Blog Directory CineVerse

Aggression as art: the enduring unnerving brilliance of Taxi Driver

Monday, February 16, 2026


It’s rare for a film released 50 years ago to be as visceral, controversial, and disturbing today as it was back in 1976. But such is the case with Taxi Driver, the gritty psychological thriller directed by Martin Scorsese, written by Paul Schrader, and starring Robert De Niro as Travis Bickle – a lonely, insomniac veteran who becomes a night-shift taxi driver to cope with his chronic sleeplessness. As he witnesses the perceived moral rot of the city's streets, his mental state progressively deteriorates, leading him to a violent path of attempted vigilantism. His descent is punctuated by his failed attempt to court a political campaign worker, Betsy (Cybill Shepherd), and his obsessive, ultimately bloody quest to "rescue" a child prostitute, Iris (Jodie Foster), from her manipulative pimp, Sport (Harvey Keitel).

To listen to a recording of our CineVerse group discussion of Taxi Driver, conducted last week, click here. To hear the latest Cineversary podcast, which celebrates this film’s golden anniversary, click here.


Let’s give Taxi Driver its props: This is widely considered one of the best films of the 1970s and perhaps Scorsese’s finest picture of that decade. It’s a work that boasts one fantastic scene and quotable line after another, most notably the “You talkin’ to me” monologue in front of the mirror. And it abides as an endlessly fascinating psychological portrait. Quentin Tarantino said it “may be the greatest first-person character study ever committed to film.” Deep Focus Review essayist Brian Eggert believes that “not knowing what precisely drives him is what makes Travis in the film so compelling… That which we know about what occurs in the film is vast, but that which we do not know is even greater…Just enough about Taxi Driver is known and maintained within the consciousness of popular film culture that we keep returning to it in hopes of figuring it out, but more importantly, figuring out what it means to us.”

This is the film that established Robert De Niro as a generational talent, marking the first starring role where he commanded universal attention. The brooding, haunting music of Taxi Driver proved to be the final score for legendary film composer Bernard Herrmann, who completed it just hours before he passed away. Not long thereafter, it won the Palme d'Or at the 1976 Cannes Film Festival, and the film received four nominations at the 49th Academy Awards: Best Picture, Best Actor (Robert De Niro), Best Supporting Actress (Jodie Foster), and Best Original Score (Bernard Herrmann). Back in 1994, Taxi Driver was even selected for preservation in the National Film Registry by the U.S. Library of Congress for being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically" significant.

Today, the picture holds "universal acclaim" on Metacritic with a score of 94 out of 100, and an 89% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. In prestigious polls, Sight & Sound named it the 29th-best film ever (critics) and 12th-best (directors); Time listed it as one of the 100 best films of all time; The Village Voice ranked it 33rd on its "Best Films of the Century"; Empire ranked the film 17th on its "500 Greatest Movies" list and Travis Bickle 18th among the "100 Greatest Movie Characters"; Time Out named it the #1 greatest movie set in New York City; and the BBC ranked it 19th on its "100 Greatest American Films" list. The American Film Institute has recognized the film extensively, slotting it #47 on the original 100 Years...100 Movies list and #52 on the 10th Anniversary Edition, placing it #22 on its 100 Thrills list, naming Travis Bickle the #30 greatest villain, ranking the quote "You talkin' to me?" #10, and nominating the film for 100 Years of Film Scores. Industry players have honored the work, as well, with the Writers Guild of America naming the screenplay by Paul Schrader the 43rd-greatest ever and the Directors Guild of America ranking the film the 44th best-directed of all time.

Screenwriter Paul Schrader crafted the story based on his own lonely experiences in New York, writing the script following a divorce and a period of homelessness, fueled by chronic insomnia and late nights in pornographic theaters. “What I learned while writing the script is that this was about a man who suffered from the pathology of loneliness,” Schrader recalled. “He wasn’t lonely by nature; he was lonely as a defense mechanism. And he reinforced his own loneliness by his own behavior. And the pathology grew until it became malignant and violent.”

He blended these personal memories with diverse cultural influences, including the Harry Chapin song Taxi, the Robert Bresson films Diary of a Country Priest (1951) and Pickpocket (1959), and John Ford’s The Searchers (1956); Schrader mirrored the narrative framework of the latter by transforming John Ford's archetype of the alienated, war-hardened veteran into Travis Bickle, whose obsessive, violent quest to "rescue" a young girl from a perceived social underworld reflects the same dark "savior" complex and psychological instability seen in Ethan Edwards. Schrader also utilized the diaries of would-be assassin Arthur Bremer and modeled the story's "media hero" conclusion after the public fascination with Sara Jane Moore following her attempt on President Gerald Ford’s life.

For his part, Scorsese said he was inspired by several previous films, including Hitchcock’s The Wrong Man (1956), Le Samourai (1967), and A Bigger Splash (1973). Ever the cinephile, it’s easy to spot classic noir influences on the director, as Taxi Driver exudes a cynical and downbeat worldview, depicting an urban setting as rife with decay, crime, and exploitation. An especially noirish scene is when Scorsese makes a cameo in Bickle’s cab, threatening to violently exact revenge on his cheating wife spotted in a window silhouette across the street, a sequence punctuated by Hermann’s ominous score. This sequence is perhaps a sly inside baseball nod to Fritz Lang’s Woman in the Window, which we hear Scorsese name-drop. One could also argue that Betsy and Iris are unwitting femme fatales leading Bickle to danger and destruction. Additionally, DVD Savant critic Glenn Erickson called Bickle a “film noir loser hero, the kind that subconsciously wills his own failures.”

Some argue that Taxi Driver is part of the vetsploitation subgenre of films exploring the "ticking time bomb" archetype of the scarred Vietnam veteran using military training to wage vigilante wars, as seen in early titles like The Born Losers (1967), Targets (1968), and Billy Jack (1971). You could also make a case that this film could be classified in the vigilante subgenre, which focuses on individuals who bypass a failing legal system to dispense personal justice, often amidst a backdrop of rising crime and societal collapse, as evidenced in earlier works like Dirty Harry (1971), Walking Tall (1973), and Death Wish (1974).

In the years following the release of Taxi Driver, we got films with similar characters, situations, and themes, including American Gigolo (1980), Paul Schrader’s first sequel in his "Night Worker" trilogy, which explores a stylish but isolated loner; The King of Comedy (1982), a spiritual companion piece featuring a socially inept protagonist obsessed with celebrity and criminal recognition; Light Sleeper (1992), in which an insomniac drug dealer maintains a diary while navigating a lonely, late-night existence; Bad Lieutenant (1992), a gritty portrait of a self-destructive officer’s moral collapse in a decaying New York; Falling Down (1993), wherein a frustrated everyman snaps and embarks on a violent, vigilante journey across Los Angeles; Léon: The Professional (1994), which mirrors the Travis/Iris dynamic through a socially stunted hitman who protects a young girl; American Psycho (2000), which examines the internal monologue and deteriorating sanity of a man leading a double life; Drive (2011), depicting an enigmatic driver who uses sudden, explosive violence to protect those close to him in a criminal underworld; Nightcrawler (2014), featuring a sociopathic loner who prowls the city at night, driven by a dark, obsessive ambition; You Were Never Really Here (2017), wherein a traumatized veteran rescues girls from trafficking, echoing Travis Bickle’s specific trauma and mission; and Joker (2019), a direct homage depicting a marginalized man’s transformation into a violent symbol of urban unrest.

The level of graphic violence and disquieting sexuality in Taxi Driver is extreme, even by today’s standards. The film would have received an X-rating had Scorsese not agreed to desaturate the colors during the final shootout and make the blood look less realistically red. Consider that this film depicts a white man killing a black man, the gruesome shooting of several men while a preteen girl watches, and an unsuccessful suicide attempt by Bickle. Bickle is also a character with obvious racial prejudice against African-Americans. What’s more, Jodie Foster was only 12 years old during filming. Subjecting a child actress to this kind of subject matter and violence and casting her as a child prostitute remains a questionable choice. Fortunately, the filmmakers took great steps to prevent her from being traumatized by having her psychologically tested and providing a social worker on set. Still, consider that both Scorsese and Schrader were not nominated for Academy Awards for this film, which suggests how uncomfortable the movie made Academy voters.

