Mar 23 2025

1930 – Murder!

A British mystery movie, directed by a young Alfred Hitchcock. It was written by him and his wife Alma Reville and Walter Mycroft. It stats Herbert Marshall as Sir John Menier, Norah Baring as Diana Baring and Edward Chapman as Ted Markham. It’s based on the 1928 novel Enter Sir John by Clemence Dane and Helen de Guerry Simpson. A watched it with ads for free on Plex.

Finding a movie for 1930 turned out to be difficult. I had already seen All Quiet on the Western Front and The Blue Angel, so those easy pickings were gone. I tried very hard to find Morocco, but couldn’t lest I shelled out 16 Euros for a DVD (nah!). I had no desire for yet another F.W. Murnau movie in City Girl about living on the farm in Minnesota. Sigh…

And then I saw the BKR video about Alfred Hitchcock’s Hair Obsession, which I really liked. But what I liked most, is the accompanying podcast No Noise podcast which was about Alma Reville, Hitchcock’s wife and a tremendous influence on him and especially his early movies when he was still in Britain. Highly recommend it, and this one is free for everybody, though supporting Izzy is always a good idea! In the podcast Dr. Josephine Botting, Curator at the BFI National Archive goes into the history how Alma started as a cutter (editor basically), meeting Hitchcock and then sort of becoming the person that would tidy up his films, mostly through writing. This went on for a long time right up until and including Rebecca, after which she focussed mostly on the children. So I got curious, how do British Hitchcock movies look like, how did this woman influence the weird genius that this man would become? So many successes and fortunes of men in the 20th century were heavily carried and influenced by their wives (often willingly in the shadows), I wanted to honor that.

The plot of “Murder!” is about an theater actress Diana Baring being accused of the murder of a fellow actress with a poker. In the jury there is Sir John (who happens to have hired Diana into his theater company – uh, conflict of interest?), who has doubts about Diana’s guilt, but is persuaded by the rest of the jury to convict. Later, haunted by his conscience, he goes on to investigate whether Diana was really guilty – playing detective with help of his stage manager Ted Markham.

This is my first talkie movie and ooooh boy, it is bad in that sense. It was supposedly first filmed as a silent film and later half talked over, half filmed again. And then there are scenes where nothing of this sort is done – it’s just… silent, no ambient sound, nothing. Similarly, the cuts are jarring, the film quality is horrendous at times. And don’t get me started on the editing, a 2 second close up on a clock, then 2 seconds on some meal, then the scene starts. One notices how filmmakers still had to learn to not use the cue cards to narrate a story. Sometimes it’s that janky shots quickly one to the other, sometimes a huge exposition dump. Add in to that the unevenness of the sound editing; there’s a radio programme at full blast when Sir John is talking to his butler about his motives for investigating this murder, or a baby screaming at full volume when he immerses himself into the lives of the actors.

But worst of all, is that it drags. Pity, because there are some real hidden gems in there, like the shadow play or a trapezium scene that is at the core of suspense. Or even some forced things, which are typical Hitchcock style over story, but which work so well — like the improbable, but very funny interrogation scene during a theater play. It could’ve been so great, had it had a competent editor. And so this week I was left disappointed, both that greats do really need to grow into greatness sometimes, but also that even if there was any of Alma’s influence in this movie, it sadly probably wasn’t very good. Still, I am glad I saw this movie, yet another style from the Russian, German, American and French that I have reviewed so far and one that I recognize in British films even many years later.

Mar 9 2025

1929 – Pandora’s Box

1929 – Die Büchse der Pandora (Pandora’s Box)

A classic Weimar era silent movie, directed by G.W Pabst. It stars Louise Brooks in its titular role as Lulu , Fritz Kortner as Dr. Schön and Francis Lederer as Alwa Schön. It is based on Frank Wedekin’s plays “Erdgeist” (1895) and the follow-up “Die Büchse der Pandora” (1904). The film explores the tragic that the natural seductiveness of Lulu brings to herself and everybody to succumbs to her allures. I saw it at filmfriend, the German library service for free (you have to enter your local library card).

