Mar 29 2026

1955 – The Night of the Hunter

It’s an American Southern-Gothic thriller, at times a horror film set during the Depression. It was directed by Charles Laughton in his only feature win (go out on top, I guess). Its screenplay was written by James Agee based on the same-named book by Davis Grubb, which itself was inspired by the serial killer Harry Powers (“The Bluebeard of Quiet Dell”) who was hanged in 1932. It stars Robert Mitchum as the preacher Harry Powell, Shelley Winters as Willa Harper, the woman he is misleading and features a great child performance by Billy Chapin as John Harper. I saw it on YouTube in their collection of free movies here (this seems to be new, but I don’t know if it is just for Germany).

In Berlin there is the legend of the “Hauptmann von Köpenick“. This was an ordinary shoemaker, who in 1906 dressed up as a military captain with a stolen uniform. He was able to convince a whole company of soldiers to accompany him to arrest the mayor of the town of Köpenick (incorporated into Berlin in 1920) and managed to rob the city treasury. There’s a whole secondary motive in that he wanted to get identification, because he was banished from the city, but that was never achieved, I think. On the way to the arrest he bought the soldiers beers and managed to rile them up against the innocent mayor. In fact, according to legend, many other officers joined them along the way on their crusade against the mayor. He wasn’t caught in the original coup, only 10 days later, because he had bragged to some of his friends about pulling this off.

The story has a mixed resonance in Germany. On the one hand, it is seen as a genius move. Nobody was actually harmed and it is seen more as a prank than an actual crime. In fact, he was later pardoned less than 2 years later by the Kaiser and he made some extra cash posing for postcards in his fake uniform until World War I. The 1956 movie with Heinz Rühmann also has a very satirical tone (though there is some biting critique described below in there). Even today, you find statues of the captain all around Köpenick and he’s mostly seen with red cheeks and a smile.

However, the legend also tells of a cautionary tale of blindly following a figure of authority. Especially after World War II, Germans had to reckon that “just following orders” is not actually a valid excuse and that figures of authority may be wrong or that some of them are not to be trusted. It is this legacy that is still alive in Berlin today as the Berliner Ensemble just started a series of monologues on the “Hauptmann von Köpenick“.

It’s this theme that this 1955 movie picks up. A con man, impersonating a preacher is a serial killer that steals the money of widows. It is not clear how many he has killed (6 or 12) by the time he arrives along the Ohio River in the midst of the Depression. In jail he meets a man sentenced to death in a robbery that left two dead, but the $10,000 he stole never appeared. After the hanging he befriends the widow and even marries her in the quest to find the money. The eldest son, who had to swear never to tell anybody where the money is, sees right through him, but he fails to convince anybody else. How could you doubt such a nice preacher that delivers such eloquent sermons out of nowhere?!?!?

And it’s the oozing charisma of Robert Mitchum that really draws you in. He manages to manipulate the mother into feeling guilty that she was the one who killed her husband, because she asked him for worldly possessions. Even when she finally accepts that her son was telling the truth, she first starts praying, so strong is the brainwashing the fake preacher did. Add to that the cinematography that Charles Laughton used throughout the movie, his explicit inspiration from German expressionism of the 1920s and it makes for a truly haunting movie. I kept thinking about certain scenes for hours, not because they were overly deep, but because they were so eerie. For example, there is a shot of a car on the bottom of the river with seaweed around it that is truly haunting, like a ghost. Or a shot where Harry Powell is framed against a bright background on a horse, inescapable, humming a melody that makes him so scary.

It’s a downright tragedy that the movie bombed and Charles Laughton saw himself as a failure and never directed or produced anything again. One and done with a masterpiece, I guess! The movie is over 70 years old and there are some dated resolutions, like the ending. But even there, it features a traumatic response by the son that wasn’t typical in movies of that time, so I can’t fully fault the resolution. It’s truly a great movie with some great performances, even the kids acted well, which was a novelty at the time. I can thoroughly recommend this thriller!

Mar 15 2026

1954 – La Strada

1954 – La Strada (The Road)

It’s an italian road movie directed by Federico Fellini. It stars Anthony Quinn as Zampano and Fellini’s wife Giulletta Masina as Gelsonima as a pair traveling Italy with a sort of circus act. It’s included with Germany’s Amazon Prime subscription.

