I swear, like half an hour after seeing this movie, I kept describing things in my head in the same manner that Sam Spade did. A sort of “look, honey, we all know what’s going on here, but let’s call this dinner sandwich for what it is, nothing more, nothing less. some ham in the middle, little bit of butter, i’ve always liked it this way, perhaps today with a pickle on the side…” when having dinner.

It also features the decisive film noir low angles and lightning that make the genre so distinctive – just pay attention to that lamp in Sam’s apartment, it’s like an additional protagonist. Several movies after that emulated that style – some I have seen are Double Indemnity and The Third Man, the last one being my favorite with a plot of someone making a fortune by selling fake penicillin.

And yes, that’s just the crux – it was more style over story. It was all well and good, but the story of this black bird is way less interesting than the question that drives someone to doom hundreds of people by selling them fake medicine. Or the water politics of Los Angeles in another hard-boiled, femme fatale story in Chinatown with its devastating reveal. Here, the assured Spade just calmly solves everything, avoiding not just three antagonists, but also the police. The only thing that saves the movie and the characters as a whole is Peter Lorre as Joel Cairo. His weird elegant, but somehow false style is so funny and intriguing at the same time. That little man already made left me with his mouth open as the villain in M and here he was also the spice that made this movie bearable.

I am glad I watched this movie for this “100 movies” project of mine. At one point, before I became a mother and Netflix was still sending DVDs, I was going through AFI’s Top 100 movies and this had been on the back burner and I am happy to cross it off so many lists. But I don’t think I will visit this one any time soon – it may have kicked of the genre, but since then, there have been many more and better examples of the genre generated.

1939 – The Wizard of Oz

1939 – The Wizard of Oz

It’s an american fantasy musical produced by Metro-Goldwyn Mayer. The movie is based on 1900 kids book “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” by Frank Baum with illustrations by W.W. Denslow. It was “mainly” produced by Victor Fleming and stars Judy Garland in her breakout and most famous role as Dorothy. I rented it on Apple for 3,99 Eur.

Some movies are so influential that you tend to know them by osmosis. I have watched exactly one half Avengers movie (the 2012 one, did not finish, don’t like Marvel movies), yet I know of Thanos and the snap. I have not and don’t plan to watch any of the Avatar movies, yet I know it’s blue Pocahontas. And so we come to 1939, where I am embarrassed to say that I haven’t seen the two most famous movies of that year: Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz. Or at least not consciously – I have seen hundreds of clips of both movies, know of the controversies, the significance of both. I have read the Margaret Mitchell’s really well written book of the former (and the unrealistic, kitchy, but very entertaining sequel Scarlett) when I was like 13-14, it opened this whole new world for me – surviving as a woman in the 19th century. So with the Wicked and Wicked: For Good movies being in the conversation, I thought I should go with the latter of the two movies.

Boy, I wasn’t wrong about the osmosis. And it’s not the “Yellow Brick Road” or “Somewhere over the Rainbow”, those I could understand. It’s knowing the lyrics to “Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead”, even though I didn’t know the context of the song. It’s knowing “I’m melting, oh what a world” from Who Framed Roger Rabbit and realizing I never questioned its origin. It’s my friend from high school often saying: “Are you a good bitch or a bad bitch?” and now getting she was quoting Glinda (with “w” and “b” changed). And I do think, I have seen this movie running in the background when I was a kid at my best friend’s place, but I think I never made it to the Emerald City, I stopped at the lion joining the gang. Or maybe I am confusing it with Alice in Wonderland, which I also saw at her place (guys, I was like 6 or 7)?

So, how can I rate this? I mean, if I see it with kids eyes, just like 2 weeks ago Robin Hood, then the transition from the black and white Kansas to the bright Technicolor Fantasyland of Oz, must have been absolutely breathtaking (I found it almost blindingly so). The musical was not as entrenched as it would become one or two decades later and having musical numbers for kids must have been quite something. I saw that movie somewhat tired before falling into bed and I had quite psychedelic dreams that night trying to escape Oz, so the movie stays with you, heh!

The story is easy to understand and the movie has an easy to grasp message: “There is no place like home!”, a comfort after the devastating years of the Great Depression and the World War looming over the horizon. Even though the poverty is clear in Aunt Em’s farm in Kansas, it’s family that we long to get back to.

