Aug 16 2026

1964 – Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

It’s a political black comedy satire co-written, produced and directed by Stanley Kubrick. It is loosely based on the novel Red Alert by Peter George. It stars mainly Peter Sellers in three roles: Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake, President Merkin Muffley and the titular Dr. Strangelove. Its story deals with trying to contain the damage by an US general going rogue and ordering a preemtive nuclear attack on the Soviets without knowing that this will set off a doomsday device killing all life on Earth. I rented it on Apple TV for 3.99 Eur.

During my PhD studies, I completed them mostly in the Lawrence Livermore National Lab. While our little unsecured corner of the lab dealing with astronomy had little to do with atomic bombs, it was nevertheless a daily surreal experience. Together with my bright red foreigner badge, I had to carry around a little Geiger counter to make sure I wasn’t contaminated by nuclear waste. Similarly, we were constantly monitored on our online activity, our cars were randomly searched, we had to carry out bi-annual security trainings and right until I left in 2008, it was forbidden to have a phone with a camera on site. The site was also weirder than our sister Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, since our founding director was mainly the “crazy” and ostracized Edward Teller (the father of the hydrogen bomb) rather than the more nuanced Ernest Lawrence, even though both laboratories are named after the latter.

Everybody in the lab knew that Dr. Strangelove was a mixture of Wernher von Braun, but especially Edward Teller. His extreme stance in support of ever bigger and more powerful nuclear weapons and later of Star Wars was legend around the lab. When I was applying to work at the lab and was being background checked, one of his last speeches basically boiled down to: “Let’s bomb the islamists out of existence after September 11th!”. The town of Livermore embodied this strange discord – cowboys, nerds, military and hippies all living next to each other. By the time I finally began working at the lab (right around Teller’s death, hehe), I justified my joining with the fact that actual nuclear testing was banned (only simulations) and that the National Ignition Facility run by the lab could one day solve the energy crisis. Still, the movie and its message were always present at the lab, its satirical message serving as a reminder that maybe we were the baddies. I had to chuckle when my summer student named her research summary: “Quasar searches or: how I learned to stop worrying and love the Bob!” (Bob was my advisor’s name).

It is then ironic when I tell you that I had not seen the movie before. I knew so many of the jokes (“no fighting in the war room!”), so many of the images and yet I had never seen the whole thing. So now I finally sat down and watched the whole thing, rather quickly since it’s only 95 minutes long. Already the opening credits, which I didn’t know had me laughing, since the fuelling of a plane mid-air was presented so phallically.

So, what can I say? Brilliant! The phone calls between the American president Muffley and his Russian counterpart, Dimitri are the sweetest and funniest: “I’m sorry too, Dimitri. I’m very sorry. All right, you’re sorrier than I am! But I am sorry as well. I am as sorry as you are Dimitri, don’t say that you’re more sorry than I am because I’m capable of being just as sorry as you are! So we’re both sorry, alright?”. The motivation of the general (Jack Ripper, haha) to start the attack because he’s convinced that the Russians are contaminating the water via fluoridation sounds very similar to arguments you hear today against vaccinations, so the movie is as prescient as ever – we often have some truly crazy people at the top. And yet, I can’t give it full marks, but only because I knew so much of it. It’s as if you listen to a story about the Holocaust; the first time you learn of it, it’s shocking. But by the 7th Holocaust Oscar Bait movie, you might roll your eyes just a tiny bit. So nothing against this satire, I have heard all and even better jokes criticizing the nuclear arms race at the lab already.

Jul 12 2026

1962 – Whatever happened to Baby Jane?

1962 – Whatever happened to Baby Jane

It is an American psychological horror thriller directed and produced by Robert Aldrich. It stars real-life rivals Bette Davis as “Baby” Jane Hudson and Joan Crawford as Blanche Hudson as rival aging sisters that were at one point famous in the entertainment scene. The movie is famous for its kicking off the “hagsploitation” or “hag horror” genre in the 60s and for supposed feuds on the set between the two leads, which they later denied. I rented it on Apple TV for 3,99 Eur.

There are a few movies that completely changed my way of watching movies. The earliest one was when I was only 4 years old: E.T., which held my wonder even if I didn’t understand everything and showed me that movies weren’t all easy cartoons. One was 1927s Metropolis, which I watched with fellow students, because we were visiting the film studios where it was shot in Potsdam – how can such an old movie have such a prescient message!?! And one was 1950s All About Eve: Bette Davis was such a diva, such a grand personality, she stole the movie, it made all the supposed modern stars around me seem like children.

I’ve since watched quite a few Bette Davis movies, but was always afraid of this one, since she supposedly really leans into the “jezebel hag” persona. The big feud(s) between the actresses are also exaggerated for this movie, when the body of work of both is so rich – watch Izzy’s video on the 1963 Oscar race, for more info on that and also the movie itself. The feud between the actresses continues to compel the public, however, how else would you explain an entire series with 2 seasons and quite good reviews dedicated to that (Jessica Lange and Susan Sarandon playing those icons? Yes, please).

In any case, the plot of the movie is quite simple. There are two sisters, Jane experienced success early on as a Vaudeville performer, was very bratty, while Blanche stood in the background. During the 30s, Blanche became the more successful actress, while executives made fun of Jane, that she had no talent and destroyed the pictures she was in by drinking too much. A mysterious accident leaves Blanche in a wheelchair; rumors have it that it was Jane that did it. In the present day in the 60s, both have grown old, Jane supposedly taking care of her wheelchair-bound sister. Her resentment explodes during the movie as she tortures her sister, slowly killing her, while she tries to mount a comeback to her old act from 50 years ago. Will her crazy plan succeed?