The Oscars are tonight! I know the spectacle is not as esteemed as it once was, but I do enjoy the conversation around it, since inevitably I find out about a movie or performance that wasn’t on my radar. This year I am rooting for Sentimental Value, but I know that it won’t win much. Definitely not best movie – the social commentary on One Battle After Another or Sinners is just too big this year. Not best director – also here PTA or Ryan Coogler would come before Joachim Trier. Not best actress – Renate Reinsve gives the best performance of the year; an exercise of communicating so much without saying anything, but Oscars usually go for “most” acting, so Jesse Buckley will win it for Hamnet. But one Oscar that the movie stands good chances of winning is Best International Film, which often are also very good movies (though often very serious).

So why not go with the first International Feature Film that won the Academy Award (back then called “Best Foreign Language Film”), Federico Fellini’s La Strada? After all, Fellini managed to win the prize 4 times in total, though never the actual Best Director Oscar. There’s a huge gap in my filmography here, I have never seen a Fellini movie, no “La Dolce Vita“, no “8 1/2“, so I thought I would start with one of his earlier works.

The movie is about a traveling strongman Zampano who buys Gelsomina, a woman with developmental disability, from her mother to become her wife / companion. His act is breaking a chain around his chest with his muscles and Gelsonima should now provide some comic relief and musical numbers to enhance this somewhat simple act. He treats her quite badly during the time they are together: hits her, insults her, leaves her on the streets the whole night while going off with another woman – just treats her like a piece of garbage. Things escalate when they meet Il Matto (The Fool), another traveling circus-man culminating in a tragic end for the characters.

This was not an easy watch. The monotony of life on the road with the same dumb act over and over again is grating. The abuse Gelsomina experiences is spirit crushing. There are small moments of happiness or moments of realization, the way she learns to play the one tune on the trumpet, only for it to crumble down again. As such, I did not like the experience of watching the movie.

But it stays with you thanks to the wonderful performances of the two main characters (and the Fool to some extent). How Gelsomina tries to give Zampano yet another chance, how Zampano is brutishly in love with her, yet can’t express it. You all feel it from the performances. And so I will cheat and leave the review of another letterboxd user here, captured so well what the movie leaves:

Sometimes in life we meet someone special even if we don’t realize it until we’ve moved past them. Someone you find who is kind, curious, maybe a little bit innocent and maybe a little bit naive, but nonetheless someone you can take in under your wing. It’s a favor you’re doing them, showing them the ropes of life and teaching them things they never knew about before.

Though you were strangers at one point you grow closer to each other, closer to their eyes and their smile until you can see them in your sleep. You start to look forward to the presence of their company until you start to miss them when you’re away. No matter, you always come back. That’s just how reliant you are with each other.

Soon you become inseparable, familiar with each other’s quirks and habits as well as what irritates the other. Sometimes it can’t be helped, these irritations I mean, especially when it comes from them. You can’t be helped, getting upset I mean, especially because you’re so close to them. Sometimes it’s so much you need to leave. No matter, you always come back. That’s just how dependent you are on each other.

Until one day they irritate you so much that you leave and never come back. You wasted your time on them, on giving them everything you could when you could’ve just let them go on their way. Good bye, good riddance, and good luck with your life. You won’t be a part of it anymore.

… and then one day you look back and remember those days. You realize you gave them all you could, except your compassion, your patience, your understanding, your kindness. Why didn’t you give those too? Because you loved them, you loved them and didn’t want to accept that. Because to do so would be to truly let them into your heart, and that’s a closeness you just weren’t ready for – even if they were.

Mar 1 2026

1953 – Roman Holiday

It is a romantic comedy directed by William Wyler, starring Audrey Hepburn as the princess (in her introduction and Oscar winning role) and Gregory Peck as the sleazy reporter wanting to make money out of the princess. Several blacklisted people worked on the film, such as the writer Dalton Trumbo and assistant director Bernard Vorhaus, who worked anonymously and were only later given credit. The movie was filmed entirely on location in Rome by Cinecittà Studios and follows various famous tourist locations. I rented it on Apple TV for 3.99 Eur.

