Sadly Over-hyped

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

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.

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

This really isn't a bad movie, it's just that the remake improves on it in almost every way. A full half hour shorter, it begs the question: is it better to slowly build tension, or cut to the chase? While I didn't particularly mind that the entire courtship between the husband and wife was missing (i.e., most of the first act) I did feel like this was a little too rushed, getting straight to the beats of the plot without building that sense of dread and helplessness. Another thing the remake does (and I have no idea what the original text is like) is give the husband much better motivation to marry the woman in the first place. As for the casting, between Charles Boyer and Anton Walbrook, I'll call it a draw. Maybe even a slight edge to Walbrook, who seems a little bit nastier. Diana Wynyard is okay, but no match at all for Ingrid Bergman. Bergman just has a far more compelling screen presence, especially in the finale. Frank Pettingell vs. Joseph Cotten is a trickier comparison, because the characters are completely different. I think I like the character more in the original, but the performance more in the remake. Is it unfair to make these comparisons, particularly since this one came first? Yes, but I can't help it. One version is far more well-known and well-regarded, and for good reason. Again, not a bad movie, but the 1944 version does it so much better, and leaves little reason to watch this one.

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.