Most controversially, Taxi Driver motivated John Hinckley Junior to attempt an assassination on President Ronald Reagan in 1981 after re-watching the film numerous times and being obsessed with Jodie Foster. The media scrutiny that followed caused Scorsese to question whether he wanted to continue to make films. Additionally, Bernhard Goetz became a modern-day Travis Bickle in 1984 when he shot four teenagers on a New York subway, justifying the violence as a preemptive strike against perceived "filth." Driven by the same self-righteous alienation as the fictional character, Goetz viewed his explosive actions as a necessary "cleansing" of a city he felt the authorities had failed to protect.

There are so many directorial choices by Scorsese to admire. First, ruminate on how Scorsese and his collaborators benefited from great timing, choosing to film on the West Side of New York City during a summer when the Big Apple was teetering on bankruptcy, a widespread garbage strike resulted in trash piling up everywhere, and an oppressive heat wave plagued the city.

The director and his team conjure up unforgettable imagery, creating a visually evocative landscape filled with steam-seeped streets, an unhealthy neon glow illuminating the nighttime urban jungle, inky blacks obscuring the spaces between faces, shady and dangerous denizens walking about, drab apartment interiors, and cab windshields splattered with dirty water or hurled garbage.

In an interview, Scorsese said: “Much of Taxi Driver arose from my feeling that movies are really a kind of dream-state, or like taking dope…And the shock of walking out of the theatre into broad daylight can be terrifying. I watch movies all the time, and I am also very bad at waking up. The film was like that for me—that state of being almost awake.”

Scorsese’s camera brilliantly captures seemingly random images of street life, kinetic vehicles, and cultural diversity on display. There’s a fantastic brief segment where rhythmic editing juxtaposes the changing cab fare meter with streetlights, facial close-ups, and other imagery in rapid-fire succession, and a later marvelous montage where we observe Travis target-practicing at a gun range, polishing his boots, burning flowers, and sharpening his knife. Other curious shots spring to mind, including the slow zoom in to a glass filled with fizzing Alka-Seltzer. And the delayed but shocking reveal of Travis’ mohawk haircut is further testament to Scorsese’s visual storytelling savvy.

One of his most impactful decisions was to consistently present Travis’s POV, especially as he observes sex workers, pimps, and various passersby. He does this occasionally in slow motion, an effect that suggests Bickle is out of sync with the rest of the world and preoccupied with what he sees as degenerates, criminals, and human threats. Roger Ebert wrote: “One of the hardest things for a director to do is to suggest a character’s interior state without using dialogue; one of Scorsese’s greatest achievements in Taxi Driver is to take us inside Travis Bickle’s point of view.”

Interestingly, Scorsese includes one scene not shown from Bickle’s perspective: Sport and Iris slow dancing and embracing in their private space. Although this choice is inconsistent with the rest of the film, having Travis absent reinforces the notion that Iris is truly being exploited by a gaslighting groomer and manipulator – not just in Travis’ mind. This knowledge makes us root for Travis in his quest to liberate Iris.

Scorsese also cleverly uses his camera in ways that further underscore Bickle’s misanthropic, unsettling nature, his inability to communicate, and the way he makes the viewer feel uncomfortable. Recall how, early in the film, the camera momentarily detaches from Travis, panning across a row of vehicles in the taxi garage before reuniting with him as he reaches the exit. Soon after, we observe a lap dissolve that essentially "jumps" the viewer forward in space, transitioning from a wide shot of Travis on the pavement to a tighter, more immediate framing of him in the same location. Perhaps most famously, Travis is shown at a pay phone pleading with Betsy to return his calls, but the camera pans right, forcing us to gaze down a bleak, empty hallway toward the street traffic in the distance – as if the camera or the filmmakers are either too embarrassed or disgusted to linger any further on this pathetic figure.

Importantly, the director includes an occasional voiceover, bringing us further into Travis’ unhinged mind and causing us to question how dependable this narrator is. Often, the inclusion of a voiceover in a film signifies that the character speaking aloud is trustworthy, empathetic, and endorsed by the filmmakers, but, as Slant Magazine critic Rob Humanick put it, “Taxi Driver doesn’t ask that we embrace or approve of (Travis’) disturbed worldview, only that we see through his eyes enough to experience this particular circle of hell.”

It’s fascinating that De Niro went full method in his approach to Bickle, securing a taxi driver's license and, during filming breaks, transporting actual passengers around New York. He completely inhabits this role and looks absolutely believable in the part. Recall how DeNiro never completely turns around to communicate with passengers inside his cab. He plays Bickle with clever ambiguity so that you’re never quite sure what truly drives his impulses or makes him tick; his portrayal teeters between the extremes of dangerous psychopath and good Samaritan, with plenty of shades of gray but also ample character flaws, like loathsome bigotry and social ineptitude.

Foster, meanwhile, is a precocious revelation as Iris. Casting a 12-year-old remains a cringeworthy decision, but it lends valuable gravitas to the depravity of the situation and the exploitative nature of prostitution. Cybill Shepherd shines as Betsy; her radiant beauty makes us believe that she would fuel Travis’ obsession. And Albert Brooks, in his debut feature film performance, adds needed comic relief touches to an otherwise disturbing and depressing narrative.

Taxi Driver is a film brimming with cautionary concepts. First and foremost, it’s about the repercussions of loneliness and the inability to communicate and connect with other human beings. Bickle, primarily a solitary figure through most of the narrative, refers to himself as “God’s lonely man,” remarking that “Loneliness has followed me my whole life.” A telling exchange is when Travis can’t seem to properly express his angst when talking with Wizard, saying, “I just wanna go out, and you know, like, really... Really... Really do something.” According to Ebert: “The film can be seen as a series of his failed attempts to connect, every one of them hopelessly wrong. He asks a girl out on a date and takes her to a porno movie. He sucks up to a political candidate but ends up alarming him. He tries to make small talk with a Secret Service agent. He wants to befriend a child prostitute, but scares her away. He is so lonely that when he asks, ‘Who you talkin’ to?’ he is addressing himself in a mirror. This utter aloneness is at the center of “Taxi Driver”…perhaps it is why so many people connect with it even though Travis Bickle would seem to be the most alienating of movie heroes. We have all felt as alone as Travis.”

Culpability by warped association is another thematic notion. Bickle’s distorted morality leads him to judge Betsy and Iris as either guilty or innocent based on their associations with, respectively, Palantine and Sport – two men Travis deems as corrupting, controlling father figures who contribute to the city’s despicable state and are deserving of his extreme form of justice. Travis first views Betsy as an angelic and alluring love interest. But when Betsy sours on him, he sours on Palatine and warns her, “You're in a hell, and you're gonna die in a hell, just like the rest of 'em.” Travis then turns his wrath on Palantine, the man Betsy is working for and the perceived barrier separating them. Next, Travis channels his energies toward saving Iris, a young prostitute being exploited by her pimp. After his assassination attempt of the senator is thwarted, Travis immediately redirects his violent intentions toward Sport. Travis makes illogical connections between both father figures, likely due to coincidence and timing. Recall that Iris enters Travis’ cab and is yanked away by Sport immediately after Palantine is Travis’ passenger. In that scene, we hear Travis tell Palantine, “This city here is like an open sewer, you know, it's full of filth and scum..Whatever becomes the President should just - really clean it up.”

