Jan 18 2026

1950 – Born Yesterday

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.

Oct 19 2025

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!

Oct 5 2025

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!

Aug 10 2025

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.

Jul 27 2025

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.

Tanya's Astro Blog

Tag Archives: history