92 reviews
I have liked the Gaslight films for many years and was surprised and delighted recently to find both versions together on an American DVD ! Miracles will never cease, I thought!
I have read various comments from people trying to compare these two films. I will not fall into this trap - I liked each film as much as the other..true, Walbrook looks more evil as a villain than Charles BOyer, and the 1940 version is perhaps a little more picturesque with the sets ( carriages, children etc ) but both films were very well done. The picture quality of the 1944 version is obviously better than that of 1940, and I had read somewhere that they had actually tried to get the print of the 1940 version destroyed as to have only the 1944 version available. What a horrible thought that someone could actually have wanted to do that !
So, they are both great suspense films and the black and white only serves to enhance the already seedy atmosphere ! Well worth several viewings !!!
I have read various comments from people trying to compare these two films. I will not fall into this trap - I liked each film as much as the other..true, Walbrook looks more evil as a villain than Charles BOyer, and the 1940 version is perhaps a little more picturesque with the sets ( carriages, children etc ) but both films were very well done. The picture quality of the 1944 version is obviously better than that of 1940, and I had read somewhere that they had actually tried to get the print of the 1940 version destroyed as to have only the 1944 version available. What a horrible thought that someone could actually have wanted to do that !
So, they are both great suspense films and the black and white only serves to enhance the already seedy atmosphere ! Well worth several viewings !!!
- nicholas.rhodes
- Sep 18, 2004
- Permalink
Gaslight (1940) In 1944, MGM released a movie about a thief who slowly tries to drive his wife insane in order to find out the location of some jewels. The movie was called Gaslight, and it starred Charles Boyer and Ingrid Bergman. But the movie wasn't an MGM original by any means; its antecedent was a much-lesser-known 1940 British film by the same name. (Apparently, when MGM bought the rights to the story, based on a play by Patrick Hamilton, the studio attempted to destroy all existing prints of the earlier version, but they weren't successful.) In the opening scene, an old woman is strangled to death, and her killer ransacks her apartment in search of... well, something. His search is apparently fruitless. Years later, Paul Mallen (Anton Walbrook), a debonair society lord in London, moves with his wife Bella (Diana Wynyard) to the posh Pimlico Square, directly below the apartment of the murdered. Mrs. Mallen is quickly the talk of the neighborhood - she's a little off, they say. Something's not quite right with her. And those wags are right; Bella is constantly accused by her husband of stealing things from him, although she has no recollection of the events.
Mallen uses trick after psychological trick against his wife, although it's unclear to the audience what his motives are. Is he just playing with her? Does he merely delight in her anguish? He even deliberately keeps her from her cousin, a man who'd stood against their marriage at the wedding ceremony. What's Mallen's angle? Unlike its remake, this earlier version is delightfully understated - and bereft of stars whose names would be recognizable in the United States. It's remarkably well lit, too, typical for movies of the period. But where it draws most of its strength is from the two leads. Walbrook, who by that time had been in motion pictures for 25 years, is perfect as the sly, debonair, and viciously evil Mallen; Wynyard exudes vulnerability and panic; her Bella is terrified that she might be quite sincerely insane, vacillating from dignified serenity to sheer panic.
This movie is highly recommended to fans of noir film, particularly those who've seen the more-famous 1944 Hollywood version.
Mallen uses trick after psychological trick against his wife, although it's unclear to the audience what his motives are. Is he just playing with her? Does he merely delight in her anguish? He even deliberately keeps her from her cousin, a man who'd stood against their marriage at the wedding ceremony. What's Mallen's angle? Unlike its remake, this earlier version is delightfully understated - and bereft of stars whose names would be recognizable in the United States. It's remarkably well lit, too, typical for movies of the period. But where it draws most of its strength is from the two leads. Walbrook, who by that time had been in motion pictures for 25 years, is perfect as the sly, debonair, and viciously evil Mallen; Wynyard exudes vulnerability and panic; her Bella is terrified that she might be quite sincerely insane, vacillating from dignified serenity to sheer panic.
This movie is highly recommended to fans of noir film, particularly those who've seen the more-famous 1944 Hollywood version.
- dfranzen70
- Nov 10, 2006
- Permalink
In Victorian London, Louis Bower (Walbrook), murdered his aunt for her precious rubies that are hidden somewhere in her house, only he couldn't find them. Having eluded the police for a number of years and changed his name to Paul Mallen, he takes a wife in the fragile Bella (Wynyard), and the couple move back into the house so that he can continue his search under cover as a respectable Victorian husband. At the same time he tries to drive his wife out of her mind because he is afraid that she might discover his guilty secret...