Another core finding, if you look closely enough: fatalism as a defense mechanism. “Now I see this clearly. My whole life is pointed in one direction. There never has been a choice for me,” Travis says. This mindset gives him a sense of purpose and frees him from accepting personal responsibility for the violence he believes he’s been preordained to deliver. By framing his path as an inevitable destiny rather than a series of choices, he transforms his social alienation and mental instability into a heroic mission. Lacking free will, Travis is no longer a man losing his mind, but a tool of fate directed to cleanse an irredeemable city.

Taxi Driver also enjoys dabbling in cosmic irony. “The five-minute epilogue underscores the vagaries of fate,” critic James Berardinelli posits. “The media builds Bickle into a hero, when, had he been a little quicker drawing his gun against Senator Palantine, he would have been reviled as an assassin. As the film closes, the misanthrope has been embraced as the model citizen—someone who takes on pimps, drug dealers, and mobsters to save one little girl.” In the final scene, Travis appears more balanced and well-adjusted as he drops off Betsy. Yet, our last glimpse of Bickle shows a concerned face doing a double take as he suddenly notices an unseen object in his rearview mirror, insinuating that the ticking bomb in his noggin that had been turned off is now wound up again. The “bad ideas in my head” that he warned about earlier may have returned, and a new cycle of violence and unruly behavior could be just around the next turn. Schrader seconds this notion in a DVD commentary, rejecting the theory that the shootout, aftermath, and calm epilogue comprise a dream sequence; instead, he sees a circular pattern in which the final frame “could be spliced to the first frame, and the movie (starts) all over again.” Only next time, Bickle won’t be the hero.

Attentive cinephiles perceive plentiful examples of prescience and foreshadowing layered throughout the film. Taxi Driver continually hints at things to come later, with mirrored motifs and callbacks. For example, Travis’ fellow cabbies give him the nickname “Killer,” which proves apropos. We observe several different characters – Travis, the cabbie Charlie T, and Sport – use their hands as finger guns, prefiguring the real handguns we’ll later see used. We hear Travis say, “Someday, a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets”; in a subsequent scene, we observe his windshield doused with water from a hydrant. Tom says earlier, “If a thief screws up on the job, they'll blow his fingers off”; later, we witness Travis actually shoot the fingers off the timekeeper character. In his cameo, Scorsese says he’s going to use a .44 Magnum on his wife, one of the same types of guns Travis ends up purchasing. That same unnamed passenger uses the “N” word when referring to his wife’s lover, feeding into Travis’ growing racism toward African-Americans.

One of Taxi Driver’s greatest gifts to us, 50 years onward, is its opacity as a trustworthy text. Scorsese and Schrader provide ample evidence to intimate that Travis is an unreliable narrator. Cases in point: We are not even sure he is talking to Betsy on that payphone. The flowers he supposedly sent her have apparently never been delivered, as we see decomposing bouquets in his apartment. He claims to be an honorably discharged Marine, but this may be all fabricated; the olive drab M-65 field jacket he wears, featuring a "King Kong Company" morale patch and a pinned parachutist badge, could have been purchased at a resale shop. We observe Travis watching American Bandstand on television, but the song they are dancing to is not the same song we hear (Jackson Browne’s Late for the Sky). Travis constructs a false identity for his parents, claiming he is involved in sensitive government work to mask the reality of his mundane taxi shifts; he further fabricates to them a successful romance with Betsy, ignoring the fact that his social deficiencies have already destroyed the relationship. These blatant lies prove that his narration is a performance of normalcy, used to hide his growing instability even from those closest to him. Truth is, we can’t even trust the denouement: The supposedly heroic conclusion in which newspaper headlines celebrate Travis’ vigilantism could actually be a feverish "death dream" or a psychological projection of his need for acceptance; ponder, after all, how implausible it is that Travis would be legally exonerated for all the violence he caused or would not eventually identified as the attempted assassin of Palantine. We can’t even be sure that’s Betsy in the backseat in the final scene.

Yet it’s Taxi Driver’s “aggression artistry” that perhaps lingers longest in the conscious and subconscious. The “Are you talkin’ to me” moment is legendary, but the most impressive sequence from a direction standpoint is the shootout, which begins with a tracking camera shot of Travis approaching the “timekeeper” (who rents out the rooms to Johns) and shooting his fingers off with the .44 Magnum; we see quick images of the corridor and a door, behind which is a stunned Iris and the bespectacled mafioso. Over the next several seconds, we observe an array of medium close-ups and mid-shots of Travis pointing and blasting his gun, juxtaposed with reverse shots of Sport returning fire and dropping dead. Travis drops the .44, and the camera tilts up to his face. There is a semi-overhead shot from the top of the stairs, and we witness him fire three more rounds with a smaller gun. The wounded timekeeper follows Travis up the stairs in a heated rage. We get a slow-motion shot of the mafioso emerging from the room upstairs, sending a bullet into Travis’ shoulder before the mohawked vigilante deploys another firearm hidden up his sleeve and blows away the mobster – who falls back into Iris’ room as she screams. Travis drags the timekeeper into the room with him, and then we’re served another rapid-fire volley of medium close-ups opposite mid-shots as Travis stabs the old man’s hand with his secret knife. A frenetic tilting camera shows Travis shooting the timekeeper in the face, followed by Iris’ horrified reaction. 

Attempting suicide, Travis pulls an empty trigger and collapses onto the couch. Free of music up to this point, Hermann’s woozy score suddenly ignites, replete with dreamy harps and shrill horns, and the camera shifts to slow-motion mode. Police officers, weapons brandished, enter the space. We got an extreme close-up of Travis finger pistoling at his head (is he begging the cops to shoot him dead?). Next, there’s a fantastic overhead shot that pans the room counterclockwise, revealing every inch of carnage, tracking itself out the doorway (is Travis dying and his spirit leaving his body?). Retracing the path of violence, we digest a slow dissolve montage of grotesque imagery from a steadily moving camera – viscera on the walls and stairs, and lingering shots of bloody, bullet-ridden dead men that could actually be more distressing than the brutal shootout itself. Few filmmakers have ever orchestrated extreme violence more masterfully than what Marty accomplishes in this seven-minute symphony of savagery.

Read more...

Cineversary podcast marks 50th anniversary of Taxi Driver

Wednesday, February 11, 2026

Eddie Muller
In Cineversary podcast episode #91, host ⁠Erik J. Martin⁠ sends 50th birthday wishes to Taxi Driver, directed by Martin Scorsese. Accompanying him on this anniversary cab ride is TCM host and Film Noir Foundation president Eddie Muller. Erik and Eddie examine how Taxi Driver has stood the test of time, why it’s worthy of celebration five decades later, its impact on cinema, key thematic takeaways, and much more.

To listen to this episode, click here or click the "play" button on the embedded streaming player below. Or, you can stream, download, or subscribe to Cineversary wherever you get your podcasts, including Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

Learn more about the Cineversary podcast at www.cineversary.com and email show comments or suggestions to cineversarypodcast@gmail.com.

Read more...

Troll mates

Tuesday, February 3, 2026

When you think of famous and unforgettable sex scenes in movies, sequences like the intense encounters in Basic Instinct (1992), the iconic pottery wheel moment in Ghost (1990), the same-sex connection in Brokeback Mountain (2005), the urgent coitus in A History of Violence (2005), the romanticized carriage encounter in Titanic (1997), and the controversial realism found in Blue Is the Warmest Color (2013) spring to mind. 

But perhaps the most head-turning erotic scene depicting two characters doing the deed can be found in the Swedish fantasy thriller Border, directed by Ali Abbasi and released in 2018. The plot centers on Tina (Eva Melander), a socially isolated customs officer possessing a supernatural ability to smell human emotions like guilt and fear. Her mundane existence – spent living in a strained relationship with her layabout partner, Roland (Jörgen Thorsson), and visiting her ailing father (Sten Ljunggren) – is upended when she encounters a mysterious traveler named Vore (Eero Milonoff). Vore not only shares her distinct, unconventional physical traits but also challenges her understanding of the world by revealing their shared identity as (wait for it…) trolls, forcing Tina to choose between her loyalty to humanity and her true, primal nature.

