Gaslight

Lisa from Boondock Ramblings is doing the Summer of Angela (Lansbury). I'm not going to participate fully because I don't have access to all the movies.
So I thought I would do this post a bit different and not just concentrate on the 1944 "Gaslight" with it.

Picture via pxhere

Did you know that the term "gaslighting" derives from this movie? Although the term has been used earlier, it has become popular in the mid-2010s. In 2022, for example, it was Merriam-Webster's word of the year.
"The modern definition of gaslighting is a psychological manipulation technique in which a person tries to convince someone that their reality is untrue." This goes beyond an argument or trying to push your opinion or way of thinking on someone. It's meant to give a person control over another one by making them questioning themselves and what they believe and think.
Where does the gaslight come into it, though?

"Gas Light" is a theater play from 1938 written by British novelist and playwright Patrick Hamilton which wasn't just well received in the UK, but was a huge success in Los Angeles - as "Five Chelsea Lane" - and later on Broadway - as "Angel Street".
It was also adapted to screen in several countries and I want to have a look at three of those adaptations.

One is the 1940 film that I hadn't even known existed (more on that later) with Anton Walbrook (the Austrian actor Adolf Wohlbrück took the English name after he emigrated) and Diana Wynyard.
One is the 1944 film with Ingrid Bergman, Charles Boyer, Joseph Cotten - and of course Angela Lansbury.
Then there's one German version - there have been several - from 1960 with Dieter Borsche and Margot Trooger.

Basically, the plot (spoiler alert!) is the same in all adaptations - a man trying to convince his wife that she's insane.
The 1940 film has changed some of the names, but the plot is close to the play.
The 1944 movie, however, which is about half an hour longer, hasn't only changed a few of the names and added a possible love interest at the end, but also offers a complete backstory at the beginning instead of just one scene.
The 1960 television play hasn't changed the names and is close to the play.
I hope it won't get too confusing from here.

You know I usually check out not just information about the movies, but also some other reviews as well because they sometimes make me look more closely at some things or to see if I interpreted something differently from others.
This time, however, I only had a very short peek into reviews and decided to go completely with my own personal thoughts about those three versions.

***

I'll start with the 1944 Hollywood film simply because it's the most famous one.

Public domain via
Wikimedia Commons

Young Paula Alquist leaves the London house where her aunt Alice, a famous opera singer who has raised her, has been brutally murdered. She goes to Italy where she meets Gregory Anton who accompanies her on the piano during her singing lessons. They fall in love and marry, then return to London.
After Paula finds a letter to her aunt signed by a Sergius/Sergis (I understood Sergius, but you find both names) Bauer, things change between Gregory and her. He has everything belonging to Alice taken to the attic which he gets boarded up. He goes out every night and flirts with Nancy, the parlor maid, in front of Paula whom he treats alternately loving, condescending or angry. He isolates her from the outside world and tells her she keeps forgetting, losing and imagining things until she starts believing it herself. The only time she insists on going to a recital, he makes her break down by claiming she has stolen his watch.
She's hearing footsteps above her room and the gaslight dims without another lamp in the house having been turned on.
Finally, Gregory claims Paula's mother has been insane and died in an asylum, that the letter by Bauer never existed and that Paula will have to be institutionalized as well.
A young Scotland Yard detective, Brian Cameron, has recognized Gregory, however, because he was an admirer of Alice as a child and has seen Gregory with her. He visits Paula to tell her the truth about him - that he's just trying to drive her to madness to get full access to her estate, that the footsteps are his and the gaslight dims downstairs because he turns the one in the attic up to search for Alice Alquist's jewels there. They find the letter by Bauer and Cameron realizes Gregory is Bauer who already has a wife in Prague.
While Cameron is still talking to Paula and asking Elizabeth, the cook, to take care of her mistress, Gregory finds the jewels hidden between paste gems sewn to a dress.
Cameron and a constable overpower Gregory and tie him to a chair. Paula asks to talk to him alone, but she doesn't give in to the attempts to make her cut him free. Instead she taunts him by behaving as if she is actually mad.
Gregory is taken to prison. Paula and Cameron step outside and it's clear that Cameron would like to see Paula again.

***

Next is the British movie from 1940.