Last Sunday Anora won the Academy Award for Best Picture for 2024. Well deserved, in my opinion, though I haven’t seen many of the other movies that were favored to win. What I liked was the realistic depiction of the crashing down of the “fairy tale”. Ani is firmly grounded in reality, but even then for just a second the lure of the possibility to obtaining respectability is so great… maybe, just maybe. It was all masterfully done by Mickey Madison, who wholeheartedly deserved that Oscar – the constant battle in her head of “am I gonna get mine?” and “it’s gonna work out, Vanya loves me!” and in the end “that dipshit… really hurt me”. Yes, sex workers know how society sees them, but it still hurts to be shown that with such contempt.

Also in this movie Lulu – a masterful Louise Brooks – is constantly reminded that all she is ever good for, is to seduce. Men and women alike, by the way, the movie has a whole lesbian subplot. The movie starts with a visit by her former pimp Schigolch (sorry, later it gets revealed that in may be her dad, but the way he acts throughout the movie, I’m going with pimp). She doesn’t need him anymore, she already has found her sponsor, ahem boyfriend Dr. Schön, an older man and a rich publisher. But Dr. Schön actually wants to shed her, gain some respectability, marry the daughter of the minister of the interior. And that constant push and pull between the entrancement that Lulu has on other people and the way that she brings them sorrow is the main plot of the movie. It is a tragedy throughout the movie. Nobody that crosses paths with Lulu is made whole, many end up dead or living in complete poverty. But nobody is completely innocent either, they act out of self-interest going over dead bodies to get money, love or escape the police.

The story is quite convoluted, the settings very varied – a theater production company, a wedding party, a courtroom, a confined train escaping the law, a gambling ship, a squalid room under the roof in London. It wouldn’t have worked without its main protagonist, who wholeheartedly encapsulates the myth of Greek mythology Pandora’s Box: opening the box brings misfortune, but the box also holds hope! Is the hope of love that Lulu offers along with evils that her status and her non-moralistic candor bring, a benefit or a curse? How ironic then that the movie star herself ended up in poverty, noting that “the only people who wanted to see me were men who wanted to sleep with me.”

In modern culture, the box has become “a can of worms” or a “slippery slope”. It’s often a warning against unbridled optimism, that while the hope that comes with the act is understandable, there is often a hidden evil or tragedy when you go in blind. This week’s Pandora’s Box for me has been AI in science. I heard two presentations on it, one was even on the ethics of the use of AI in science, yet at the end there were a lot of shrugs and “well, if we’re careful…”. Working on a white paper this week, I was amazed that a woman spoke up and declared that if even a sentence of the paper was written with an LLM, we should take her name off the paper. I am distancing myself from that box even more after this week, some of the things may bring hope, but its allure may damn me into a sequence of evils and tragedies I’d rather not go through.

Feb 23 2025

1928 – The Passion of Joan of Arc

Produced by Société Générale des Films, directed by Carl Theodor Dreyer, is a 1928. It stars Renée Jeanne Falconetti as Joan. It is a French film based on the trial record fro Joan of Arc. I watched it on JustWatch here kindly remastered and made public by the Open Archive.

Because of David Lynch’s recent passing, I saw Mulholland Drive for the first time a few weeks ago. I had always been scared to watch it, that I would probably not understand it. So glad I did, because I absolutely loved it, especially the performance by Naomi Watts. However, I don’t know, if I liked it so much, because I understood a lot of callbacks, e.g. the “Kim Novak, Vertigo” dress that Betty wears at some point in the movie. I kept asking myself, if I would’ve understood it as much 24 years ago, when it came out, me not being mature enough or would the chills that I had throughout the movie been enough? I think the same applies for this movie, The Passion of Joan of Arc. I’ve always archived it to “probably need to see this at some point in my life, but I am still too scared that I won’t get it”. I have been disappointed before – unimpressed by Citizen Kane, bored by Lawrence of Arabia, confused by The Last Picture Show, so it’s not a given that my fears will be for nothing.

Well, I am glad to say that “I got it” for this movie. The main theme being the feeling of dread, discomfort and desperation from the oppressing close-ups in this movie. It is quite experimental, but simple at the same time. The mantra in movies usually is “show, don’t tell” – that’s what the moving pictures are for! But then you get something that turns it on its head – think 12 Angry Men, which plays out only in the juror’s room – it’s such a fine line, because a lot of the showing is only in the desperation of the faces, while the telling is often the classic expository dialogue. And the same happens in this movie – it basically has no plot, it’s the final days of Joan of Arc and her trial before her burning at the stake. It’s all the oppression she felt, but her quiet defiance in the face of torture and death.