To listen to a recording of our CineVerse group discussion of Border, conducted last week, click here (if you get an error message, simply try refreshing the page).


Border defies easy categorization. It’s a mashup of many different genres and subgenres. It’s a fantasy film, body horror movie, romance, police procedural, coming-of-age picture, family drama, superhero origin film, arthouse indie, and even a work of queer cinema. But the film doesn’t immediately reveal that it’s a fantasy; it imbues social realism and matter-of-factness, especially early on as we see Tina at work as a security officer and at home with Roland – enough to make us believe that this is a plausible narrative about a specially gifted person perceived as ugly and how she will cope with this existence. It becomes so much more as the story unfolds, she is increasingly paired with Vore, and the troll revelation happens – with various aspects of troll mythology explored, including an appetite for maggots and insects, terror of lightning, and the human fear of changelings.

The aforementioned intimacy sequence involves strange, hidden sex organs and a lovemaking ritual we didn’t see coming. There’s also ample female nudity without being exploitative or titillating. The acting by Melander, combined with the Oscar-nominated makeup effects, makes for a fascinating character in Tina, who emotes more with her nostrils and upper lip than most thespians do with their entire face.

While the main plot and the prosecuting pedophiles subplot are intriguing, our primary fascination is with the relationship between Tina and Vore and the undeniable chemistry between these characters.

Fittingly titled, this film examines the border between the normal and supernormal, reality and myth, and human and animal. “A gnome or a changeling is an embodiment of the messy border between humanity and nature, the town and the forest, the rational mind and the sensual body. That’s perhaps why such creatures often inhabit liminal spaces—such as the trolls that harass those who try to cross the bridge under which the creatures dwell,” per Slant Magazine reviewer Pat Brown. “There’s something out there that Tina’s looking for, somewhere beyond the border between the human world and nature, and in one of the film’s most evocative shots, she reaches out toward a fox gazing into her bedroom from just beyond the window.”

Border is also a rumination on otherness and the physical and sociocultural differences that make us each unique, which can cause social rejection –cleverly using allegory to touch on topical sociocultural matters. “It’s about transgression and taboo, crossing borders and infringing limits: about culturally constructed wrongness and socially deplored differentness,” wrote Peter Bradshaw, critic for The Guardian. “Apart from everything else, it’s a satirical reflection on the minority experience, perhaps also inspired by the director’s own feelings about being an Iranian who has studied and now lives and works in Denmark.”

And this is unmistakably an identity crisis picture. Tina wants to learn who she truly is and came from. She discovers her true name is Reva, and her parents were used in experiments and tortured. She also learns, by the conclusion, that she is arguably more human – at least morally and emotionally – than she likely expected. She tells Vore at their last meeting, “I don’t want to hurt people. Is that human?”

(Spoiler) The conclusion, with a fellow troll – perhaps Vore –gifting her a baby troll, suggests that she can stay true to her identity, support and nurture her kind, and have a child after all (even though she was told she can’t bear children); but it also intimates that she can pass on some of the human traits she prefers to the next generation.

Similar works

  • Let the Right One In (2008) – A cold, realistic Swedish reimagining of vampire mythology centered on childhood loneliness, which is also based on a story by John Ajvide Lindqvist.
  • Under the Skin (2013) – A visually striking "alien amongst us" story exploring humanity from a detached, outsider perspective.
  • Raw (2016) – A visceral French coming-of-age horror using physical transformation to explore repressed desires.
  • Lamb (2021) – An Icelandic folk-horror tale blending quiet domesticity with the discovery of a mysterious, uncanny newborn.
  • The Shape of Water (2017) – A darkly textured romance between a societal outcast and a creature defying human classification.
  • Tigers Are Not Afraid (2017) – A gritty Mexican urban fairytale mixing cartel violence with haunting supernatural elements.
  • A Ghost Story (2017) – A meditative look at a non-human perspective and the experience of being "othered" by time.

Other films by Ali Abbasi

  • Shelley (2016)
  • Holy Spider (2022)
  • The Apprentice (2024)

Read more...

Say "I do" to Hugh and this trendsetting British romcom

Wednesday, January 28, 2026

Released in 1994 and directed by Mike Newell, Four Weddings and a Funeral stands as a seminal work in British romantic comedy that redefined the genre for a modern audience. The narrative follows the romantic misadventures of a tight-knit group of friends as they navigate the joys and sorrows of five distinct social gatherings. At the heart of the story is the charmingly awkward and perennial bachelor Charles, played by Hugh Grant, whose commitment-phobic life is upended when he meets Carrie, an elusive American beauty portrayed by Andie MacDowell. As the title suggests, their "will-they-or-won't-they" relationship unfolds across four nuptials and one somber funeral, supported by a memorable ensemble cast that includes Kristin Scott Thomas as the pining Fiona, Simon Callow as the boisterous Gareth, and John Hannah as the poignant Matthew.

To listen to a recording of our CineVerse group discussion of Four Weddings and a Funeral, click here (if you get an error message, simply try refreshing the page).


This picture was surprisingly influential. Made for the equivalent of less than $2 million in American dollars (the budget was so meager that extras were forced to don their own wedding attire), it earned a whopping $245.7 million globally, becoming the highest-grossing British movie in history up to that time. It reinvigorated the British film industry, made Grant an international star, and paved the way for forthcoming British romcom juggernauts.

It also lent greater prestige and respectability to the romcom genre in general by garnering Oscar nominations for Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay. And the film remains highly regarded among British cinema, ranking 23rd on a list of the BFI’s 100 greatest British films of the 20th century, and 21 and Empire magazine’s roster of the 100 best British films.

By veering away from stuffy period pieces and the "working-class gloom" found in bleak social realist films like Riff-Raff (1991), Naked (1993), and The Long Day Closes (1992), Four Weddings redefined British cinema with a sleek, marketable brand of "Englishness." It created a globally bankable formula that successfully exported a polished, aspirational version of British culture to the world stage, and it traded the industrial decay and gritty aesthetics of "kitchen sink" dramas for a contemporary story defined by cruder wit, genuine friendship, and the charming anxieties of the middle and upper classes.

“Much of Four Weddings’ humor is rooted in the illicit thrill of witnessing mild-mannered Brits behaving badly, from Charles’s expletive-laden journey to the first wedding, to the hilariously uninhibited sex scene between the wholesome-looking Bernard and Lydia,” wrote BFI essayist Paul O’Callaghan. “Crucially, Curtis and Newell ensure that their gang of randy poshos is as relatable as possible. None of the key players, bar Carrie, seems particularly interested in money or social status.”

The international success of Four Weddings also helped cement the "Richard Curtis style," named after its screenwriter: a formula defined by bumbling, charismatic leads and eccentric friend groups. This blueprint, balancing high-society glamour with grounded emotional pathos, was perfected in the quirky romance of Notting Hill (1999) and the self-deprecating charm of Bridget Jones’s Diary (2001). Curtis further refined this aesthetic through the massive interconnected ensemble of Love Actually (2003) and the whimsical, heartfelt sincerity of About Time (2013), creating a definitive template for the modern romantic comedy. Curtis was inspired to write Four Weddings based on his own experiences attending 65 weddings over 11 years.

This film appears quite progressive for a 1994 movie and has aged well in 2 key ways: The depiction of Gareth and Matthew’s gay relationship, and the presence of a strong female love interest with agency.

“At the time of Four Weddings’ release, LGBTQ+ screen characters were invariably defined by their otherness,” per O’Callaghan. “The New Queer Cinema of the early 90s espoused a defiant rejection of mainstream heterosexual culture, while at the other end of the spectrum, Jonathan Demme’s Philadelphia attempted to elicit widespread sympathy for the community’s struggles by casting everyman Tom Hanks as a chaste lawyer dying of Aids…Four Weddings, by contrast, depicted a happy, charismatic gay couple seamlessly integrated into a predominantly straight friendship group. More significantly, their relationship is conspicuously the most harmonious and healthy in the film.”

