A Matter Of Survival

When it comes to WWII-era Germans, I have rather a callous attitude towards tales of their suffering at the hands of the Allies — Russians, Brits, Americans, whoever — because it’s easy to say, “They started it.”

But I’ve been thinking a lot about the topic over the past week or so, and especially since I read the appalling fates of the German women in captured Berlin at the hands of the  barbarians  Russian soldiers who were the first into the capital.  Specifically, I refer here to the anonymous diary kept by one such woman, published under the title A Woman In Berlin.  (The movie version can be viewed or purchased through Amazon Prime;  I remember watching it several years ago, and be warned:  it is seriously intense and violent.)

The text, though, is all the more remarkable because of the woman’s clear, almost dry depiction of the plight of all the women, and not just herself.  (That does not in any way diminish the horror, by the way;  I lost count of the times she was raped over the eight weeks of the story.)

Remember that there were very few men in Berlin at that stage of the war:  they were all off fighting the Allied troops.  So the women were largely unprotected against the marauding Soviet soldiers, and believe me, they took full advantage.  Yet even then, there were some interesting asides:  almost to a man, for instance, the soldiers wouldn’t rape a pregnant woman, or one with small children, or the very old women (although of course there were exceptions).

Now I know that women were very much supporters of Nazism — Orwell’s comment still resonates:  “It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy.”  Indeed, I have no doubt that most of the women of Berlin were little different, in the 1930s and early -40s.  And our storyteller also points out, with wry amusement, just how many of them suddenly claimed to have been opposed to the Nazi Party all along.

Still, that didn’t ameliorate their predicament at all.

The amazing thing about it all was how they survived, against all the odds.  Our heroine, for example, very soon made the decision (after several rapes and narrow escapes) that if she was to escape being raped daily by multiple men, she could only survive by hooking up with a Soviet officer and becoming his girlfriend — still a precarious situation, but appallingly cold-blooded all the same.  (She did it not just once, but several times, as officers were posted away or simply disappeared.)

Which brings me to the interesting part of all this.

When the dust had settled and the bullets no longer whistled through the streets, the Germans made a conscious decision to collectively forget all about their conquest and the conditions thereof.  It was a societal repression of memory, a “Don’t talk about it” mentality that was, I suppose, one way of getting away from it.  (It worked only too well, by the way, as an entire generation of Germans born after WWII were in large part ignorant of what had transpired, as the recent history had all but disappeared from German-language history books in primary- and secondary schools.)

The real hero of the story, by the way, is the publisher of A Woman In Berlin, who went to extraordinary lengths to validate that the diary wasn’t some concoction of fictional storytelling, and somehow managed to keep the woman’s identity a secret — despite German journalists of the time, who made a concerted effort to find it out so that they could denigrate her character and discredit the story.  All of this was because the Germans wanted to airbrush the atrocities and more importantly, deny how the conquered women had come to terms with their situation.  (Imagine the indignant:  “No German woman would behave that way!  Das ist unmöglich! “)   It was seen as besmirching the female character, and was part of the head-in-the-sand approach to the events of 1945.

Despite all that, I have to admit to becoming impressed with the women — not just the author, but all the women — simply because in the absence of the men, they started to clean up and rebuild the huge, demolished city, starting with their bombed-out houses and apartments, cleaning the floors and walls, fixing doors and removing the rubble.  There was little complaining, by the way, because they had the very German attitude that there was work to be done, and therefore they had to do it.  (One can only wonder how today’s pampered princesses would cope, or rather not cope under the same circumstances.)  And the author nicknamed herself the “Twelve Mile Woman” because that was how far she had to walk each day through the ruined city to work, just to earn the food ration book that would keep her from starving.

Anyway, the book is well worth the time — more so, I think, than the movie — and I recommend it unreservedly.

Best Movie Of 2026

I know it’s only late September, but I very much doubt whether anyone’s going to release a better movie than Mr. Burton  (on Amazon Prime).

Brilliant acting, intelligible (and intelligent) dialog, excellent cinematography with a lovely (and non-intrusive) soundtrack.  It’s hard to see how anyone — in this day and age — could match all that.

  • Toby Jones:  always good
  • Lesley Manville:  ditto, and
  • and in an absolute tour de force  performance, Harry Lawtey as Rich.

I’m going to watch it again later this week.


I know, it was released in 2025, but whatever.  My only regret is that I didn’t watch it last year, then.  And yes, it’s worth preserving on DVD in the old library.

Sporty

Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve had the great good fortune to watch a few sports movies, again.  (I’ve seen them all at least twice before, but I hadn’t watched many of them for well over a decade.  It was like saying hello to old friends, it was.)  Here they are, in no specific order:

Bull Durham — Kevin Costner, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins.  I know the last two are ‘orrible Commies, but that doesn’t take away from the movie’s excellence.  Best part is that it’s pure comedy, unlike the realism of the ones that follow.

Trouble With The Curve — Clint Eastwood, Amy Adams.  Somehow, within the overall frame of the movie, Clinty managed to fit in three little sub-plots:  his relationship with his daughter, her budding relationship with her admirer, and the eternal struggle between the job you love and the successful career (in this case, also hers).  The main plot, that of Clinty struggling to keep his job while persisting in the old ways, is of course brilliant because Eastwood.

Moneyball — Brad Pitt.  Like Draft Day, throw in an actual plot with real characters, drop Brad’s excellent take on Billy Beane’s career with Oakland, and you have it all — without the happy happy joy joy denouement for Billy, just as it actually happened.

Thus spurred on by baseball, I turned to (American) football.

Draft Day — Kevin Costner (again).  Take a suspenseful plot, sprinkle it with realism (real NFL teams and some actual characters, e.g. Jim Brown and Bernie Kosar), throw in an unforgiving timeline, and you have a lovely sports movie that looks behind the scenes instead of on the field.  I have no idea how realistic it was, but that’s not important.

North Dallas Forty — Nick Nolte, Mac Davis.  After watching all the above, I dug into my DVD collection to watch this old warhorse again, and surprise surprise!  this gritty NFL story was pretty much as relevant today as it was back in the early 70s.  (And who would have thought C&W star Mac Davis could turn in such a clever performance?)

Any Given Sunday — Al Pacino.  I really love this movie, because even though it’s highly dramatized — it’s a movie, duh — I like the realism of the characters, all of them.  And for once, Pacino doesn’t chew up the scenery but is actually quite a sympathetic character.

Rudy — Quite possibly one of the greatest true sports stories ever put on film.  Absolutely brilliant, all the way through.

Everybody’s All-American — Dennis Quaid, Jessica Lange.  What happens to the college superstar after the spotlight has moved on to the next generation.  Quaid is perfect in the role, that shit-eating grin and past glories powering him through life’s disappointments, with the ex-homecoming queen at his side.

The Blind Side — Amy Adams  Sandra Bullock.  Another true story, only slightly dramatized for the movies.  Sandra just steals this movie and takes it home with her.  Even better is that it’s all mostly true.  Of course, the critics hated it because of all the usual reasons: a gun-toting pretty Christian mom doing the right thing by a poor Black kid, and succeeding.

Of course, this is by no means a comprehensive list — and yes I know there are dozens of others out there.  I just happened to hit on this lot, got hooked into watching them all, and enjoyed every single one of them.

You will, too.

On The Reading Shelf This Week

(links in pics, if you want to dive in with me)


“The First Hero of World War II and How the FBI Outwitted and Destroyed a Nazi Spy Ring” — who could resist reading about the FBI, back when they were an actual counter-espionage force rather than somewhere for  Aldrich Ames  Robert Hanssen to sell out his country?


I’ve never dived into the Italian campaign in any depth before;  it’s time.  And Holland is one of my favorite WWII historians.


Let’s see what real climate change was all about.

Unrequested & Unnecessary

I see with some displeasure that Hollywood has made a sequel to The Devil Wears Prada, which is one of my favorite movies, but for all the wrong reasons.  (Cliff Notes:  it exposes how vacuous, self-important and thoroughly unnecessary the so-called fashion “industry” really is.  Ditto The Player, which does the same for the movie business.)

On that note, let’s play a little game.  Assume that Hollywood / Netflix / Amazon / whoever is going to make a sequel to a well-known classic movie.  Feel free to comment on which movie they’d pick, and how inappropriately they’d cast the thing.

Here are a couple-three suggestions, just to prod the creative juices:

  • Casablanca 2, starring Tyler Perry as Rick and Rebel Wilson as Ilsa;
  • Thelma & Louise 2, starring Gwyneth Paltrow as Thelma and Whoopi Goldberg as Louise;
  • Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid 2, starring Rob Schneider as Butch and Don Cheadle as Sundance.

Yes, I know how T&L and BC ended.  The premise for both is:  They Survived!  (Yeah, I know, ridiculous.  So are most sequels.)

Dabney, John & Lucy

I have to admit that I am drawn to actors and actresses who have a problem finding starring work because studio bosses (and for that matter writers, producers and even directors) can’t figure out quite what to do with them.  The reason for this is that they seem to be able to play only dark characters — which is also the reason I rather enjoy their work.

The above statement is probably a little obscure, so let me explain it by focusing on three of these people who to my mind exemplify the problem.  All are brilliant actors, all have the ability to take over any scene (at the expense of whoever is playing the scene with them), and they all do it without really wanting to, I think.  Here’s the first.

Dabney Coleman played so many roles in his long career that you’d think that he had no problem getting work.  And he didn’t, provided that it wasn’t as the star of his own show, or the leading man in a movie.  His dark, sardonic nature and biting, sarcastic manner of speaking always had me howling with laughter.  A simple example was when he played a TV spokesman for 7-11, back in the 1980s.  I still remember one commercial where he was “interviewing” some moron, who was spouting all sorts of twaddle, and when the speech ended, Dabney (with his typical comedic timing) waited for just one second, and said, “I bet your mother is very proud of you.”  He also played a brilliant bad guy, whether the Agency boss in The Man With One Red Shoe, the Hugh Hefner-type smut tycoon in Dragnet, or the evil boss in 9 To 5.  Yet his own TV shows (Slap Maxwell and Buffalo Bill) weren’t hits — which was criminal, because they were both beyond-words brilliant — because I think that to the average viewer, Dabney was unlikable — even though on real life, he was apparently anything but.  Every single person who ever worked with him had nothing but good things to say about Dabney Coleman.

The same is more or less true for John Larroquette, who, if you look at his screen credits,  has been truly successful.  Like Dabney Coleman, though, John has always been something of a dark character, even when playing straight comedy (e.g. Night Court).  I think I first saw him as Kim Basinger’s psychotic ex-boyfriend in Blind Date (which still ranks as one of the best comedies ever filmed, mostly because of Larroquette’s brilliant, insane performance);  and ever since then, I’ve loved watching him do his stuff.  Yet his best performance was not comedic.  That came when he played a recovering alcoholic running the night shift in a city bus station in The John Larroquette Show.  This was a classic example where a good actor is let down by bad writing.  The show ran for over eighty episodes, and while his costar Liz Torres scooped up award after award, Larroquette himself was only ever nominated a couple of times:  proof, if any was needed, that his unquestioned talent wasn’t apparent to most people.

Finally, we come to Lucy Punch, the aptly-named Brit actress who leaves me openmouthed with astonishment whenever I see her perform.  I first saw her in the wonderful Doc Martin TV show, playing the very eccentric — and rather sinister — receptionist for the hemophobic Cornish doctor.  She only lasted a few episodes before being replaced by the equally- eccentric, but definitely not sinister Kathleen Parkinson, and I think that may be why she was replaced:  Lucy always looked on the verge of murdering someone with an axe, and that’s not really the kind of character you want in a soft, cuddly sitcom.

Then I saw her playing that psychotic character in Dinner For Schmucks… and the vision of Lucy attacking Paul Rudd’s Porsche 911 with an axe remains with me to this day.  (The similarities between John Larroquette playing an obsessive psychotic ex-partner, and Lucy more or less reprising that role have not escaped me, either.  The difference, though, was that Larroquette was funny, whereas Lucy was pure evil.)  She’s since appeared in the Brit TV show Motherland, and she was so good that her character was spun off into her own show Amandaland.  I haven’t seen either show yet because they’re not being streamed on Netflix or Amazon Prime, but I guess I’ll just have to be patient.  (Oh, and just the thought of Joanna Lumley playing Amanda’s mother in the latter show… have mercy.)

Anyway, I guess that loving these wonderful, but rather twisted actors says something about me, but I couldn’t be bothered with thinking about that.