The first film version of Patrick Hamilton's successful stage play is technically modest compared to the 1944 Hollywood remake (see my review), but this British National production directed by Thorold Dickinson creates an atmosphere of genuine electric tension that Hollywood could only envy. Hardly surprising really that they tried to destroy the negative of this picture. Fortunately prints have survived and it often turns up on TCM every few months. Good performances too, especially from Walbrook who portrays the villain as a vile Victorian bully whereas Charles Boyer played it smooth. Wynyard does well as the tortured wife while Cathleen Cordell is fine as the tarty parlour maid whom Walbrook uses to add insult to his wife's injury.
The film was available in the UK on VHS but it has since been deleted, although the Hollywood version is out on DVD. Let's hope this version finds it's way on to DVD too.
The first film version of Patrick Hamilton's successful stage play is technically modest compared to the 1944 Hollywood remake (see my review), but this British National production directed by Thorold Dickinson creates an atmosphere of genuine electric tension that Hollywood could only envy. Hardly surprising really that they tried to destroy the negative of this picture. Fortunately prints have survived and it often turns up on TCM every few months. Good performances too, especially from Walbrook who portrays the villain as a vile Victorian bully whereas Charles Boyer played it smooth. Wynyard does well as the tortured wife while Cathleen Cordell is fine as the tarty parlour maid whom Walbrook uses to add insult to his wife's injury.
The film was available in the UK on VHS but it has since been deleted, although the Hollywood version is out on DVD. Let's hope this version finds it's way on to DVD too.
- jamesraeburn2003
- May 24, 2004
- Permalink
- jacobs-greenwood
- Dec 7, 2016
- Permalink
What a crisp, deeply rooted thriller Thorold Dickinson created. With vile creatures (Paul) and goofy policemen and maids, we are easily captured into the world of the Mallens. Diana Wynyard does a spectacular job as Bella, giving us the right amount of insecurity coupled with fear. She is the true victim of this film and Dickinson does not let us forget that. Wynyard is nearly overshadowed by my favorite character of the film, Paul Mallen, played with so much evil by Anton Walbrook. I have seen several films in my life, and I must say that Walbrook ranks among some of the most sinister villains of them all. He has no super powers, just the ability to manipulate Bella mentally, proving that he is stronger than her. He thrives on Bella's insecurities and makes them into his greatest form of punishment. These two working together really transformed this 40s thriller into something concrete and powerful. It is the dynamic between the two that kept me glued to my seat and continually asking for more.
Coupled with the superb acting is the creativeness of Dickinson and his writer A.R. Rowlinson. Together they set the mood with darkened corners and alleyways with that constantly looming feeling that the events are going to get grittier down the road. This team made Victorian London a spooky place to visit at night. They make Bella the victim throughout this entire film, making even me wonder if she really was slowly going mad. It isn't until the end that the truth is revealed and even then we are left in suspense. It isn't until the credits roll is the film over, and that is hard to accomplish for directors of the thriller genre today. Dickinson proved that he could handle all the elements with the greatest of ease and bring them to the screen in a film that would last the test of time. I am not embarrassed to show this film to friends because I do believe that they would see the value in this production.
Grade: ***** out of *****
Coupled with the superb acting is the creativeness of Dickinson and his writer A.R. Rowlinson. Together they set the mood with darkened corners and alleyways with that constantly looming feeling that the events are going to get grittier down the road. This team made Victorian London a spooky place to visit at night. They make Bella the victim throughout this entire film, making even me wonder if she really was slowly going mad. It isn't until the end that the truth is revealed and even then we are left in suspense. It isn't until the credits roll is the film over, and that is hard to accomplish for directors of the thriller genre today. Dickinson proved that he could handle all the elements with the greatest of ease and bring them to the screen in a film that would last the test of time. I am not embarrassed to show this film to friends because I do believe that they would see the value in this production.
Grade: ***** out of *****
- film-critic
- Jan 4, 2005
- Permalink
- classicsoncall
- Dec 28, 2005
- Permalink
It's easy to see why MGM locked this away in their vaults when they issued their 1944 remake--it's really great!
An evil crook (Anton Walbrook) slowly tries to drive his wife (Diana Wynyard) mad for some jewels.