Ponder how, throughout their romance, Carrie maintains the upper hand, navigating their relationship with a level of sexual autonomy that Charles lacks. Her self-assurance is most evident when she candidly reveals having had 33 intimate partners, a figure that dwarfs Charles’s modest 9.

The movie stays consistent with its title, keeping the narrative firmly focused on three weddings, one funeral, and a fourth wedding, in order, and not deviating from this confined structure of events. By doing so, the filmmakers cleverly trace the arcs of these characters over time while also managing to avoid revealing their professions or politics.

Always a bridesmaid, never a bride – or in this case, groom – appears to be the prevailing theme, at least on the surface. Charles describes himself as a “serial monogamist” who – through a combination of bad choices and bad luck – can’t seem to find the right partner. Charles has difficulty properly expressing his feelings and committing to a sustained, serious relationship. Every wedding he attends reminds him of the romantic wreckage he’s responsible for from past relationships, and how he’s seemingly doomed to remain single. It isn’t until he meets Carrie that he feels a truly deep romantic connection and the prospect of forever love. Put another way, good things come to those who wait.

Four Weddings also espouses that there’s somebody for everybody in this world. It’s a picture that suggests, often comically although perhaps unrealistically, that everyone has a soulmate just waiting to be discovered. We observe Charles and each of his friends paired with a spouse or another romantic partner by the end of the story: the ultimate happy ending for a romcom. But first, Charles nearly makes a serious life mistake by acquiescing and agreeing to marry Henrietta. Fortunately, his brother David wakes him out of his stupor at the last minute and encourages him to follow his heart and not settle for second-best.

Four Weddings and a Funeral also promulgates a carpe diem philosophy, reminding us that life goes by quickly and opportunities need to be snatched up when available. Recall how swiftly characters in the film fall in love and get married or divorced, as well as how big life events such as weddings and funerals can spring up unexpectedly, reinforcing the notion of time’s fleeting nature.

Lastly, love certainly matters, but friends loom large in this relationship story. Charles’ group consists of steadfast singles who share his relationship challenges and remain unmarried for much of the film, though they each seek long-term romantic partners. But they provide significant emotional support to each other as bachelors and bachelorettes, blunting the sting of singlehood.

Similar works

Peter's Friends (1992, Kenneth Branagh)
Sliding Doors (1998, Peter Howitt)
Notting Hill (1999, Roger Michell)
Bridget Jones's Diary (2001, Sharon Maguire)
About a Boy (2002, Chris Weitz and Paul Weitz)
Love Actually (2003, Richard Curtis)
Wimbledon (2004, Richard Loncraine)
The Holiday (2006, Nancy Meyers)
About Time (2013, Richard Curtis)

Other films by Mike Newell

Dance with a Stranger (1985)
Enchanted April (1991)
Into the West (1992)
Donnie Brasco (1997)
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society (2018)

Read more...

Spotlight on guilty pleasure pictures

Tuesday, January 20, 2026

Last week, our CineVerse discussion group didn't actually analyze and converse about a movie – instead, we gathered to talk about several movies, more specifically "Guilty Pleasure Pictures": films we perhaps feel a little guilty about loving. This was our second attempt at a "Freeform Wednesday," where we meet to chat about various cinema-related topics that our members suggest. CineVerse aims to host a Freeform Wednesday at least once a quarter.

To listen to our CineVerse group discussion about Guilty Pleasure Pictures, click here.

Read more...

Hitchcock's bizarre love triangle

Friday, January 16, 2026


Gothic melodramas and romantic thrillers featuring new or prospective brides in danger reigned supreme in the 1940s. For proof, consider the popularity of films like Rebecca (1940), Suspicion (1941), Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941), Jane Eyre (1943), Gaslight (1944), The Spiral Staircase (1945), Secret Beyond the Door (1947), and Sleep, My Love (1948). But the crown jewel in this cycle was Alfred Hitchcock’s Notorious (1946), which could be his greatest picture of the 1940s and the director’s finest work up to this point in his career.

The rock-solid setup? The American daughter of a convicted Nazi spy (Ingrid Bergman) is recruited by a government agent (Cary Grant) to infiltrate a group of German exiles in Rio de Janeiro. Tensions rise as she finds herself trapped in a dangerous love triangle, forced to marry a high-ranking Nazi target (Claude Rains) while the agent she truly loves watches from the shadows.

To listen to a recording of our CineVerse group discussion of Notorious, conducted last week, click here (if you encounter an error, simply try refreshing the page). To hear the latest Cineversary podcast episode celebrating Notorious’ 80th anniversary, click here.


This is a perfectly cast movie, and possibly the most perfectly cast Hitchcock film. You don’t get any bigger in 1946 than Grant and Bergman as your leads, and this is the first Hitchcock movie with two Hollywood A-listers. And what a coup to have in the third position the consistently excellent Rains (who was actually several inches shorter than Bergman), Leopoldine Konstantin as perhaps Hitchcock’s most memorable mother figure, and the always sturdy Louis Calhern as the spy chief.

There’s not an ounce of fat on this film— not one superfluous scene or unnecessary character. It’s a testament to the masterfully constructed screenplay co-written by one of the greatest scribes of this period: Ben Hecht. The way Hecht and Hitchcock conclude the picture is particularly impressive in its efficiency, restraint, and craftsmanship, with the final 10 minutes playing like a perfectly synchronized Swiss watch and ending without any of the gunplay, deaths, or chases that viewers expect. This could be the most expertly structured and satisfying ending to any film by the Master of Suspense.

The film also benefits from having the fingerprints of other major Hollywood talents all over the celluloid, including producer David O. Selznick, who helped develop Notorious but bowed out and sold the project to RKO; the legendary Edith Head in charge of costumes; and cinematographer Ted Tetzlaff and art director Caroll Clark, both Oscar-nominated in their careers.

Additionally, Notorious shines as a showcase for some of the director’s most bravura visual flourishes. Cases in point: the famous elevated crane shot that swoops us down to a close-up of a key held in Bergman’s hand, all the while maintaining camera focus; Devlin standing in the doorway in a canted point of view shot while Lisa wakes from a hangover; the extended makeout sequence between Grant and Bergman that lasts nearly three minutes; the wine cellar discovery moment, where tight spatial framing and expert cutting height the tension and claustrophobia; the tainted coffee segment, which uses carefully aligned POV shots, rhythmic cutting, and exact performance timing to transform a mundane gesture into an experience of mounting dread; Lisa’s poison-induced hallucination and various shots where clever lighting, blocking, and pacing underscore Alicia’s gradual physical decline; and the fantastic rescue finale that employs masterful cross-cutting and a gliding camera down the staircase.

Hitchcock set the bar high for sexy smooching in the 1940s. In the famous kissing scene between Devlin and Alicia, which begins on her balcony and continues inside her apartment while Devlin makes a phone call, nearly three minutes of slightly interrupted snogging ensue. This is believed to be the longest extended kissing scene of its kind up to that time. The Hays Code forced filmmakers to limit each on-screen kiss to three seconds or less, but Hitchcock got around this rule by having Alicia and Devlin lock lips for brief moments, disengage, then reengage continually, talking in between about having dinner in sexually coded language. Their first kiss during the sequence actually lasts four seconds, which breaks the three-second rule.

Amazingly, the filmmakers prove that you can create a sympathetic Nazi villain just months after the end of World War II. We arguably feel warmer toward Alexander than Devlin for most of the picture; the former truly adores Alicia, while the latter is caustic and cold to her for the majority of the runtime. And yet another sympathetic Nazi is Emil, a pitiable bumbler who gets rubbed out quite early in the story.