The last two weeks have been fairly light fare in my movie and TV watching. Some romantic comedies, most of them quite middling (with the exception of Eternity, which I adored and would probably made it onto my top 5 movies of 2025). On the TV side, I did start the newest season of Bridgerton, but am not fully binge-watching it. This season, apparently, is about how a maid can make it into society – a Cinderella story as old as time. In Bridgerton it even features an evil stepmother. The opposite story – about a lady from high society falling for a commoner is not quite as common, but also is quite popular – think Aladdin, Titanic or even Dirty Dancing. But the story that is iconic until today from real life is the doomed relationship between Princess Margaret and Peter Townsend.

It is that theme which the movie picks up (though apparently Paramount had to release an official statement to the Royal Family that Princess Anne was not based on Princess Margaret): burdened by duty and official events, Princess Anne longs for a while outside of court. When a stranger picks her up, she spins up a story, how she’s a runaway student and enjoys a day doing fun stuff in Rome. Little does she know that the stranger knows exactly who she is and is giving her the fun day as a way to keep her on a leash for his story he’s selling (plus he needs pictures as proof he was with her at all these locations).

And what a fun day they have – that’s the movie. Nothing super deep here, but it’s so much fun to watch these two romp around Rome, their chase on a Vespa, their joke at the Bocca della Verità, the various Palazzi, etc. It’s surreal sometimes, seeing the Trevi Fountain so empty and even a few children swimming on the rocks; today it’s so crowded that they now charge for admission.

It just works. In that sense, I continue my two-week “watch movies without much deep meaning”; and that’s not a bad thing. Audrey Hepburn really is that wonderful. The romance really is palpable between the two leads. The ending does work, but I won’t give it away (enough to say that the two leads were approached for a sequel, which then never materialized). So I am glad, I saw this movie, quite entertaining.

Feb 1 2026

1951 – A Streetcar Named Desire

It’s a Southern Goth dramatic film directed by Elia Kazan. It is based on the famous, Pulitzer winning play by Tennesee Williams. In fact, all main actors, but Vivien Leigh also played in the original play (in the play it was Jessica Tandy in a role that made her famous). It stars Marlon Brando as Stanley, Vivien Leigh as Blanche, Kim Hunter as Stella and Karl Malden as Mitch. I rented it on Apple TV for 3.99 Eur.

For the longest time, I hated costume dramas, it was always just who marries who and the intrigue, gossip and “behind the scenes” of it all. But in the last few years, I’ve come around some of the movies, mainly because I can finally imagine how high stakes it was that you end up with the right man. It was the choice between leading a coddled life and being destitute. I now appreciate how intelligent and a bit conniving the Winona Ryder character had to be in The Age of Innocence to hold on to her man, but seeming aloof at the same time. No wonder Marty choose to direct that movie right along the gangster movies, those societal rules are as strict as Mafia code.

In that sense, this movie intrigued me right from the start. Will Blanche make it so that Mitch might rescue her in marriage or will her brute brother in law Stanley screw everything up? The psychological game between these two was also very intriguing, how far can you show the disdain for the other person without mucking it up with the person in the middle – Stella, the wife and the sister?

And in a very poignant scene on the docks along the water it also becomes clear how Blanche suffered because she made the wrong choice. Fell in love with a gay young man, married him and suffered until one night all that frustration just blurted out and he killed himself in desperation. A very impactful monologue on a wrong choice made, even if she loved him.

A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE, Vivien Leigh, Marlon Brando, 1951

Unfortunately that’s as far as it goes. Stanley is just too brutish. Even though Brando is good looking, the second he hits his wife, which surprisingly is very early in the movie, I loathed every scene he was in. Exposing Blanche is cruel and driving her to insanity implied sexual assault is just icing on the “eww, this guy really is an asshole” cake.

But Vivien Leigh is not a sympathetic character either. She is to represent the fall of the South, where tradition goes to die in the hands of a Polish immigrant. Where all the antics are forgiven as long as you have property (Belle Reve), but you are a fallen woman when not, slowly going insane.

So in that sense, great performances, great allure. But the stuff that really interested me – whether she could somehow make it work with Mitch – never really got going. And the stuff that didn’t interest me – the psychological torture these two submitted the other to – got so melodramatic and bitter that the final, though sad, just left me cold. These people deserve to wither.

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.

Tanya's Astro Blog

Tag Archives: reviews