Just like Joan of Arc itself, I also liked the quiet defiance it took to get this film made. She had just been canonized as a saint 8 years before, so fervors in France were strong to honor one of their heroes. It was quite controversial that (a) the plot was just about her final 10 days, not the amazing battles that inspired France’s last push in the 100 years war against the English (b) the movie was directed by a Dane and not a Frenchman and (c) they tried to make it as original as possible, largely reproducing word for word the original transcripts from the 15th century – condensing them into one trial, which did not sit well with the Archishop of Paris at the time and we final restoration only coming to us in 2015 after the final cut was found in a mental institution in 1981.

And then of course, there is the feminism, quite remarkable also for 1928. How the subtleties in the faces doing the horror belong to men and the faces distorting in horror at what its happening, belong to the women (with a few unhelpful exceptions such as the priest sprinkled in). Quiet, defiant competence gets women so far and Joan of Arc, but also here Maria Falconetti’s performance underscored that! Very strange to juxtapose it to the so-called feminism depicted in Lessons in Chemistry that I just finished a few days ago (blergh!). The brilliance in so many women role models for me was how they could inspire anybody to fight, work, protest, vote with them, not simply preach! This movie, while simple, also does that!

Feb 9 2025

1927 – Wings

Produced by Paramount (Famous Lasky Corporation), directed by W. Wellman. It stars Clara Bow, Charles “Buddy” Rogers and Richard Arlen. It’s a story about the piloting and aerial dog fights in World War I. I watched it on YouTube here. It is the restored version that was finalized in 2012 for its 85th anniversary.

Some movies have an amazing effect on people. I was 5, almost 6 years old, when my dad took me to see War Games at the theater – anybody in their right mind would tell you that’s not a movie for a 5-year old. And yet, that movie sparked an everlasting love for computers in me, how he reversed engineered (hacked) his way into what he thought was a gaming company, the first time I heard about a modem, heard about a branch of mathematics called game theory… I begged and begged my dad for a computer and when he owed me a favor for a trip he flaked out on, I got it and have been hooked ever since. The first thing that Apple IIc taught me was perfect strategy in blackjack, heh!

Why do I tell that story? Well, it was only 2-3 years later that Top Gun came out. All the boys in my class started drawing jet fighters instead of houses, families, etc. when it was “drawing time” at school. Aviator glasses and jackets were suddenly cool. Apparently, enrolment in the air force went through the roof. It’s just like that, a movie can entice you, give you your calling… Well, judging by the technical aspects of the 1927 movie Wings, I am sure it would’ve been a siren call to many to become pilots or at least be fascinated by the aerial prowess possible with airplanes then. Last year, I read The Great Circle by Maggie Shipstead and was fascinated by the teenager girl bootlegging liquor from Canada during prohibition – she too, must have been fascinated by Wings. It was something different in the 1920s, aviators were like astronauts, something special, that barely anybody could do! I totally get the fascination with flying!

The plot of the movie is quite simple – it’s an epic of two pilots (Jack and Dave) during World War I, they pine over the same girl Sylvia at home. But just as Challengers this year, it’s also about the “friendship” these guys have with each other (and it’s still unclear whether this movie features the first gay kiss on screen or not); how they have each other’s back during the dog fights with the germans (Heinis). Sort of added, because Clara Bow’s complete star persona, was the character of Mary, who pines for Jack and joins the army as an ambulance driver.

Why did I choose the movie? For one, hey, it’s the first ever Best Picture Winner from the Academy Award. For the other, I love Buddy Rogers and Clara Bow and seeing them together should be good. I also must confess that I mixed it up with Hell’s Angels, the Howard Hughes produced movie, which fascinated me back when I saw The Aviator. Alas, it’s not that different, the filming is all original, done on the airplanes themselves, which made the movie crazy expensive (2 million dollars back then). Richard Arlen already could fly airplanes, Buddy Rogers learned for this movie.