This picture's got one of the most malevolent matriarchs ever to grace the screen: Alexander's mom, played with icy aplomb by Konstantin, the quintessential mother-in-law from hell. This character, along with Mrs. Vale in Now, Voyager from 1942, is one of the earliest examples of a villainous mother role in a non-horror, non-animated Hollywood feature film. The anomalous relationship between Sebastian and his mother paved the path for future aberrant mother-son pairings in later Hitchcock films, including Strangers on a Train (1951), North by Northwest (1959), Psycho (1960), The Birds (1963), and Marnie (1964), and in movies by other directors, such as The Strange Love of Martha Ivers (1946), White Heat (1949), Sudden Fear (1952), and The Manchurian Candidate (1962).

The influence of this film doesn’t stop there. Many believe Notorious, along with its direct Hitchcock descendant North by Northwest, helped shape contemporary spy movies, particularly the James Bond films that began in the early 1960s.

Interestingly, Notorious was remade in Germany as White Poison (1951). And Mission: Impossible 2 (2000) has been called a loose remake of Notorious; both movies concern a romantic triangle in which an agent falls in love with a woman he must send to bed with the villain.

Many consider this Hitchcock’s first truly realized love story, one that’s less a spy film than a gripping story about relationships and a convoluted romantic triangle. “He takes all the elements of a typical romance and turns them upside down. The romance isn’t a romance until the end,” said Hitchcock biographer Donald Spoto in an interview for the Criterion Collection. “Notorious is also the first Hitchcock film whose every shot is not only filled with meaning, but also beautiful,” wrote Criterion Collection essayist William Rothman. “Hitchcock seems to be in love with the world he is creating. Shot after shot simply takes our breath away. For the first time in a Hitchcock film, the camera achieves a lush romanticism equal to its wit, elegance, and theatricality – as it will be in his greatest later films.”

This was the director’s first opportunity to be his own producer; still under contract to Selznick at the time, he was temporarily freed from this servitude when Selznick sold the project to RKO, and his creativity seems to benefit.

Consider how Sir Alfred cleverly shifts occasionally between objective and subjective camera throughout the movie so that we share Alicia’s eyes and better identify with her. Recall how, when Alicia suffers a hangover in bed, we view Devlin upside down, from her vantage point. And when she’s being poisoned, we see fuzzy and distorted framings. The perspectives of other characters are occasionally shown, as well, such as the unnamed reporter peeking into the courtroom at the beginning of the film, Sebastian watching Alicia with Devlin, and Devlin surveying Alicia with Sebastian.

As is true in so many of Hitchcock’s works, the key to effective suspense and intrigue in Notorious is that he provides the viewer with more information than the main protagonist (Alicia), which increases our concern for her well-being as well as the intelligence mission she has accepted. We are shown privileged scenes in which Alicia is necessarily absent, such as private meetings between Devlin and his superiors, Sebastian and his fellow Nazis, and Sebastian and his mother, where crucial details are shared – most importantly, Sebastian’s realization of her true identity and his plan to slowly kill her.

Ponder, as well, how Hitchcock uses music or the absence of it in this film. Near the ending, from the moment Devlin reaches Alicia’s bed until they begin to leave the room, three-and-a-half tense music-less minutes elapse. Earlier, instead of queuing up a knot-tightening score when Devlin and Alicia are in the wine cellar, diegetic Brazilian music played by the band upstairs is heard. And during the extended kissing scene, we only hear faraway diegetic music that fades out.

The director’s approach in Notorious interestingly deviates from many of his other films. First, quite uncharacteristically for Hitchcock, he and Hecht revamped the screenplay during filming, often completing pages the night before cameras rolled. Second, he broke his own rule of disallowing actor input and improvisation. The director took advice from Bergman on how to shoot a particular sequence differently – specifically, the dinner scene where she observes Emil concerned about the wine bottles – an extremely rare occurrence for an ultra-controlling figure known for carefully planning every facet of filmmaking before shooting. And he encouraged ad-libbing by Grant and Bergman during the extended kissing sequence.

Third, Bergman and her Alicia character are distinguished from other classic Hitchcock leading ladies. She’s a brunette who’s been around the block, not a seemingly unattainable icy blonde. “She eschews the patrician iciness of Grace Kelly, the painful yearning of Joan Fontaine, and the gleaming eroticism of Kim Novak,” Rothman continued. “These women can be wanting, cutting, lovely, and even mired in obsessions of their own. But Alicia’s supple vulnerability and mature sexiness are singular.” Also, consider that the paradigm here is the rescuing of a brunette by a “right man”, instead of the classic Hitchcock pattern of a blonde rescued by or partnered with a “wrong man” on the run, as evidenced in The 39 Steps (1935), Saboteur (1942), To Catch a Thief (1955), and North by Northwest (1959).

Fourth, this is the first instance of a Hitchcock espionage/spy thriller wherein there is no deadly physical violence – no assassinations, shootings, stabbings, or bombings. In fact, there are zero on-screen deaths in this story.

The MacGuffin in this picture is particularly noteworthy. Here, it’s the uranium ore bottled up in Sebastian’s wine cellar. Ponder that during preproduction, no one involved knew that uranium would be a key ingredient in the creation of the atomic bomb. Fascinatingly, Hitchcock insisted he was tailed by the FBI for months after discussing uranium with his collaborators prior to filming.

Notorious’ central thesis is trust and betrayal. Devlin betrays Alicia emotionally, Alicia betrays Devlin romantically, Alicia betrays Alexander personally and professionally, and Sebastian betrays Alicia mortally, with each relationship complicating the next. Several other prominent themes explored include:

  • Playacting and the masking of identities. Notorious is concerned with pretending to be something or someone you’re not. Alicia feigns love and affection for Sebastian, Devlin and Alicia disguise their love for each other as animosity, and Sebastian and his mother keep up appearances to avoid the suspicion of their fellow Nazis. Every major character plays a role, whether it’s lover, spouse, patriot, or loyal soldier. Identity in Notorious is fluid and strategic, particularly for Alicia, whose survival relies on convincing performances.
  • The price of personal sacrifice. Alicia accepts the undercover assignment out of patriotic duty, but consequently sacrifices her relationship with Devlin and subjects herself to reputational degradation.
  • Love as collateral damage. Devlin and Alicia secretly love one another, yet deliberately hurt each other, suggesting that we often wound those we most deeply care for.
  • Paternal vs. maternal control. The story centers on a woman who is willing to have her identity transformed to satisfy the demands of a manipulative male authority, a theme Hitchcock would revisit more obsessively in Vertigo. But the film also depicts how Sebastian defers to his mother’s infantilizing authority.
  • The damsel in distress. Notorious invokes a dark fairytale vibe, with Alicia cast as a cunning princess captured by a shadowy knight and an evil stepmother, imprisoned in a figurative tower, and in need of rescue by a brave prince.
Visually and symbolically, Notorious also relies on recurring patterns and motifs, most importantly surveillance (characters are constantly spying on or suspiciously watching other characters), keys (minor objects that command major attention; whoever possesses the keys in Sebastian’s house garners power and knowledge), and the consumption of dangerous liquids (whether poison or alcohol, used to inflict harm or escape an unbearable reality). And then there’s that imposing staircase, which serves as the architectural centerpiece of the film, representing the nexus between the private (upstairs) and the public (downstairs). Alicia ascending the staircase results in risk and danger; descending provides a means of escape and control. Consider that two of the most important shots in the film have the camera perched at the top of the staircase – the famous crane shot that forward tracks to Alicia’s hand, and the moment when Alicia collapses and is taken upstairs by Sebastian and his men – suggesting perhaps that even the staircase has a POV and is, therefore, a spying character unto itself in a story filled with watchers.

