by Allan Fish
(UK 1940 88m) DVD1
Aka. Angel Street
Ze rooooobies!
p John Corfield d Thorold Dickinson w A.R.Rawlinson, Bridget Boland play Patrick Hamilton ph Bernard Knowles ed Sidney Cole m Richard Addinsell art Duncan Sutherland
Diana Wynyard (Bella Mallen), Anton Walbrook (Paul Mallen/Louis Bauer), Frank Pettingell (Rough), Robert Newton (Vincent Ullswater), Cathleen Cordell (Nancy), Jimmy Hanley (Cobb), Minnie Rayner (Elizabeth), Marie Wright (Alice Barlow), Cathleen Nesbitt,
Looking for this classic British chiller on DVD, one has to go to the US Region 1 where it is included as an extra on that for the 1944 Hollywood version. Just as with the DVD of House of Wax – on which the better original The Mystery of the Wax Museum is found – one is essentially buying for the extras. MGM bought the rights to this film in the early forties, with Louis B.Mayer wishing to burn all copies so only his intended version with Ingrid Bergman could be seen. A typical act of that studio, they had tried something very similar with their Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde – whose remake again featured Bergman – and thankfully in both cases the vastly superior original versions survive. Which is not to make the remake sound a bad film, because it isn’t; Charles Boyer and Bergman are very fine replacements for Anton Walbrook and Diana Wynyard, but that’s just what they remain – replacements, talented understudies. Also, the décor is far more artificial and removes the essential character of Rough to be replaced by a more romantic character, played by Joe Cotten. Of all big screen adaptations of the work of Patrick Hamilton, this original is the greatest by some considerable distance.
In the 1860s, an elderly woman is murdered and the murderer searches frantically for her priceless rubies. Many years later, her house, 12 Pimlico Square, is finally let to a married couple, Paul and Bella Mallen, the latter of whom has been suffering from a nervous problem. It transpires that her husband is deliberately trying to drive her insane, as she has uncovered evidence to his real identity, Louis Bauer, nephew to the murdered woman, who left years ago in a cloud of suspicion. However, he doesn’t reckon on a retired inspector who suspects him and begins to believe that Bella is in danger from her husband.
Director Thorold Dickinson is an unjustly forgotten helmsman these days. He made two other films of note – wartime fifth columnists drama The Next of Kin, which Churchill had tried to ban, and The Queen of Spades, which also starred Anton Walbrook and was a memorable adaptation of the Pushkin tale. Gaslight is clearly his masterpiece, richly atmospheric in its camera movement and décor, perfectly accompanied by Richard Addinsell’s finest film score, with each scene justifying Nigel Floyd in Time Out’s comments that “a lurking menace hangs in the air like a fog.” It relies a great deal on its lead performances, and they deliver in spades. Wynyard was truly never remotely as good again. Previously known as Hollywood’s personification of tall, stately, faintly haughty British nobility that ruled an empire in such films as Cavalcade and One More River, Wynyard is here turned into a thoroughly believable terrified woman, with exaggerated and imaginative camera angles adding to the sense of distortion. Just look at the feeling of terror that creeps over her face as the gaslight dims in her room, or better still the look of feigned madness on her face as she taunts Walbrook in the delicious final scene. If there had been a BAFTA in 1940, she’d have been a shoe in. As indeed would her co-star, who has rarely been so joyously nasty, lusting after those shiny red stones, when he finally catches sight of them, like Bela Lugosi’s Count eyeing blood. He’s deliciously sanctimonious in his hypocrisy in reading psalms at the dinner table, and truly evil in his humiliation of Bella at a music recital. Baseline called it a “lost black pearl“, but it’s far better than that, it’s rather a black diamond dipped in blood.
Bonjour! Allan Fish,
I’am up late at nite “lurking” and “Painting”….
(I shall have something close to Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel done by the end of the week!)
Ahhh! at last!…I thought that this was my favorite version of the 1944 film “Gaslight,” but instead it is my mothers’ favorite version of the 1940s film “Gaslight.” (I must admit my mother and me have had some “ping-pong” debates over which film is the best version… The 1944 version…Yes!…The 1940 version…No!…The 1944 version…Yes!… and so it continue…)
I guess, the only thing, I can say is my mother thank-you! for the very well written and very detailed review of the 1940s version of the film Gaslight.
Allan, the next question isn’t directed to you specifically, but it more or less me thinking “outloud.”
I must admit that the 1940s version have at least 1 or 2 holes…I always wondered why did he Anton Walbrook’s character (Paul Mallen/Louis Bauer),
marry her Diana Wynyard’s character (Bella Mallen), if that was his aunt’s house?
But, in the 1944 version it’s obvious that the character that actor Charles Boyer (Bauer) portrayed married actress Ingrid Bergman’s character (Paula) in order to “gain” entry into the apartment next door in order to search for his wife’s (Paula) aunt jewels.
hmm…very interesting…methink MGM “cleaned” it up around the edges!….and the storyline changed to give him more or less a reason to marry her and to place her life more or less in “more peril.” (methink!) hmm…
Maybe, I’am missing something?!? Oh! well,
Merci! Beaucoup!
dcd 😉
The character that actor Charles Boyer portrayed name isn’t Paul Mallen/Louis Bauer), but Gregory Anton/ Louis Bauer?!? (methink!)
On my bookshelf….“Hollywood Heroines: Women in Film Noir and the Female Gothic Film by Helen Hanson. (With actress Ingrid Bergman (Paula) in a scene from the 1944 film Gaslight” on the cover looking at “auntie” Alice Alquist.)
dcd 😉
A gothic masterwork..but I think that’s been said already here!