But that message? I don’t like it very much – it’s not quite the meanness that comes out in this article from The Guardian, in that Americans fall for a charlatan like Oz. It’s more that every journey away from home changes you and Dorothy has not resolved one single of her problems at home. For example, Toto will still be impounded (unless perhaps Miss Gulch really was killed in the tornado?). In 2001, Hayao Miyazaki released Spirited Away in which Chihiro undergoes her own journey in a fantasy world. Even though in principle she returns to her normal life with her parents, she is a changed girl, has matured immensely and us with her, through her work in the washhouse and especially that train ride. And it’s exactly those moments of calm that stand in contrast to the frenzy of hopping from one thing to the next in the Wizard of Oz. It’s relentless and never stops and in the end it turned out to be a hoax, all she had to do was to tap her heels.

But I have spent already so much thinking about this movie, its message and its impact, that I do understand it to be one of the “great movies”. One can understand the cultural value of something, even though it’s not your value. Sometimes, it’s better the movie evokes a reaction of anger out of you instead of indifference. I am glad I saw this.

P.S.: I know, I just glossed over the troubled production this movie had, the everlasting bad effects it had on its cast, chief among them Judy Garland being propped up by a cocktail of drugs (amphetamines, barbiturates and other diet pills) which eventually resulted in her death. I can only recommend Be Kind Rewind’s video on the making of the movie.

1938 – The Adventures of Robin Hood

1938 – The Adventures of Robin Hood

An American swashbuckling epic directed by Michael Curtiz and Willian Keighley. It stars Errol Flynn in the titular Robin Hood role and Olivia de Havilland as Maid Marian. It’s the first Technicolor picture on my movie list. This, plus the extensive settings, fight scenes, costumes, etc. made for a budget well over $2 million; it was Warner Brother’s most expensive picture made at that time, but made it back comfortably as one of the highest grossing movies of that year. I rented it at Apple+ for $3.99 Eur.

Adventure movies are quite difficult to describe, discuss and rate; especially the old ones. For one, it’s the exact reason you go to the movies for: have a good time, watch the good guys win, with a little excitement, some fighting, some escaping dangerous situations. For me growing up, it was the Indiana Jones movies, with The Last Crusade being my favorite one. But come on, when you think about it, some of it is a bit dumb (like the X in the library – haha), it is only the genius that is Steven Spielberg that lets you turn off your brain, enjoy the movie and even get your heart rate going. Today’s adventure movies are Comic Book movies, something I never got into, but there were probably a lot of people that didn’t get the 80s adventure craze either.

Another adventure movie that was quite big when I was growing up was Kevin Costner’s Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. Nowadays, it’s widely panned, perhaps even being the worst ones of the bunch, but then little 12 year old me was smitten by everything the Hollywood machinery conjured: the cheesy soundtrack (fun trivia fact, the original 1991 music video seems to have disappeared), the constant bombardment of merchandising (I distinctly remember how I prized my Christian Slater – Will Scarlet sticker), the perfect villain (long before Snape, Alan Rickman was an amazing Sheriff of Nottingham). But yes, I see now how flawed that movie was, even though I loved it as a tween.

And so with a 1938 hat on, the Adventures of Robin Hood has got to be amazing. Well choreographed stunts and battles, a heartthrob leading man with his real-life “on again off again” partner, an epic incorporation of the score, a story that captured the spirit of the times and a studio that was willing to put a lot of money behind this adventure. That one single man could get away from so many enemies and do it with a smile on his face was totally new. And the final boss battle with Sir Guy of Gisbourne packed some real stakes and even worry that Robin wasn’t going to be able to overcome him. It’s a perfect encapsulation of what made the ballads of the medieval times great, the legend being larger than what probably happened.

But when you look at it from a 2025 lens on, then the movie suffers. it starts at the ridiculous costumes, so aptly made fun of in Robin Hood: Men in Tights – I now understand even more references of that parody movie, heh! It goes on with clunky dialogue and fights (yes, great for 1938, but it looks wooden and so staged for 2025). Even the scenery trying to get every drop of color to showcase the marvel that was Technicolor back in 1938, just underscores the fakeness of it all. It’s probably good for the Disney version (super underrated, highly recommend to watch it with your kids!), but not for the real life one. And don’t get me started on that ridiculous laugh and hairdo that Robin Hood sports, I laughed at it myself.

In short – adventure movies are amazing – but see them in the period that were made. Spend some amazing hours forgetting the world around you. Revisit them for nostalgia, if you are revisiting your childhood. But don’t expect them to hold up to modern scrutiny. It’s nice that I saw this as a piece of lore in Hollywood, but there are way better adventure movies nowadays.