Unfortunately, I have to say the movie is just fine. And it’s a shame, because

(a) the technical aspects are so amazing. The dogfights are a delight to see, the scenes in the air bristle with excitement and artistry. You really get the sense of airplanes being crucial to many roles in the war. As said above, I am certain, just like me with War Games and computers, this must have been an inspiration to many young people to get into aviation.

(b) Clara Bow is widely underused. She has such a magnetic personality, I would’ve much more been interested in how she came to be a uniformed mechanic and ambulance driver during WW1, than her infatuation with pretty boy Jack. Apparently even Clara Bow, didn’t see the point of her limited role in the movie, as she thought this movie was focussed on the two pilots.

As for the rest of the movie? Look, I can take the melodrama. The scene where Jack comes home from the war and meets with Dave’s parents or the “choice” Sylvia makes for Dave. But I can’t take the “aw shucks” approach this movie has to war. You tell me in a title card “The Horrors of War” and the next few scenes show them getting drunk in Paris and having a jolly good time – the bubbles gag just goes on and on and on. Or you show me the patriotism of Schwimpf with a wobbling tattoo of the Stars and Strips, jeez. And it can’t be a movie of it’s time or American sentiment during the silent film era, not when just 3 years later the masterpiece “All Quiet on the Western Front” produced in America will be released. So sure, watch this movie, because it is important for the history of movies, but sadly not because it’s a well told story.

Jan 26 2025

1926 – Faust

1926 – Faust

Produced by Ufa, directed by F. W. Murnau. It stars Gösta Ekman as Faust, Emil Jannings as Mephisto and Camilla Horn as Gretchen. I watched it on YouTube here (did not like the horrible colorization there is on other places).

When I was an adolescent, it was typical that in the 13th year of school, you read the “Faust” by Goethe. I got out of it by reading 2 Thomas Mann books and I still regret it to this day. It may have been harder to interpret, but I am sure it would’ve given me more than that depressive German attitude that “Der Untertan” gave me, a good description, but so, so lost. In any case, reading the “Faust” is still on my backlist, but more like a project that “I’ll do someday” (yeah, right…). Everybody knows its main theme: Faust gets visited by Mephisto, an incarnation of the Devil which offers him youth, fame and fortune in exchange for his soul. Will he take that (Faustian) bargain?

So, with everybody discovering Murnau, because of the remake of Nosferatu, it was quite an easy decision to go with the Faust! It was his last German film at Ufa and is believed together with Nosferatu to be the height of German Expressionism in Film. Of course, having studied and having now worked in Potsdam for many years, the history of Ufa is present at all times. You see the imagery when visiting the Film Studios Babelsberg (the rides are horrible, but the studio and the history are great) or the Film Museum, so I went in to watch the movie knowing that.

The plot is as expected, though I did not know much about the Gretchen part of the story, which is Faust’s potential love story and the wringer she is put through in the last part of the movie. Things I liked in the movie were the artistic expression, like a ballet, almost like they were pausing the movie now and then to pose off, so that you could save the frame. The face contortions and mannerisms of Mephisto are purposively over the top, but I liked that very much. The film drags a bit in the middle, because they need to show the huge fall from grace that Gretchen has, so need to show her good, but boring life, but it distracts from the actual Faust story. Interestingly, the title cards in German were a bit hard to read, so sometimes I reverted to the English subtitles, whose translation was quite good.

In any case, the movie is as prescient today as it was in any time. In a week when during the Trump administration inauguration among the invited guests where the billionaires of tech companies, I was reminded of the quote by Lord Acton:

“Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

There is no bargain you make with the devil where you will do good in the end, even if that was your intention in the beginning. And that’s really what this techno super-elite has turned into, Faustian doppelgangers making deals with Trump, seeking eternal fountains of youth, telling themselves that they’re doing good in the world by inventing the next social media app. To assuage their guilt and looking for absolution, they donate a few millions, but are always baffled at why the people see them as evil. People, also in the movie, can sniff the wickedness in Faust a mile away. And so I can only recommend people watch the movie, the style may not be for everybody and the end message is cheesy. But just because it’s cheesy, doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

Tanya's Astro Blog

Tag Archives: movies