Does it work? Ironically, Bette Davis immediately saw through the camp that it was and really leaned into the hag persona giving an amazing performance, while Joan Crawford didn’t take the bait, so naturally Davis thoroughly outshines Crawford, even though she is the villain of the movie. It really is a reason, why Davis continued to work for decades after that, while Crawford became a recluse. So, yes, even though the plot is ridiculous, the movie is too long, the whole thing just works due to Davis’ performance. She manages to also rack up the tension in the question whether Blanche survives, as seeing her supposed suffer by spinning around in her wheelchair was quite ridiculous. Davis even gets her Gloria Swanson Sunset Boulevard moment as she crazily dances around on a beach while spectators stare at her in horror.

A little social critique also lingers at what the entertainment industry does with children. The constant performance of Jane of that same ridiculous “Daddy” song, the doll merchandise, the persistent push by the father, it ruined Jane at a young age. And yet, we do not learn: Judy Garland in the 30s, Natalie Wood in the 50s, Brooke Shields in the 70s, plus a whole host of things coming out in the 80s and 90s. I kept thinking about this while watching the movie, Davis making me even empathetic towards her horrifying villain. What a performance!

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!

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!

Apr 12 2026

1956 – The Searchers

It’s an American epic Western directed by John Ford and written by Frank Nugent based on the 1954 novel by Alan Le May. It stars John Wayne as Ethan Edwards and Jeffrey Hunter as his adopted nephew Martin Pawley as they spend years searching for their abducted niece / sister. It was shot on VistaVision and processed by Technicolor making the landscape of Monument Valley really stand out for this movie. I rented it on Apple TV for 3.99 Eur.

Look, I have never been a fan of Westerns. It’s probably unfair to them, because I never gave them a chance, but already as a kid, I had no interest in playing “cowboys and indians”. By now, similar to Superhero / comic book movies, I have seen a few, but by far not many, especially none of the classics of Sergio Leone and/or Clint Eastwood. And often it is, because revered stuff, I just find boring: the stoic hero, spouting wisdoms like “that’s the way of life” or the hours of scenery on horseback. I recently came across this critique of Yellowstone by SkipIntro. Oh, my guy, I don’t even care about the conservative bend, I just found it boring, even though everybody was raving about it. The treatment of Beth was so problematic, it’s like that girl that says: “hey, I wasn’t groomed, I CHOSE to sleep this much older guy when I was 15”. I saw like 3-4 episodes and turned it off.

Anyway, perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps there is something I am missing in these Westerns. Perhaps, now that I am a bit older myself, I will understand “the old ways”, finally get what John Wayne was all about. I already missed Stagecoach (see my 1939 post on how I seem to have missed most iconic movies of that year), but perhaps this movie, that some say is the greatest Western of all time, will do?

So what are the themes here? A confederate soldier Ethan Edwards comes to his brother and big family in Texas. The going is tough and many have given up making a living out in the land there. There are some other families, like some Swedish immigrants (the Jorgensens), who are good friends with the Edwards family. They have also adopted an orphan, half white, half comanche named Martin Pawley. Already in this introduction, you are made to think that these families are more righteous, because they are out here living the hard life. Add to that the threat of the Indians, who are mad that the white man is taking their land away and murdering their people. And that is exactly what happens; while the men are out on a distraction, the Indians raid the Edwards farm, burn it, kill the parents and son and kidnap their two daughters. The elder is raped and killed quickly, but the younger Debbie is taken by the chief ‘Scar’.

So begins a 7 year search by Ethan and the adopted son Martin to find Debbie. By the time they finally find a 15-year old Debbie, she has assimilated and doesn’t want to go home at first. Here is where the other theme of the movie comes in – the deep-seated hatred of Ethan of the Indians. His racism is so big that he considers murdering his own niece, because she is tainted in his head. But it’s a constant struggle. For example, in the beginning he is barely capable of talking to “half-breed” Martin, but by the end he leaves him everything he owns in his will.

You are not supposed to root for the jerk that is Ethan. He is a wanderer and self-righteous asshole. First, he remains unapologetic Confederate, even wearing the coat 3 years after the war has ended (who goes to their family only 3 years after?). Also, even in the very beginning, you see there is something going on between him and his sister-in-law. And that is before he goes on his 7-year search. But Martin isn’t without blame either – he leaves the girl he is supposedly in love with and only writes her one letter in 5 years. In that sense, it makes it super hard to be on the side of the two: a bigoted prick and a sexist idiot. Apparently that is wanted by the director and it is what gets the conversation going.

And I get that, people are complicated and you can’t go through life with a 2020s lens and I can also do nuance. But the treatment the movie makes of Look (an Indian woman Martin betroths by mistake) is not one bit funny, but super tragic. In that sense, it seems that Ford went out of his way to explain the racism and circumstances of violence between the Whites and the Indians, that he conveniently forgot about the whole sexism thing, which doesn’t get a nuanced take.

Unfortunately that means that I am still not enamoured with Westerns. Very entertaining watch, but not easy and it left me mostly angry (maybe if movies are supposed to elicit emotions out of you, perhaps it was successful). The scenery is great, especially for 1956, the cinematography and action scenes are amazing. But I have to mention my favorite movie of all time Thelma and Louise again and how they drive through Monument Valley, which is most of the scenery here. I’d rather have the modern setting, than the brooding cowboy.

Tanya's Astro Blog

Tag Archives: history