Own the rights?
25 out of 25 people found the following review useful: Streamlined & Suspenseful, 20 August 2004 Author: Harold_Robbins from United States
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!)
22 out of 23 people found the following review useful: Stop titivating yourself, come on., 5 January 2005 Author: Andy (film-critic) from Bookseller of the Blue Ridge
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 *****
20 out of 20 people found the following review useful: "Creates an air of electric tension that Hollywood could only envy.", 25 May 2004 Author: jamesraeburn2003 from Poole, Dorset
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.
22 out of 25 people found the following review useful: Better thrills than Bergman, 1 May 2002 Author: jerseyman1949 from UK
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.
17 out of 18 people found the following review useful: Just as good--if not better--than the 1944 remake, 2 November 2003 Author: Wayne Malin (wwaayynnee51@hotmail.com) from United States
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.
18 out of 20 people found the following review useful: GASLIGHT 1940 VS. GASLIGHT 1944 !, 16 January 2004 Author: whpratt1 from United States
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.
9 out of 9 people found the following review useful: Both Good Films !, 19 September 2004 Author: Nicholas Rhodes from Ile-de-France / Paris Region, France
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 !!!
8 out of 8 people found the following review useful: Much better version, 3 April 2004 Author: marbleann from Huntington, NY
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I got this movie as a double feature with the 1944 movie. This is by far the better version. I heard years ago that the studio that made the 1944 version wanted all of the prints of this one destroyed. SPOILERS AHEAD! I can see why. First let's deal with the actors. Anton Walbrook is one of my favorite actors, yeah I know who is he... but as a reference see The Red Shoes or Col Blimp. Anyway this guy is plain scary in this movie. The way they photograph him and the way he acts really conveys why a person would be terrorized by him. Charles Boyer who I like was ok but to me he wasn't very convincing. I felt a good slap would of stopped him. Diane Wynard was also better then Ingrid Bergman. Frankly I thought Ms Bergman overacted in this movie..even though she got a Oscar for the film. I also thought the actress in the 1940 version was better suited for the movie. Nancy the maid was potrayed as not as villianous as in the 1944 version. I love Angela Lansbury but you know as soon as you saw her she was up to no good. In this version I wasn't really sure until I saw her ease dropping. Now let's go to the script. Why in the heck did they need a romantic foil in the 1944 version? It broke the movie up. In this version a busy body retired cop recognizes the villain. Not only that, he is real smart and gets right to finding out if he is correct. I find he humorous in his escapades, which was great. And I think the part of the wife is played a little smarter then in the 1944 version. It was a treat to see Robert Newton as the cousin who was trying to help too. If you catch this movie..see it.
11 out of 14 people found the following review useful: Claustrophobic and Machiavellian Psychological Thriller, 10 August 2006 Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
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")
16 out of 27 people found the following review useful: Another opinion, 15 May 2005 Author: loews175 from United States
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.
Add another review