This isn't as lush as the remake, but it more than makes up for it in other departments. For one thing--it's shorter by about 30 minutes and there's no romantic interlude at the beginning. This one starts dark and gets darker. Walbrook is frightening as the husband--much better than Charles Boyer in the remake. The scenes where he yells at his wife had me jumping. Wynyard is great as his fragile wife. She doesn't go into hysterics and chew the scenery like Ingrid Bergman did--she plays it calmly and quietly and very very realistically. Her final confrontation with her husband was just great. Also Cathleen Cordell is lots of fun as Nancy, the parlor maid. In the remake she was played by Angela Landsbury (in her film debut). Surprisingly, Cordell is better than Landsbury!
The remake copied this film virtually scene by scene--and suffers somewhat by comparison. It added on the unnecessary romantic subplot with Joseph Cotton. Thankfully, there's nothing like that here. This just grips you from the very beginning and doesn't let go.
Both movies are great but this one is marginally better. Very recommended.
An evil crook (Anton Walbrook) slowly tries to drive his wife (Diana Wynyard) mad for some jewels.
This isn't as lush as the remake, but it more than makes up for it in other departments. For one thing--it's shorter by about 30 minutes and there's no romantic interlude at the beginning. This one starts dark and gets darker. Walbrook is frightening as the husband--much better than Charles Boyer in the remake. The scenes where he yells at his wife had me jumping. Wynyard is great as his fragile wife. She doesn't go into hysterics and chew the scenery like Ingrid Bergman did--she plays it calmly and quietly and very very realistically. Her final confrontation with her husband was just great. Also Cathleen Cordell is lots of fun as Nancy, the parlor maid. In the remake she was played by Angela Landsbury (in her film debut). Surprisingly, Cordell is better than Landsbury!
The remake copied this film virtually scene by scene--and suffers somewhat by comparison. It added on the unnecessary romantic subplot with Joseph Cotton. Thankfully, there's nothing like that here. This just grips you from the very beginning and doesn't let go.
Both movies are great but this one is marginally better. Very recommended.
I watched this film with great anticipation after hearing for years the stories of how MGM suppressed it after filming the remake.
In my opinion, they needn't have bothered. The 1940 version is a fine film: taut, suspenseful and well-edited. However compared to George Cukor's film to me it seems two-dimensional. Walbrook portrays a blatant villain and Wynyard is a passive victim. The suspense comes only from the plot.
I found the relationships in the 1944 film much more complex and interesting. Boyer is a villain, but is also an attractive lover, which makes his manipulations of Paula all the more terrible. The erotic and romantic chemistry between Boyer and Bergman make the film fascinating and much more than a simple cat and mouse suspenser.
In my opinion, they needn't have bothered. The 1940 version is a fine film: taut, suspenseful and well-edited. However compared to George Cukor's film to me it seems two-dimensional. Walbrook portrays a blatant villain and Wynyard is a passive victim. The suspense comes only from the plot.
I found the relationships in the 1944 film much more complex and interesting. Boyer is a villain, but is also an attractive lover, which makes his manipulations of Paula all the more terrible. The erotic and romantic chemistry between Boyer and Bergman make the film fascinating and much more than a simple cat and mouse suspenser.
It is inevitable that this 1940 film and the 1944 "remake" with Charles Boyer and Ingrid Bergman are going to be compared, and people will have different opinions as to which is the better version.
To me, both 'Gaslight' films are great in their own way, and this reviewer ranks them equally, yet with one or two things in things that are done better in the other. Like the 1944 film (the only real drawback to that film was the uneven performance of Joseph Cotton), there is very little wrong here. The secondary characters could have been better fleshed out, and while Richard Adinsell's music score is suitably ominous Bonislau Kaper's score for the later version has more atmosphere, subtlety and tension.
However, while not as glossy as the later film 'Gaslight' (1940) regardless is incredibly well-made. It's shot beautifully and menacingly, is hauntingly lit and has sets that are picturesque yet give off a great amount of dread while over-stating it. It's intelligently and suspensefully directed by then-famous-and-well-regarded, now-almost-forgotten (undeservedly) Thorald Dickinson.
The script is thought-provoking and tense, everything feels relevant to what's going on and nothing seemed padded. Tighter-paced and more theatrical somewhat, the story never creaks and is leaden with tension and suspense with nothing obvious that came over as unnecessary or clumsy.
Performances are great here and hardly inferior to those in the later film, despite being less familiar. Anton Walbrook, while not as subtle as Charles Boyer, is terrifying and a huge part as to why the film is as atmospheric as it is. Diana Wynward demonstrates Bella's vulnerability incredibly movingly with no histrionics and she's hardly dull either (though the character has more range and depth to her in the 1944 version).
