Barbara Dennek in Jacques Tati’s PlayTime (1967)
One of the most elegant practical effects in cinema.
She opens the door… and the Eiffel Tower appears.
Howard Hawks on his meeting with Al Capone & what Capone and another famous Chicago gangster thought about 'Scarface' (1932) when they saw the film:
"Interviewer: Did you have any contact with Al Capone while making the picture?
Hawks: While we were making 'Scarface' (1932), five or six of them came out and said, “The boss wants us to see the picture.” And I said, “You go and tell him when it comes out, he can pay a dollar and buy a ticket. You don’t scare me. Why the hell don’t you come out and just ask to see it?”
They reported to Capone that it was just great, and they invited me to Chicago to see him. They met me at the train, and they were late. One of the fellows said, “There was a killing last night and we had to go to the funeral.” I said, “Do I have to ride with you if there was a killing last night?”
They said I could ride in a different car. But when we went into a café, they would sit with their backs to the wall, and I had my back to the door. We had some damn good-looking girls with us, a bit brassy but very pretty.
When I saw Capone, we had tea, and he was dressed in a morning coat, striped trousers, a carnation, being a very nice man, saying how much he liked the picture. I was with him two, three hours.
Then he asked me to come again, and I stopped by there. But there was a shooting in Chicago, so they said that he couldn’t come because he was hiding out in Atlantic City or something.
Then he came to see me when I was working in Hollywood, and the cops came and arrested him right on the set.
Interviewer: So he did see 'Scarface'?
Hawks: Five or six times. He had his own print of it. He thought it was great. He’d say, “Jesus Christ, you guys got a lot of stuff in that picture! How’d you know about that?” I said, “Look—you know how somebody can’t testify if he’s a lawyer? Well, I’m a lawyer.” And he laughed. He didn’t give a damn.
Another famous gangster brought two very lovely daughters out to watch the movie and introduced himself to me. He said, “Where’d you get that stuff in that killing?” I asked him, “Why? Are you mad?” He said, “No, I’m just curious.” I told him, and he laughed, and he said, “That’s the way we did the shooting. Why hasn’t the picture played in Chicago?” I said, “They won’t let me.” He said, “Do you want it to play?” I said yeah. And he said, “Can I use your phone a minute?” When he finished he said, “You can play it any time you want.”
('Hawks on Hawks', Joseph McBride, 1982)
P.S: On this day, 94 years ago, 'Scarface' (1932) premiered in New Orleans, Luisiana.
Colossus: The Forbin Project (1970)
This underrated sci-fi thriller didn’t just imagine AI taking over, it shows exactly how humanity loses control…and never gets it back. Still terrifying on every rewatch. Directed by Joseph Sargent (The Taking of Pelham One Two Three).
An Amphibious Landing in Iran and the Battle of Gallipoli
Any war against Iran risks repeating the classic mistake of Gallipoli: a superpower’s underestimation of a determined defense strongly favored by geography.
In 1915, the British Empire believed its superior fleet would be enough to force the Dardanelles and bring down the Ottoman Empire with relative ease.
Generals and politicians, including Winston Churchill, Ian Hamilton, and Lord Kitchener, viewed the Turks as a backward army of “doubtful value” that would flee at the first salvo from British battleships. Reality proved very different.
The geography of Gallipoli turned the attack into a nightmare. The Ottomans controlled the steep heights above the beaches. Once the Allies landed, they became trapped on narrow strips of sand, fully exposed to machine-gun and artillery fire from above.
Advancing or retreating safely was nearly impossible. This is exactly the same natural wall that Iran possesses today in the mountains that surround nearly its entire coast.
Any force attempting a landing in the Persian Gulf would immediately face steep elevations right behind the beaches, giving the defender total visibility and fire superiority.
Beyond geography, Iran possesses something the British also underestimated in the Turks: the ability to conduct a saturation defense.
While offensive and defensive munitions stocks are running low for the attackers, Iran is preparing a war of saturation. Thousands of drones of various types, missiles, and fast attack boats launched in swarms could quickly overwhelm and exhaust the coalition’s ability to provide cover for a landing in Iran.
Logistics represent another fatal bottleneck. In Gallipoli, the Allies could not sustain the flow of supplies under constant fire. In Iran, the challenge would be even greater: supply lines could not rely on American bases in the region, which have already been heavily damaged and under fire for 26 days.
They would instead depend on much more distant logistics, supported by an already weakened American industrial base. Meanwhile, Iran would be fighting at home, with underground factories, short supply lines, and the ability to open multiple fronts through Iraqi militias and the Houthis.
In parallel, the Strait of Hormuz functions as the modern equivalent of the Dardanelles. Iran dominates the area with sophisticated yet relatively cheap naval mines, anti-ship missiles, drones, and its own navy.
The loss of just one or two major ships, or landing vessels, would be enough for the entire operation to collapse, just as happened in 1915 when simple mines sank three British battleships in a single day.
The error of assessment is the same as it was a century ago. Just as the British believed the Turks “had no stomach for modern warfare,” today some assume that an intense technological bombardment would quickly cause the Iranian regime to collapse.
Statements like Netanyahu’s, “Iran is a paper tiger… A strong blow and the regime will fall”, dangerously echo the declarations of Churchill and Hamilton.
Both ignored the fact that a nation of tens of millions of people, fighting on its own territory with strong ideological motivation, does not easily surrender to technological superiority.
Gallipoli cost the Allies around 250,000 casualties, including tens of thousands killed, and ended in a humiliating withdrawal. It was a meat grinder that exposed the arrogance of a superpower when it collided with the reality of the terrain and the defender’s determination.
Any potential amphibious landing in Iran today carries the same risk of becoming a Persian Gallipoli: where excessive faith in technology runs into an insurmountable geography, a mass of missiles and drones, and the overwhelming advantage of those fighting on home soil.
Iran is the opening conflict of a multipolar world, a reality that America, Israel and probably the entire west still fail to recognize.
Good morning you truly scrumptious bunch of beautiful people. I just had the most perfect cycle ride from Hackney to Islington. Took about eleven minutes through lovely street after street. There were almost no people around and I saw just one car. It was how Sundays used to feel. Truly magical. Anyway, I didn’t film it so you’ll just have to imagine it. In the meantime, you’ll be able to see my route on this photo I took a while ago from a plane. You’ll also be able to see your house. If you live in London. If you live in Scotland, you’ll struggle to see it on this photo.