Additionally, Notorious features symbolic images or ideas that are mirrored/repeated. For example, the film opens with a doomed figure being judged (Alicia’s father, with his back to the viewer) and ends with a different doomed figure being judged (Sebastian, also with his back to us); we see the back of Devlin’s head when he makes his first appearance, and in a later scene in the main office he also faces away from the camera; we observe partygoers passed out from inebriation (alcohol poisoning) and later Alicia fainting (poisoned coffee); there are two “love tests” she is subjected to: one by Devlin, the other by Sebastian when he proposes marriage; and there are two rescues of Alicia by Devlin, the first occurring when Devlin convinces the patrol officer to overlook her intoxicated driving.

This film’s greatest gift is that it ultimately works as a powerful love story without conforming to romance movie conventions or clichés. Yes, it’s a tense thriller. Yes, it’s a spy film. But at its heart, it’s a narrative about romantic redemption and reconciliation in which most of the runtime is focused on the absence of ardor and the animosity between Devlin and Alicia. Ruminate on their separate motivations in their roles as spies and how these motivations add delicious complexity to the love story as well as to the characterizations by Grant and Bergman: Devlin’s jealousy and resentment cause him to be frosty and cutting to Alicia, which makes her more easily gravitate toward Alexander and flourish in her role as an undercover agent. The irony here is that, deep down, he doesn’t want her to sleep with Sebastian, but by emotionally pushing her away and maligning her name, she embraces this call of duty and rubs her intimacy with the enemy in Devlin’s face. However, when Alicia stops showing up for their emotional sabotage sessions, that absence triggers concern, which reignites his suppressed love. Devlin arrives in the nick of time to save her, but equally important is that he confesses his jealousy and unwavering love, which gives the weakened Alicia the strength she needs to escape.

It’s the supreme payoff for the bulk of the narrative – 75 minutes – when love takes a backseat and duty, envy, mistrust, and bitterness grab the wheel. National security interests, defeating the Nazis, and reputation buffing may appear to be in the foreground, but they’re really the background to what is essentially a relationship story. Notorious demonstrates that the master of suspense can stir the heart as deftly as he can quicken it, and it endures as his finest romantic endeavor.

Notorious has received enduring recognition over the decades. At the 19th Academy Awards, Claude Rains earned a nomination for Best Supporting Actor, while Ben Hecht was nominated for Original Screenplay; his script was later named one of the Writers Guild of America’s 101 greatest screenplays in 2005. Additionally, in 2006, the Library of Congress selected the film for the National Film Registry for its cultural, historical, and aesthetic significance.

Meanwhile, Roger Ebert named it his favorite Hitchcock work and included it among his ten greatest films of all time. It placed No. 66 on Entertainment Weekly’s greatest films list and No. 77 on The Village Voice’s Top 250 Films of the Century. The American Film Institute ranked it No. 38 on its 100 Years…100 Thrills list and No. 86 on its 100 Years…100 Passions list. Time included it in its All-Time 100 Movies roundup, Cahiers du cinéma placed it no. 38 in 2008, the BBC named it 68th among the greatest American films in 2015, and Time Out ranked it No. 34 among the greatest thrillers in 2022. That same year, the BBC Sight and Sound poll of critics had Notorious slotted at no. 133 out of 250.

Read more...

Cineversary podcast marks 80th birthday of Hitchcock's Notorious

Tuesday, January 13, 2026

In Cineversary podcast episode #90, host ⁠Erik J. Martin⁠ commemorates the 80th anniversary Notorious, directed by Alfred Hitchcock. Joining him in this installment is Kim Newman, the renowned UK critic and film scholar, esteemed journalist, and award-winning author of The Definitive Guide to Horror Movies. Erik and Kim head down to the wine cellar to uncork exactly what makes Notorious great, why this movie deserves kudos 80 years later, what makes this film different from other Hitchcock works, salient themes, and much more. 
Kim Newman

To listen to this episode, click here or click the "play" button on the embedded streaming player below. Or, you can stream, download, or subscribe to Cineversary wherever you get your podcasts, including Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

Learn more about the Cineversary podcast at www.cineversary.com and email show comments or suggestions to cineversarypodcast@gmail.com.

Read more...

Two sides of the same Little Women coin

Monday, December 22, 2025

One of the most adaptable and evergreen titles in American literature that has been reimagined for the big and small screen remains Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women, originally published in 1868. Including television and foreign versions, there have been at least 14 renditions of this story over the past 100-plus years, with seven adaptations made for the cinema. The oldest surviving version is the 1933 iteration directed by George Cukor and starring Katherine Hepburn, while the most recent is the 2019 version directed by Greta Gerwig. Our CineVerse group recently compared and contrasted these two editions over the past few weeks.

To listen to a recording of our CineVerse group discussion of the 1933 version of Little Women, click here. To hear a recording of our discussion of the 2019 Little Women adaptation, click here.


Cukor’s film is a more faithful adaptation of the book, although the 1933 movie certainly doesn’t cover every subplot or secondary character from the source novel. The friction between Amy and Jo, for example, isn’t depicted. Professor Bhaer is imbued with musical talents in this version instead of Laurie. Cukor and company condense a good portion of episodes in the novel to fit within the limited runtime, so that the picture appears to progress at a speedy pace, with some awkward transitions between sequences. Consider how quickly Beth’s illness and death are treated, for example, and how each of the March sisters – except for Jo – isn’t given an opportunity for much character development, making three of the sisters relatively interchangeable.

One of the facets that makes this iteration particularly interesting is the timing of its release, during the depths of the Great Depression – even though the setting is actually the American Civil War. Audiences in 1933 would have been keenly attuned to many of the themes of economic struggle, personal sacrifice, and class distinction. According to essayist Katherine Kellett: “Cukor's film strongly exemplifies the nation's attitudes and the general esprit of social reform of the early 1930s…The film invokes an emphasis on food, frugality, and conservation, embodies a spirit of activism and social reform, and imbues a nostalgic longing for hearth, home, and familial responsibility and morality. As a result, Cukor's Little Women becomes a kind of allegory for the ideals set forth in the nineteen-thirties to allay the prevailing fear and poverty: an activist spirit grounded in unbreakable ties to family and community.”

A lot of big-name talent is attached to this production, including original producer David O. Selznick, who was replaced by Marien C. Cooper (who that same year co-directed and produced King Kong); esteemed director Cukor; genius maestro Max Steiner, who composed the score; co-screenwriter Victor Heerman, who had earlier directed Animal Crackers for the Marx Brothers and later wrote screenplays for Magnificent Obsession and Stella Dallas; and a young Hepburn, who that same year won her first Oscar for the film Morning Glory (Little Women was only her fourth movie). A tomboy in her youth and herself raised in New England, Hepburn felt drawn to this role.

The commitment to authenticity is clear throughout the 1933 rendition. Drawing from audience polling, Selznick and his collaborators aimed to create a version that felt true to Alcott’s original setting. Hobe Erwin’s meticulously crafted sets closely mirrored the March family’s home, while Walter Plunkett’s costume designs highlighted both the family’s modest means and their interconnectedness. The dresses, deliberately worn and patched, could be shared among the sisters across scenes, emphasizing both their poverty and the close family bonds. Plunkett, who later designed for Gone With the Wind, carefully balanced historical accuracy with narrative purpose in his designs.

This 92-year-old picture was a big hit for RKO and was voted one of the 10 best films of that year. It’s also regarded as one of the first translations of a classic novel that became a box office success while also remaining faithful to its print source. Its success inspired Selznick and other producers to believe that classic stories had box office appeal and should be considered for big-screen adaptations.

Interestingly, this is a pre-code Hollywood movie released before the enforcement of the Hays Code and stricter censorship. Many studios caught heat in the early 1930s for more violent and prurient content; more conservative viewers appreciated Little Women’s emphasis on wholesome family values.

This is also the work that catapulted Cukor to the upper echelon of Hollywood directors and which forged a stronger bond between he and Hepburn, a partnership that would result in eight films and two television movies. After reading Alcott’s book prior to filming, Cukor said: “I was startled. It's not sentimental or saccharine, but very strong-minded, full of character, and a wonderful picture of New England family life. It's full of that admirable New England sternness, about sacrifice and austerity.”