I’m fond of the Hollywood version, have not seen the original. Once again, you’ve piqued my curiosity.
Dark City Dame: You asked some interesting questions there, and as always we are flattered and amazed at your interest in the posts here, much as you have genuine passion for this films. I will trust that Allan will respond to you very soon on the issue of “plot holes.” I saw this film a while back and need to revisit it myself befor chiming in. Needless to say DVD, the Hanson volume is doubtlessly fascinating. You have a wonderful collection of film criticism!
Your mother obviously has great taste in movies!
LOL on that Sistine Chapel quip! Hey I bet you sell yourself short!
Bill: Are you sure you are not mistaking this for the remade Hollywood version? Thanks for the comment as always my good friend.
Jenny: I quite agree with you on the Hollywood version–which Allan concedes as well in his review of this original–which is sinister, atmospheric and intriguing, with two excellent lead performances. The British version, deftly helmed by Thorald Dickinson and acted by Mssrs. Walbrook and Wynyard is less glittering and more probing. While I agree with Allan that the Hollywood version evinces more “artificialities” I hardly consider Boyer and Bergman “talented understudies.” LOL! But I understand where Allan is coming from.
Thanks very much, Jenny Bee! We’ll have to make sure you get this version.
ok, Sam, you’re right. I was thinking of the Boyer-Bergman version. I am still trying to wake-up!
I enjoy both the British and Hollywood interpretations, as they both offer respectively fine pleasures. Boyer and Bergman being “talented understudies” may be Allan’s greatest understatement. 🙂
I have seen the Hollywood version several times, but never this English original, sorry to say. If it is on the regular version as an ‘extra’ as you indicate here, I will obtain it via netflix. Thanks for a most well-written revival review.
I’d need to watch it again to answer your queries in detail, dcd, remember this review was written a while ago. But either way, the 1944 version was so romanticised it beggared belief. The 1940 version had the distinct aroma of almonds…
Hi! Allan,
Allan, my question wasn’t directed to you specifically, but it was more or less me thinking “outloud.” (Unlike, T.S., who(m) mentioned me “specifically” in a comment that he posted here on Sam Juliano’s blog…haha! 😉
Allan said, “I’d need to watch it again to answer your queries in detail, dcd, “
Right you are!…I must admit that I have to watch the 1940s version again. (Because I have only “viewed” the British “arsenic” laced version of this film once and the “romanticised” MGM version as recently as yesterday.) Yep!…maybe a second “viewing” of the 1940s film “Gaslight” is required.
Allan said,”But either way, the 1944 version was so romanticised it beggared belief. The 1940 version had the distinct aroma of almonds…”
Allan, once again!…I agree with you, but I still think it comes down to a “little” matter of “preference.”
Because during my “discussion(s)” with my mother about which ” version” of the film “Gaslight” we prefer to watch in the end… we “disagree” yet, without being “disagreeable” of course!…
…Because I “try” to be very “diplomatic” especially, when it comes to discussing something as “simple” as films.
(Remember!…What Hitchcock said, “It’s only a
“moo- vie.”) 🙂
Tks,
dcd 😉
Thanks, Allan, for the excellent review. I like films in which someone tries to drive someone else insane (shades of Diabolique?). I will look up Gaslight soon.
Hi! Allan,
(Remember!…What Hitchcock said, “It’s only a
“moo- vie.”)
Oops!…I’am so sorry!…for not mentioning the fact, that director Alfred Hitchcock, quote (above) is taken out of context.
Because he wasn’t referring to the comparison of 2 films, but to the fact, that actress Ingrid Bergman, was “fussing” or “worried” about the way he wanted her to portray a scene in a film.
Tks,
DarkCityDame 😉
Well, DCD, I don’t think you are out of context at all……after all, Joan Fontaine is the star of both GASLIGHT and Hitchcock’s REBECCA! But Hitch always wanted this perfect indeed!
Sam, don’t you mean Suspicion and Rebecca?
At any rate, I’m the uninformed one here, as I didn’t even know a previous version of Gaslight existed. Earlier versions of films always intrigue me, even when they may not be clearly better.
Pierre: Yes, you are quite right. I confused Joan Fontaine and Ingrid Bergman………Bergman is the one in the Hollywood GASLIGHT, whiile FONTAINE is the star of REBECCA and SUSPICION.
Two beautiful ladies for sure.
Sam, I’m sure it was nothing more than a minor “slip of the finger.”
I’m grateful to Allan Fish for bringing this film to my attention. Although the Bergman/Boyer version of Gaslight certainly has its merits, the still shown above — not to mention the commentary of Mr. Fish — suggests to me the high quality of the original version.
Yes, there’s no doubt which is the better version, Pierre, you need to see the proper version.
For those living near ‘Frisco, the Winter 2009 Film Series of the historic 20s theatre, The Stanford at Palo Alto, is a cinephile’s dream, and includes this double-bill on April 23-24: The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp and Gaslight (UK 1940). Details: http://www.stanfordtheatre.org/stf/calendars/Winter%202009.html
Just dipping into the archives to say I’ve just seen this British classic on TV and thought it was superb – the print looked perfect, and I see it is also now out on Blu-ray in region 2 from Masters of Cinema, though I’m not sure what extras are included. Walbrook’s Austrian accent must have given an extra frisson of danger to his character in Britain in 1940. Must confess I don’t think I’ve actually seen the Hollywood remake, though I’ve seen the original play on stage.