Frank Petingell looks more comfortable than Joseph Cotton, his performance is more even (though Cotton was hardly bad), the character is better written and he is more believable as a police officer (where Cotton's performance particularly fell down on). Robert Newton is a strong presence in an early role, and Cathleen Cordell is a hoot as Nancy.
All in all, despite being in the shadow of the 1944 'Gaslight' in popularity the earlier 1940 film doesn't deserve to be, because it is every bit as great. 9/10 Bethany Cox
To me, both 'Gaslight' films are great in their own way, and this reviewer ranks them equally, yet with one or two things in things that are done better in the other. Like the 1944 film (the only real drawback to that film was the uneven performance of Joseph Cotton), there is very little wrong here. The secondary characters could have been better fleshed out, and while Richard Adinsell's music score is suitably ominous Bonislau Kaper's score for the later version has more atmosphere, subtlety and tension.
However, while not as glossy as the later film 'Gaslight' (1940) regardless is incredibly well-made. It's shot beautifully and menacingly, is hauntingly lit and has sets that are picturesque yet give off a great amount of dread while over-stating it. It's intelligently and suspensefully directed by then-famous-and-well-regarded, now-almost-forgotten (undeservedly) Thorald Dickinson.
The script is thought-provoking and tense, everything feels relevant to what's going on and nothing seemed padded. Tighter-paced and more theatrical somewhat, the story never creaks and is leaden with tension and suspense with nothing obvious that came over as unnecessary or clumsy.
Performances are great here and hardly inferior to those in the later film, despite being less familiar. Anton Walbrook, while not as subtle as Charles Boyer, is terrifying and a huge part as to why the film is as atmospheric as it is. Diana Wynward demonstrates Bella's vulnerability incredibly movingly with no histrionics and she's hardly dull either (though the character has more range and depth to her in the 1944 version).
Frank Petingell looks more comfortable than Joseph Cotton, his performance is more even (though Cotton was hardly bad), the character is better written and he is more believable as a police officer (where Cotton's performance particularly fell down on). Robert Newton is a strong presence in an early role, and Cathleen Cordell is a hoot as Nancy.
All in all, despite being in the shadow of the 1944 'Gaslight' in popularity the earlier 1940 film doesn't deserve to be, because it is every bit as great. 9/10 Bethany Cox
- TheLittleSongbird
- Jun 8, 2016
- Permalink
Even in the UK, this British version from 1940 of Patrick Hamilton's play is less well known than the American version with Charles Boyer and Ingrid Bergman from four years later. The reason, apparently, is that when MGM purchased the rights to film the play, the contract included a clause that the earlier film should be taken out of circulation. MGM even attempted to destroy all copies of the negative, and so "Gaslight"nearly joined the long list of movies from the thirties and forties which are now considered "lost films", but fortunately at least one copy must have survived.
The film is set in Victorian London. In the opening scene a wealthy old lady named Alice Barlow is murdered. The murderer is never caught, and after her death the house remains empty for about twenty years until a married couple named Paul and Bella Mallen move in. The marriage is not a happy one and Paul is a bully who treats his wife badly. Bella, who is attempting to recover from a nervous breakdown, begins to fear that she is losing her sanity when she starts hearing mysterious noises coming from the closed off upper floors and when she is unable to remember where she placed various objects. It transpires that Paul is playing psychological tricks on his wife, hoping to drive her mad. (He has a sinister reason for wishing to do such a thing). The significance of the title is twofold. The first that it evokes a sense of nostalgia for the gas-lit London of the Victorian past. The second is that the dimming of the gaslights in Bella's home is an important plot point.
This version has some similarities to the work of Alfred Hitchcock. (Hitchcock was later to make "Rope", another film based upon a Hamilton play, and "Suspicion", another film about a wife who comes to believe that her husband may have malign intentions towards her). Whereas Charles Boyer's character in the 1944 adaptation was outwardly charming and plausible, Anton Walbrook's Paul is a much more obvious villain, only bothering to hide his villainy beneath the thinnest veneer of gentlemanly charm. There are some similarities between Walbrook's character here and one of his best known roles, Boris Lermontov in "The Red Shoes". Lermontov is a cold, domineering bully whose bullying has a disastrous effect on Victoria, the heroine of that film, although there is an important difference between him and Paul, an evil figure who quite deliberately plans to cause psychological harm to his wife. Lermontov, by contrast, does not intend to cause any harm to Victoria, and is oblivious to the damage that he is doing. Diana Wynyard's Bella is similar to some Hitchcock heroines, especially the characters played by Joan Fontaine in "Rebecca" and "Suspicion" who initially seem weak and passive but later reveal hidden strengths of character.
It is a long time since I last saw the MGM version, so I will not attempt to compare the merits of the two films. This version was made by Thorold Dickinson, a well-known director in his day but largely forgotten today, possibly because he was never discovered by Hollywood in the way Hitchcock was and made all his films in Britain (apart from his final one, made in Israel). He also retired from making feature films at a comparatively young age and spent the rest of his career first working for the United Nations and then as an academic, becoming Britain's first Professor of Films. His version of "Gaslight", however, is a very effective suspense thriller, and the skill with which he handles his material, keeping the audience on the edge of their seats until the end, suggests that he deserves to be better known today. 7/10
The film is set in Victorian London. In the opening scene a wealthy old lady named Alice Barlow is murdered. The murderer is never caught, and after her death the house remains empty for about twenty years until a married couple named Paul and Bella Mallen move in. The marriage is not a happy one and Paul is a bully who treats his wife badly. Bella, who is attempting to recover from a nervous breakdown, begins to fear that she is losing her sanity when she starts hearing mysterious noises coming from the closed off upper floors and when she is unable to remember where she placed various objects. It transpires that Paul is playing psychological tricks on his wife, hoping to drive her mad. (He has a sinister reason for wishing to do such a thing). The significance of the title is twofold. The first that it evokes a sense of nostalgia for the gas-lit London of the Victorian past. The second is that the dimming of the gaslights in Bella's home is an important plot point.
This version has some similarities to the work of Alfred Hitchcock. (Hitchcock was later to make "Rope", another film based upon a Hamilton play, and "Suspicion", another film about a wife who comes to believe that her husband may have malign intentions towards her). Whereas Charles Boyer's character in the 1944 adaptation was outwardly charming and plausible, Anton Walbrook's Paul is a much more obvious villain, only bothering to hide his villainy beneath the thinnest veneer of gentlemanly charm. There are some similarities between Walbrook's character here and one of his best known roles, Boris Lermontov in "The Red Shoes". Lermontov is a cold, domineering bully whose bullying has a disastrous effect on Victoria, the heroine of that film, although there is an important difference between him and Paul, an evil figure who quite deliberately plans to cause psychological harm to his wife. Lermontov, by contrast, does not intend to cause any harm to Victoria, and is oblivious to the damage that he is doing. Diana Wynyard's Bella is similar to some Hitchcock heroines, especially the characters played by Joan Fontaine in "Rebecca" and "Suspicion" who initially seem weak and passive but later reveal hidden strengths of character.
It is a long time since I last saw the MGM version, so I will not attempt to compare the merits of the two films. This version was made by Thorold Dickinson, a well-known director in his day but largely forgotten today, possibly because he was never discovered by Hollywood in the way Hitchcock was and made all his films in Britain (apart from his final one, made in Israel). He also retired from making feature films at a comparatively young age and spent the rest of his career first working for the United Nations and then as an academic, becoming Britain's first Professor of Films. His version of "Gaslight", however, is a very effective suspense thriller, and the skill with which he handles his material, keeping the audience on the edge of their seats until the end, suggests that he deserves to be better known today. 7/10
- JamesHitchcock
- May 7, 2012
- Permalink
Although Ingrid Bergman and Charles Boyer got a lot of press for the movie GASLIGHT, the film was actually a remake of a British film made only a few years earlier. It seems that the big-wigs at the studio wanted to remake the film but pretend that it was an original Hollywood production so they bought up the prints and the remade film went on to be considered a "classic". However, recently the ORIGINAL version from 1940 has been discovered and has been shown on Turner Classic Movies.
Having seen both versions, I found them awfully similar--but I would have to say that I preferred the original. The wonderful Anton Walbrook was a wonderful and even more menacing husband and I just could see no reason why the movie should have been remade. It's really a shame, too, as I am sure that those associated with the original must have wished they'd gotten all the attention the 1944 version received.
My advice is see them both. However, if you only plan on seeing one, see this one--it's just a better film!
Having seen both versions, I found them awfully similar--but I would have to say that I preferred the original. The wonderful Anton Walbrook was a wonderful and even more menacing husband and I just could see no reason why the movie should have been remade. It's really a shame, too, as I am sure that those associated with the original must have wished they'd gotten all the attention the 1944 version received.
My advice is see them both. However, if you only plan on seeing one, see this one--it's just a better film!
- planktonrules
- Jul 11, 2006
- Permalink
- writers_reign
- Sep 14, 2010
- Permalink
Let's face it - the British do psychological suspense VERY well! This 1940 British production is more streamlined and suspenseful than the MGM version of 1944, as it sticks more closely to Patrick Hamilton's play. The MGM version had more 'back-story' and padding to it. I love Diana Wynyard - she was lovely to look at and seemed wonderfully edgy and vulnerable - I wasn't surprised to learn that she played the anguished mother in the West End production of THE BAD SEED - she's really only remembered today for this film and CAVALCADE (1933), but she's definitely worth watching. Anton Walbrook is a little hammier than Boyer was, and there are those obvious streaks in his hair to make him look a little older - but he has a wonderful moment at the films end when, quite suddenly, his eyes go wild and you can tell that he's completely lost his mind - might have been a nice touch if the 1944 had included such a moment. Highly recommended.
I've noticed that people seem surprised that MGM attempted to suppress the 1940 British version of GASLIGHT to avoid any competition with their version. I don't know why anyone should be surprised - Hollywood's business is a cut-throat one: remember that L.B. Mayer, along with Jack Warner and others, offered to buy CITIZEN KANE from RKO and then destroy it, all to appease William R. Hearst - fortunately they didn't (just imagine the history of film since 1941 if they had!) And although MGM didn't destroy all prints of GASLIGHT, they did manage to keep it out of sight for many years - I think I first saw it on a cable station in the early 1980s - I tuned in expecting Boyer and Bergman and got Walbrook and Wynyard - as it turned out I didn't mind at all, and have enjoyed it many times since! MGM did the same thing with Paramount's 1932 DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE which, except for an occasional screening, went unseen (but much written about) until it came out on video around 1990 (under the MGM label - imagine that!)
I've noticed that people seem surprised that MGM attempted to suppress the 1940 British version of GASLIGHT to avoid any competition with their version. I don't know why anyone should be surprised - Hollywood's business is a cut-throat one: remember that L.B. Mayer, along with Jack Warner and others, offered to buy CITIZEN KANE from RKO and then destroy it, all to appease William R. Hearst - fortunately they didn't (just imagine the history of film since 1941 if they had!) And although MGM didn't destroy all prints of GASLIGHT, they did manage to keep it out of sight for many years - I think I first saw it on a cable station in the early 1980s - I tuned in expecting Boyer and Bergman and got Walbrook and Wynyard - as it turned out I didn't mind at all, and have enjoyed it many times since! MGM did the same thing with Paramount's 1932 DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE which, except for an occasional screening, went unseen (but much written about) until it came out on video around 1990 (under the MGM label - imagine that!)
- Harold_Robbins
- Aug 19, 2004
- Permalink
- mhesselius
- Jul 25, 2010
- Permalink
Viewed this film in 1944 and thought this was the one and only cast with Charles Boyer, Ingrid Bergman, Joseph Cotten and Angela Lansbury. I found out later that Hollywood wanted the copies of 1940 Gaslight destroyed and not shown. Just recently I viewed the 1940 film and thought the entire plot and acting was better performed. Anton Walbrook,(Paul Mallen),"The Rat",'37, gave a more realistic performance as a mad man trying to obtain RUBIES and nearly drove everyone around him crazy. Diana Wynyard,(Bella Mallen),"An Ideal Husband",'47 gave a great performance without the beauty of Ingrid Bergman and the dull Charles Boyer. However, I only wish Angela Lansbury was in this version. The photography was fantastic and gave a great deal of realism to the entire picture.
In my opinion, the 1944 version is a more enjoyable and watchable film largely due to an overall superior script. (Despite some of the Hollywood touches, such as the unnecessary romantic interest of Joseph Cotten's character in Paula.) However, I really feel that Diana Wynyard's portrayal of the wife is more realistic. She never accepts her husband's claims that she is going mad. On the other hand, Ingrid's character, Paula, accepts it and she turns to milquetoast right away. While I love Ingrid, I feel she was over-acting in this film despite her Best Actress academy award. She deserved it far more for her role in Notorious two years later.
From what I've been reading we're fortunate to have this film at all much less showing for rent on Amazon. Not unlike what Paramount did with Frank Capra's Broadway Bill when that studio made Riding High, MGM destroyed this original British made version of Gaslight that came out four years before MGM remade it with Charles Boyer, Ingrid Bergman and Joseph Cotten, that classic that won Ingrid Bergman her first Oscar. Fortunately MGM was not thorough and we can enjoy Diana Wynyard and Anton Walbrook in this original film version of the play Angel Street.
It might have been nice to have a version of that surviving as well. On stage Vincent Price played the suave husband who is trying to get his wife to question her sanity, he co-starred with Judith Evelyn in the Patrick Hamilton play that ran 1295 performances on Broadway from 1941 to 1944. I can see Price easily doing this part.
Of course it would be without the continental suavity of both Charles Boyer and here, Anton Walbrook. Walbrook is one both cold and cool and cruel customer as he tries to drive Wynyard out of her mind. She's at a loss to explain his change toward her. In point of fact she's accidentally discovered a clue to his real identity and he's had history with her family before. She doesn't know what she's discovered which makes her all the more frightened. Wynyard is every bit as good as Bergman in the remake.
The major change that MGM made was in the policeman's role. In fact there is some reason to speculate that Scotland Yard man Joseph Cotten may end up with Bergman in the MGM version. Here the dogged detective is British character actor Frank Pettengill who's strictly business. He recognizes Walbrook, but can't prove anything without positive identification.
Gaslight remains firmly fixed in the Victorian era it is set. Today what involved an elaborate scheme of deception by Pettengill could be remedied easily with fax and telephotos to Australia where Walbrook presumably was staying for many years.
This version of Gaslight is every bit the equal of the finely mounted MGM version and since it is closer to what author Hamilton had in mind, many consider it superior. It's pretty darn good any way you slice it.
It might have been nice to have a version of that surviving as well. On stage Vincent Price played the suave husband who is trying to get his wife to question her sanity, he co-starred with Judith Evelyn in the Patrick Hamilton play that ran 1295 performances on Broadway from 1941 to 1944. I can see Price easily doing this part.
Of course it would be without the continental suavity of both Charles Boyer and here, Anton Walbrook. Walbrook is one both cold and cool and cruel customer as he tries to drive Wynyard out of her mind. She's at a loss to explain his change toward her. In point of fact she's accidentally discovered a clue to his real identity and he's had history with her family before. She doesn't know what she's discovered which makes her all the more frightened. Wynyard is every bit as good as Bergman in the remake.
The major change that MGM made was in the policeman's role. In fact there is some reason to speculate that Scotland Yard man Joseph Cotten may end up with Bergman in the MGM version. Here the dogged detective is British character actor Frank Pettengill who's strictly business. He recognizes Walbrook, but can't prove anything without positive identification.
Gaslight remains firmly fixed in the Victorian era it is set. Today what involved an elaborate scheme of deception by Pettengill could be remedied easily with fax and telephotos to Australia where Walbrook presumably was staying for many years.
This version of Gaslight is every bit the equal of the finely mounted MGM version and since it is closer to what author Hamilton had in mind, many consider it superior. It's pretty darn good any way you slice it.
- bkoganbing
- Sep 25, 2012
- Permalink
GASLIGHT, just one of numerous filmed versions of an old play, is a Gothic chiller and film noir combination loaded with atmosphere and mystery. It's one of those old-fashioned movies that has dated in the best possible way, with all the plot ingredients straight out of a Victorian melodrama: missing jewels, a husband trying to drive his wife insane, an unsolved murder, a killer on the loose.
The film drips with atmosphere and a sense of Gothic dread, to the degree that it outdoes many all-out horror films of the era. It's also fun to watch, whether it's seeing the dastardly husband at work or watching the kindly detective gradually working out the details of the case. Anton Walbrook's villain chews the scenery in the best possible taste, while Diana Wynyard is effective as the wife who begins to suspect her own sanity.
GASLIGHT falls just short of being a classic, but it's a creepily effective film for its genre and well worth watching for fans of this particular type of movie.
The film drips with atmosphere and a sense of Gothic dread, to the degree that it outdoes many all-out horror films of the era. It's also fun to watch, whether it's seeing the dastardly husband at work or watching the kindly detective gradually working out the details of the case. Anton Walbrook's villain chews the scenery in the best possible taste, while Diana Wynyard is effective as the wife who begins to suspect her own sanity.
GASLIGHT falls just short of being a classic, but it's a creepily effective film for its genre and well worth watching for fans of this particular type of movie.
- Leofwine_draca
- Mar 16, 2014
- Permalink
- claudio_carvalho
- Aug 9, 2006
- Permalink
Although the 1944 Hollywood version is more famous. This British made production is the original version of the stage play.
It starts off with a brutal murder of an old lady for her rubies. Some years later Paul Mallen (Anton Walbrook) and his vulnerable wife Bella (Diana Wynyard) move in to the house.
Bella looks to be on the verge of a nervous breakdown, being forgetful. Of course she is being manipulated by Mallen. Hence the now modern meaning of the term, Gaslighting.
A retired detective Rough (Frank Pettingell) sees Mallen and recognises him as a man called Louis Bauer suspected of being the killer of the old lady all those years ago. He keeps tabs on Mallen and suspects that he wants his wife out of the way as he is stil searching for the rubies.
This is a straightforward, succinct but chilling adaptation. Walbrook is rather menacing and not as subtle as Charles Boyer in the remake. There is a very risque scene in the music hall with some can can dancers as Mallen takes the parlour maid for a night out.
It starts off with a brutal murder of an old lady for her rubies. Some years later Paul Mallen (Anton Walbrook) and his vulnerable wife Bella (Diana Wynyard) move in to the house.
Bella looks to be on the verge of a nervous breakdown, being forgetful. Of course she is being manipulated by Mallen. Hence the now modern meaning of the term, Gaslighting.
A retired detective Rough (Frank Pettingell) sees Mallen and recognises him as a man called Louis Bauer suspected of being the killer of the old lady all those years ago. He keeps tabs on Mallen and suspects that he wants his wife out of the way as he is stil searching for the rubies.
This is a straightforward, succinct but chilling adaptation. Walbrook is rather menacing and not as subtle as Charles Boyer in the remake. There is a very risque scene in the music hall with some can can dancers as Mallen takes the parlour maid for a night out.
- Prismark10
- Apr 21, 2019
- Permalink
Did you know the very famous mystery Gaslight from 1944, which won Ingrid Bergman the first of her three Oscars, was a remake? I didn't, but as soon as I learned it was, I set out to watch the original. To cut to the chase, I liked the remake much better. But if you loved the 1944 version as much as I did, you might want to check this one out for a comparison.
As everyone knows, since the title itself has been turned into a verb, Gaslight is a story about a married woman who fears she's losing her mind. While in the remake, the romance and happy, early days of Ingrid Bergman and Charles Boyer's marriage are shown, the original just starts off with the plot already underway. Diana Wynyard is already misplacing and forgetting things, and Anton Walbrook is very clearly the bad guy. I prefer the contrast, because if the audience likes the husband character, they're surprised when he starts exhibiting shady behavior.
Both leads give good performances, but in a different style than their replacements. Anton is strictly villainous, and Diana is much more controlled and internal. The story is a bit obvious, and I was disappointed that Cathleen Cordell had a bigger part than Robert Newton-I had hoped Bobbie would play the husband character, since he's wonderful when cast as the bad guy.
As everyone knows, since the title itself has been turned into a verb, Gaslight is a story about a married woman who fears she's losing her mind. While in the remake, the romance and happy, early days of Ingrid Bergman and Charles Boyer's marriage are shown, the original just starts off with the plot already underway. Diana Wynyard is already misplacing and forgetting things, and Anton Walbrook is very clearly the bad guy. I prefer the contrast, because if the audience likes the husband character, they're surprised when he starts exhibiting shady behavior.
Both leads give good performances, but in a different style than their replacements. Anton is strictly villainous, and Diana is much more controlled and internal. The story is a bit obvious, and I was disappointed that Cathleen Cordell had a bigger part than Robert Newton-I had hoped Bobbie would play the husband character, since he's wonderful when cast as the bad guy.
- HotToastyRag
- Apr 6, 2018
- Permalink
The later version is Hollywood English, which I sometimes think is a downtown section of Hollywood Transylvanian. Believe me, the original is the real thing, from the small details up to the social assumptions: it's recognisably English. As such, the thriller is grounded in a reality that the later version can never have. And so it's scary! Of course, I admit that this justification of the original might be a lot less convincing if you're reading my words on the other side of the world...
As for the difficulty of getting hold of a copy, well every few years it's shown on one TV station or another over here, so there has to be a good copy somewhere out there.
As for the difficulty of getting hold of a copy, well every few years it's shown on one TV station or another over here, so there has to be a good copy somewhere out there.
- jerseyman1949
- Apr 30, 2002
- Permalink