While it’s not widely considered a Christmas movie (only the first half-hour is set during the holiday season), Cukor’s version of Little Women “might be one of the most important movies ever made in terms of the evolution of Christmas movies,” posits Mainlining Christmas blogger Erin Snyder. “Its success was pivotal in Hollywood's shift from more adult-oriented content to family-friendly fare. It's worth noting that, with a few exceptions, the first ‘talkie’ Christmas movies came out after Little Women. It's not unreasonable to wonder if the opening scenes of Little Women directly inspired the production of subsequent movies…. It's not much of a stretch to wonder if the Christmas movies of the 1940s were partly born out of the start of this adaptation.”

Gerwig adopts a radically different approach in her 2019 retelling. Here, the narrative follows two timelines: the present, which begins the film, and flashbacks to the March sisters’ childhoods, with the story continually shifting between these timelines. The advantage to this approach is that it frames the narrative from the start as definitively Jo’s tale and POV, and indicates that this will be a story about a blossoming author and intrepid female whose previous younger experiences have helped shape the strong, independent woman she has become. The drawback is that the transitions between time frames can be abrupt and confusing to the viewer, especially fans of the book and previous film adaptations in which the story was told linearly.

“Gerwig taps into a radical proposition – she unearths a reflective sense of memory and nostalgia within the conversation she fosters between the film’s two timelines,” according to reviewer Tomris Laffly. “Her structure of well-paced flashbacks, laced with emotional peaks and soothing cadences, is first a surprising puzzle and then a source of all, but never disrespectful to Alcott’s intentions.” BFI critic Nikki Baughan also admired this bifurcated storytelling style, writing: “Gerwig focuses on the novel’s key coming-of-age themes rather than individual moments: the loss of childhood, the importance of forging one’s own path, tentative steps towards female emancipation. It is a fresh, dynamic approach that may seem spun from modern feminist thought, but actually makes explicit ideas that Alcott vocally espoused (the line about her canoe [‘I’d rather be a free spinster and paddle my own canoe’], for example, is taken from a letter she wrote to her sister).”

This version begins with the adult Jo attempting to sell her writings to a publisher and concludes with a more confident Jo negotiating editorial changes with that same publisher, which creates a neat bookending device that thematically reinforces the idea of Little Women being an inspiring story about female creativity and empowerment. Gerwig’s work also significantly changes the ending of Alcott’s book to better reflect 21st-century feminist sensibilities. In the novel, Jo has her Little Women book published, but ultimately marries Professor Friedrich. In the 2019 film, Jo decides to remain single, but she changes the ending of her Little Women book, at her publisher’s request, so that the protagonist (herself) chooses to continue the romance with Friedrich.
The 2019 movie, perhaps more than any previous adaptation, also makes clear that Jo is an obvious stand-in for Alcott. And it delves more deeply into the inner lives of its characters – especially Amy, who is more fleshed out and shown as an occasional antagonist to Jo. Additionally, this version looks upon marriage as a complex blend of love, money, and social reality, with Jo’s conclusion presented as a conscious compromise between creative autonomy and commercial demands. In tone and approach, the newer film embraces a distinctly contemporary, feminist perspective, while the 1933 version leans toward a warm, romanticized portrayal of domestic life and traditional female roles.

Arguably, in this adaptation, there’s better chemistry, as well as more realistic conflict, between the March sisters as well as the actresses playing them. Also, viewers benefit from a more chromatic and well-appointed experience thanks to the decision to shoot in color and imbue a more lavish production design, with an admirable attention to period authenticity and distinctive costuming evident. The 2019 movie improves upon its 1933 predecessor in multiple ways: cinematography, runtime, widescreen canvas, better casting of key roles (especially Laurie and Amy), and a more realistic approach that tones down the saccharine sweet sentimentality.

However, many still prefer Hepburn’s spirited and tomboyish performance as Jo over Saoirse Ronan, as well as the chronologically consistent storytelling of the 1933 version, which is also slightly more of a Christmas film than the 2019 redo.

Any translation of Alcott’s tome consistently underscores themes of austerity, sacrifice, and suffering. The March family is continually compelled to help others in need and show compassion to the less fortunate. It’s a message that would have resonated among Great Depression audiences watching the 1933 iteration. Recall that the family was previously much more prosperous but has learned to do without in the years their patriarch has been away at war. Hardship, disease, hunger, and death visit the March clan throughout this story, but the family rises to every occasion.

Likewise, any reimagining will emphasize the inseparable bonds of family. As distinctly different as the March sisters are in personality and characteristics, they and their mother support each other, regardless of period challenges or romantic rivalry. Little Women reminds us of a simple but immutable truth: family is forever.

And no matter the director, Little Women will always abide as a coming-of-age story, in this case a narrative particularly about the maturation of Jo March: how she blossoms into a talented writer and strong, independent woman who, despite rising above her small-town beginnings, never forgets her roots.

But Gerwig’s vision is singular in how it better accentuates the often overlooked merits of female creativity, ingenuity, and determination. Perhaps Jo’s most famous line in the 2019 version is: “Women, they have minds, and they have souls, as well as just hearts. And they've got ambition, and they've got talent, as well as just beauty. I'm so sick of people saying that love is just all a woman is fit for.” The makers of the 2019 film also remind viewers time and again that, historically, women’s choices have been constrained by limited opportunities. Amy tells Laurie: “I'm not a poet. I'm just a woman. And as a woman, there's no way for me to make my own money. Not enough to earn a living or support my family. And if I had my own money, which I don't, that money would belong to my husband the moment we got married. And if we had children, they would be his, not mine. They would be his property. So don't sit there and tell me that marriage isn't an economic proposition because it is.”

However, Gerwig’s translation is not necessarily a radically feminist revision that consistently rejects 19th- and 20th-century notions of love, marriage, and the established patriarchal order of those times. Choosing to marry and raise a family doesn’t have to mean acquiescing or abandoning feminine agency altogether, her film posits. Let’s not forget that Meg appears vindicated in happily choosing John as her husband and becoming a mother, despite the financial sacrifices that accompany that decision; and Amy, who demonstrates agency dabbling as a talented but fledgling painter in Paris, surprisingly ends up marrying Laurie and apparently abandoning her to stick pursuits. By the conclusion, both Meg and Amy appear happy and well-adjusted in the domesticated roles they chose.

Similar works

  • Jane Eyre (1847, book)
  • Anne of Green Gables (1908, book)
  • Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm (1910, book)
  • Pollyanna (1913, book)
  • The Sound of Music (1965)
  • The Trouble with Angels (1966)
  • How to Make an American Quilt (1995)
  • The Virgin Suicides (1999)
  • Now and Then (1995)
  • In Her Shoes (2005)
  • The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants (2005)
  • Bridge to Terabithia (2007)
  • Lady Bird (2017)
  • Brooklyn (2015)
  • Women Talking (2022)

Read more...

Cineversary podcast celebrates 80th anniversary of Brief Encounter

Wednesday, December 17, 2025

David Thomson
In Cineversary podcast episode #89, host ⁠Erik J. Martin⁠ celebrates the 80th birthday of Brief Encounter, directed by David Lean. He and his guest David Thomson – the distinguished film critic, historian, and author of Sleeping with Strangers: How the Movies Shaped Desire – climb aboard the romance express and discuss why this film still matters, its impact on cinema, relevant themes, and more.

To listen to this episode, click here or click the "play" button on the embedded streaming player below. Or, you can stream, download, or subscribe to Cineversary wherever you get your podcasts, including Apple Podcasts and
Spotify.

Learn more about the Cineversary podcast at www.cineversary.com and email show comments or suggestions to cineversarypodcast@gmail.com.

Read more...

  © Blogger template Cumulus by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP