Gaslight (1940) User Reviews

Both Good Films !

[nicholas.rhodes · 7/10 · 19 September 2004]

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 !!!

Wonderful film version of "Angel Street"

[blanche-2 · 8/10 · 30 August 2007]

A strong story in the right hands can be made more than once with interesting results - and this is certainly true of the 1940 British film "Gaslight," remade as an extremely popular 1944 film by Hollywood. The stars here are Anton Walbrook, Diana Wynyard, Frank Pettingel, Robert Newton, and Cathleen Cordell.

In this version, the plot centers on a retired detective (Pettingel) recognizing a Mr. Mallen (Walbrook) as a man named Bauer, rather than a hot young detective recognizing the wife as the relative of a late opera singer who was once kind to him. Mallen has moved into a house with his wife Bella (Wynyard) where a vicious murder had occurred 20 years earlier by a robber searching for the resident's famed rubies. After the murder, he trashes the house searching for the jewels. Rough, the old detective, becomes interested in what Bauer is doing in England under another name, and starts watching the house. Inside, Bella is slowly being driven mad by Mallen, as he accuses her of forgetting things, losing things, finally making her too paranoid to leave the house for long or to go out socially. When she does, he makes sure she breaks down so everyone else knows she's crazy. He openly flirts with the maid (and takes it a lot further in this film) and embarrasses his wife in front of her. His motive in this version for wanting Bella declared insane is different from the Hollywood version, but his departure from the house each evening and the dimming of the gaslight is due to the same goal.

If you're familiar with the Boyer/Bergman "Gaslight," this "Gaslight" feels like it starts in the middle, as there is no backstory in this one, though Mallen remains a pianist. In the '44 film, it was the wife's famous aunt who was murdered and seen by the young niece; she meets her husband to be while she's studying voice and marries him, finally moving into the house where her aunt's murder took place. Nothing like that here. This version comes right to the point - Mallen wants to have his wife committed.

The acting is marvelous. Wynward is a good deal more internalized than Bergman and somehow seems less vulnerable. Where Bergman has a soft look, Wynward's is more defined. It's an excellent performance, but one in which the weight of the film is transferred, as it's supposed to be, over to the character here called Mallen, played by Anton Walbrook - the exact opposite of what Hollywood does with the story. Walbrook is openly cruel and sly - no velvet glove here - and very slimy. A real monster. The maid Nancy is here played by Cathleen Cordell, a very pretty actress. Where Lansbury is a cheap tramp from the beginning, it's harder to see that Nancy is a tramp until a little later in the film. She just seems like a flirt at first. Turns out she's a lot more trampy than Lansbury, as the Mallen character does more than flirt with her. I give the slight edge here to Lansbury, though both performances are interesting - Lansbury's cheap look and Cockney accent contribute a great deal to the atmosphere of the later film. Robert Newton has a small role as Bella's cousin, who is brought in by Rough.

Beautiful to look at, both films are wonderful. I don't consider comparing them "a trap" as one poster states. I find the different handling of the story fascinating, and both results very absorbing. See both if you can.

Well-filmed earlier adaptation of famed 1944 film

[dfranzen70 · 8/10 · 11 November 2006]

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.

"Creates an air of electric tension that Hollywood could only envy."

[jamesraeburn2003 · 25 May 2004]

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.

A tighter British version of its remake Gaslight (1944); stars Anton Walbrook

[jacobs-greenwood · 7/10 · 8 December 2016]

aka The Murder in Thornton Square (1940) or Angel Street

Directed by Thorold Dickinson, with a screenplay by A.R. Rawlinson and Bridget Boland that was based on the play by Patrick Hamilton, this above average British thriller is tighter (half an hour shorter) than the Academy Award nominated American remake which earned Ingrid Bergman her first Oscar, four years later.

Anton Walbrook plays the role of the mysterious Paul Mallen, who's attempting to drive his wife Bella (Diana Wynyard, in the Bergman role) crazy for reasons of his own. Frank Pettingell plays a retired policeman B.G. Rough, who now takes care of horses (in the day when carriages were the primary transportation in the city), that recognizes Mr. Mallen as Louis Bauer, the nephew of Alice Barlow (Marie Wright), who had been murdered in her home many years earlier, a crime that was never solved.

Walbrook is every bit as good as, if not better than, Charles Boyer in the American version, Wynyard is merely adequate, and Pettingell can't be compared to Joseph Cotten because the latter's role was played as a potential love interest for Bella (whereas Pettingell's was not).

Much different than the aforementioned later production, this film's story begins with Barlow's murder; the culprit (whose face is not shown) ransacks the townhouse trying to find (what we come to find out were) her 20,000 pounds worth of rubies. Years later, the home is reopened for the Mallens, who move in after workmen and their servants - parlor maid Nancy (Cathleen Cordell) and cook Elizabeth (Minnie Rayner) - have prepared it. Mr. Mallen proceeds in hiding various objects (a painting, her broach) from around the house and then accusing his wife Bella of doing it. Additionally, each evening when her husband goes out alone, she witnesses the dimming of her bedroom's gas lanterns and hears strange sounds above her room. Mallen tells Bella that she's imagining things and encourages her belief that she's going insane like a distant relative of hers did long ago. He also intercepts her mail, and later keeps Bella's cousin Vincent Ullswater (Robert Newton) from seeing her.

But Rough is not so easily put off, he smells a rat and pursues the case as Mallen openly pursues an extramarital relationship with Nancy. Jimmy Hanley plays the ex-policeman's assistant of sorts named Cobb, who had been dating Nancy himself. Rough figures out what's going on and, while her husband is out with the hired help, informs Mrs. Mallen of what he's learned - that her husband killed his aunt and has returned to the scene of the crime to search for the valuable jewels on the upper floors each night. When Mallen comes home prematurely, a confrontation and a struggle ensues but Rough, with help from Cobb, gains the upper hand and has (now that his real name has been revealed) Louis Bauer tied up.

I skipped a step regarding the rubies because it, and what happens next while Bella is left alone with her 'husband', differs from the more well known remake ... and I'd hate to spoil it for you;-)

Stop titivating yourself, come on.

[film-critic · 9/10 · 5 January 2005]

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 *****

Another opinion

[loews175 · 6/10 · 15 May 2005]

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.

Just as good--if not better--than the 1944 remake

[preppy-3 · 10/10 · 2 November 2003]

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.

A Very Effective Suspense Thriller

[JamesHitchcock · 7/10 · 8 May 2012]

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

In the shadow of the later version, but doesn't deserve to be

[TheLittleSongbird · 9/10 · 9 June 2016]

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

try to find this version instead of the Hollywood one

[planktonrules · 9/10 · 12 July 2006]

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!

It's Walbrook's show

[mhesselius · 7/10 · 26 July 2010]

This is the first film adaptation of the British stage drama "Angel Street," and in many instances it betters it's famous Hollywood counterpart. Diana Wynyard, Frank Pettingell, and Cathleen Cordell don't have the acting chops of Ingrid Bergman, Joseph Cotten, and Angela Lansbury, but Anton Walbrook's performance as the sinister Paul Mallen blows away Charles Boyer as Gregory Anton. Where Boyer comes across as an obsessed schemer trying to find the missing rubies of Alice Alquist, Walbrook is quite mad, always walking on the edge of the abyss. It's basically the same role he would play nine years later in the fine supernatural thriller "Queen of Spades," also directed by Thorold Dickinson with a surer hand. Whenever Walbrook is on screen he is fascinating to watch, and commands our attention in the way Peter Lorre often did.

There are no scenes in the 1944 Hollywood remake as suspenseful as the opening of the 1940 version where an unknown assailant strangles Alice Barlow then savagely knifes the chair cushions in his search for - what? Or even at the end where Mallen's wife grips a knife with which she seems about to stab her husband. In the middle of the film, however, we must sit through some rather stiff direction and mechanical plot devices. Still MGM thought enough of this version to purchase and suppress it in advance of their own production.

Unlike the slick Hollywood version that provides a gratuitous romantic interlude to showcase Boyer's and Bergman's sex-appeal, the British film doesn't need to explain why the abused wife found her husband appealing in the first place. It focuses rather on the story's Victorian milieu, in which husbands are tyrants who treat their wives as possessions like the gaudy furnishings that clutter their rooms.

The one change in the Hollywood version that makes sense is the inclusion of Joseph Cotten as a romantic hero. It seems necessary if only to give him a plausible reason for taking a personal interest in Bergman's plight.

The Light That Failed

[writers_reign · 5/10 · 15 September 2010]

I looked in vain for any directorial 'touches' that might justify the esteem is which Thorold Dickinson is held in some quarters. I found little beyond journeyman competence. I was, of course, watching for the first time in 2010 a film released in 1940 when a country at war would presumably be easier to please. I was particularly unhappy at the amount of 'back-story' we had to fill in ourselves. Yes, we did see the original murder (though not, of course, the murderer) and it was clear that Anton Walbrook was the murderer and equally clear that he had returned to the scene of the crime to search for the rubies for which he had resorted to murder in the first place but what was missing, and was to some extent crucial, was the whole story of his meeting his wife, courting and marrying her. The finest actor in the film by a country mile, Robert Newton, had less screen time than the inept Jimmy Hanley and there was no real motivation for Frank Pettingell to become so involved - Joseph Cotton had a far stronger motive in the shape of Ingrid Bergman in the remake. The whole thing is creaky and melodramatic with 'Tilly' Walbrook hamming it up as if auditioning for Charles Laughton's leftovers. Just about watchable.

Streamlined & Suspenseful

[Harold_Robbins · 20 August 2004]

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!)

"You're supposed to be going off your head aren't you?"

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 29 December 2005]

I came into "Gaslight" cold, not knowing it's history or the fact it was remade a few years later with a bigger name cast. No matter, the original British National Film is a suspenseful story, and is one of the better films I've seen using the husband driving his wife crazy plot. Particularly vile is Paul Mallen (Anton Walbrook), the husband in question, whose performance is the convincing kind that makes you want to reach right into the screen and choke him yourself. The put upon wife is Bella (Diana Wynyard), someone you can sympathize with, though you wish she would have a little more backbone to stand up to the scoundrel Paul.

Former police investigator B.G. Rough (Frank Pettingell) has his suspicions about Mallen, sharing them with his assistant Cobb (Jimmy Hanley). Early in the film they share a spirited conversation in which they use the word "queer" at least a half dozen times, which becomes amusing, especially since it's used in it's original sense before it had been convoluted to describe a sexual orientation. However it's hard to prevent that meaning from intruding and thus makes the scene much more comical.

Mallen's accomplice, though perhaps unwitting, is parlor maid Nancy (Cathleen Cordell), who seems to be playing Mallen as much as he's using her. That devilish gleam in her eye seems to be telling Mallen he's a creep, it's just that he doesn't know it yet.

Eventually, Bella turns the tables on Paul with the help of Rough. It was poetic justice to see and hear the lovely victim question her own sanity while wielding the knife that Mallen tempts her to free him with. Equally so was the fact that the Barlow rubies he'd been searching for were right under his nose, compliments of Bella who had the sense to hide them in a safe place after accidentally discovering them in a brooch Paul had taunted her with throughout the film.

With a virtually no name cast, the original "Gaslight" is a satisfying psychological melodrama and deserves a wider audience. Based on reviews of other posters to this site, I'm inclined to search out the 1944 remake with Charles Boyer and Ingrid Bergman. For those of a mind to explore the husband drives wife crazy theme, two rather over the top titles from 1958 come to mind - "My World Dies Screaming" and "The Screaming Skull". Both are a 'scream', can't you tell?

Murder and Terror at Pimlico Place

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 26 September 2012]

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.

Effective chiller

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 17 March 2014]

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.

GASLIGHT 1940 VS. GASLIGHT 1944 !

[whpratt1 · 10/10 · 16 January 2004]

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.

Not going mad

[Prismark10 · 6/10 · 22 April 2019]

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.

Claustrophobic and Machiavellian Psychological Thriller

[claudio_carvalho · 9/10 · 10 August 2006]

In London, at Pimlico Square 12, the ancient lady Alice Barlow (Marie Wright) is brutally killed and her famous rubies miss. Because of the murder, the house stays empty for twenty years, when Paul Mallen (Anton Walbrook) and his sick wife Bella (Diana Wynyard) move to the place. Bella apparently had a nervous breakdown, having problems with her memory and becoming kleptomaniac. When the retired policeman B.G. Rough (Frank Pettingell) sees Paul Mallen on the street, he immediately recognizes him as being Louis Bauer, the nephew and killer of Alice Barlow. He decides to find evidences to prove that Paul and Louis are the same man, while Bella is being driven mad and menaced of being interned in an asylum by her husband.

"Gaslight" is a very claustrophobic and Machiavellian psychological thriller, in a bourgeois pre-industrial revolution London with an abusive exploitation of the proletariat. Anton Walbrook performs one of the most despicable villains I have ever seen and Diana Wynyard plays a very convincing fragile and confused Bella. The theatrical acting is excellent, and the smart B.G. Rough is a sort of "Sherlock Holmes" in the plot. The "can-can" dance is amazing, with the dancers showing a stunning elongation and agility. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "À Meia-Luz" ("Dimly")

First "light" bright enough.

[st-shot · 7/10 · 28 November 2023]

Given its obscurity most film watchers will have watched the 1944 version of the play by Patrick Hamilton. It seems MGM in promoting the Bergman, Boyer teaming wanted this print to disappear fast so it bought and burned prints. Whether in comparison or on its own it holds its own, featuring an excellent performance from Anton Walbrook as the jade crazed murderer.

Paul ( Walbrook) and Bella Madden (Diana Wynward) move to 12 Pimlico in London, the address where a murder took place years earlier. Paul is in fact the murderer, only returning to the scene of the crime to search for missing rubies. He also plans to drive his wife mad and having her institutionalized to give him more time to rummage. A retired detective meanwhile keeps close watch over the strange things happening at number "12."

Gaslight lacks the lush production values of MGM set design and while it shines in some moments, it displays ragged ones in others. Wynward has some strong scenes but is inconsistent in others, Kathleen Cordell, a touch over the top as the maid, Frank Pettingell a more believable, less dashing fit as the sleuth than the American Cotton, even if does cancel the romantic interest in the process.

To do this original any justice and appreciated on its own it is best seen before the 44. In its defense it offers a more rational reason for a move to the townhouse as well as some rousing British dance hall entertainment featuring the Damora Ballet doing French Can-Can. A decent original to the classic re-make.

Pure Evil

[Hitchcoc · 9/10 · 8 May 2007]

Not a bad version of the more famous successor. My version is called "Gaslight." It is the story of a man who marries a young woman and then movies into a house where he had previously murdered an old woman, the elderly aunt of his bride. He is there to get his hands on some rubies that he has thus far been unable to find. He must, in the process, search in other parts of the house. To accomplish this he must feed into his wife's fears that she is going insane. If she is terribly unbalanced, nothing she says is going to be taken as the truth. There is true evil here, and I have to admit, I wanted the guy to get "his." The acting is good. There is tight suspense and a couple of very memorable scenes, especially the scene of enlightenment. One thing that made it hard was that the husband is really mentally unbalanced and it's obvious. He pushes things past where he can control them. But that's a small criticism.

Outdone by the later Hollywood version but still worth watching

[sme_no_densetsu · 7/10 · 31 October 2010]

This original, British version of "Gaslight" was released in 1940, four years before the Hollywood remake. The films tell basically the same story though this version is supposedly closer to the original stage play. It also clocks in at about half an hour less than the later version.

In the film, a husband and wife move into a house that had been vacant since a murder took place there years before. Soon the wife begins to show signs of losing her sanity or at least that's what her husband would have her believe. He is attempting to protect a secret from his past but, little does he know, a retired policeman is already on his trail.

The cast is pretty good but Anton Walbrook, Diana Wynyard & Cathleen Cordell just can't compare to their counterparts in the Hollywood remake. That being said, they are all perfectly acceptable and give performances that are different enough to keep them interesting. Frank Pettingell, meanwhile, outclasses Joseph Cotten in my opinion and the rest of the supporting cast is satisfactory.

The direction of Thorold Dickinson is decent but, again, it pales in comparison to George Cukor's interpretation. I also found that the editing was lacklustre and I wonder if any scenes had to be cut for one reason or another. As it is, the story could use some fleshing out but otherwise the script gets the job done. The score, meanwhile, may be the only area of the production that exceeds the later version.

Ultimately, if you want to see a film adaptation of Patrick Hamilton's "Gaslight" then the 1944 version is the one I'd recommend. However, the original 1940 adaptation is still a decent effort and worth a look if you are so inclined.

A little different than the remake

[HotToastyRag · 5/10 · 7 April 2018]

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.

Better thrills than Bergman

[jerseyman1949 · 1 May 2002]

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.