Fair use via Wikimedia Commons

There's no backstory here except the scene of an old lady, Alice Barlow, being strangled (with her own embroidery floss!) and the furniture ripped apart in search of something.
Only years later, the Mallen couple, Paul and Bella, move into her house.
Paul treats Bella cruelly increasing the pressure on her constantly. He makes her think she's stealing, forgetting and imagining things, reminds her of her mother's insanity and threatens to have her institutionalized.
He is also mean to her only friend, a little dog, and later it's even implied the dog is dead (I chose to not believe this). He doesn't just flirt with Nancy, but even kisses her and takes her to a music hall.
While he's away, Bella is visited by an ex-policeman named Rough who has recognized Paul as a man called Louis Bauer. He had also notified her cousin who had been turned away by Paul. He tells her the truth about Paul and the gaslight and the story of Alice Barlow and her missing rubies.
When Mallen comes back, Rough confronts him. Bella finds the brooch that Paul said she had lost and she shows Rough it opens. Rough recognizes it as Alice's brooch. There are indentations inside which had loose stones in them that Bella put in a vase - Alice's precious rubies Paul had been searching for all that time.
Paul throws a chair at Rough, but together with his helper Rough manages to tie him up. Bella talks to him and taunts him. When Paul is taken away by the police. Bella steps out on the balcony alone.

***

The last one is the German television play.

Jack and Bella Manningham are in their salon. Jack makes Bella think she's stealing, forgetting and imagining things, reminds her of her mother's insanity - her mother died at the same age Bella is now - and threatens to have her institutionalized. He flirts with Nancy. He even claims Bella has hurt her own dog.
While Jack is gone in the evening, Bella gets a visit by ex-policeman Rough who tells her that Jack is really Sidney Power who has cut the rich Alice Barlow's throat for her rubies. He keeps calling Bella by her maiden name "Bella Royd" to make clear to her that Jack already has a wife in Australia.
They also find out that Jack has tried to poison Bella slowly with her "medicine".
When they open Jack's desk, they find Bella's brooch and Bella shows Rough the rubies she had taken out of it and put in a vase.
When Jack comes back, Rough confronts him. After a short fight, Jack tries to escape, but is captured by police. Tied to a chair, he tries to make Bella set him free, but she just taunts him. The police takes Jack away and Bella walks upstairs by herself.

***

I always liked "Gaslight". I'm a fan of Ingrid Bergman and love her portrayal of Paula Alquist for which she got an Academy Award.

It's always tough to watch other adaptations if you are happy with the one you already know, so I was a bit wary, but then I was amazed how quickly the British film drew me in. Of course you jump right in without the backstory.

I understand if others might like it better to see how the relationship between Gregory and Paula is developing, how he builds her up only to slowly destroy her afterwards once he has what he wanted, unlimited access to the house.
I, on the other hand, was quite overwhelmed by the contrast between Paul and Bella. She might have been afraid to lose her mind, but in fact you could tell he was the mad one which I thought made him a marvelous villain.
Where Gregory is more subtle, Paul is outright evil. I think that also shows in the music hall visit with Nancy. Gregory is attracted by Nancy, Paul goes the step further. He doesn't care whom he uses and how to get to his goal.
At the end, you could tell Boyer's obsession with the stones - no idea if that was on purpose, but I liked the light effect in his eyes when he talks about the jewels, and then he blinks and the light goes away - but it was still quite controlled. While it was fine acting, I loved Walbrook's unhinged madness even more. It would have been interesting to see him across Bergman.
Dieter Borsche neither shows the subtle charm of Boyer nor the madness of Walbrook. Instead he hides behind the mask of the respectable gentleman which didn't make it any less scary.

Now Bergman was fabulous and she got a lot of occasions to show the full range of emotions, happy, doubtful, scared, broken, vengeful.
Wynyard didn't have those. I didn't know her before this movie, but she probably couldn't have outacted Bergman if she had had them. I still liked her performance a lot, though, especially at the end when she's taunting her husband until he loses control completely.

The Nancys. I would have loved to see even more of Lansbury. Her Nancy was truly unlikable in the way she seemed to look down on her mistress throughout, but actually it felt to me as if she mostly saw this a chance to better her station in life without giving a thought to what that would mean for Paula. A naive hope because we know she could only have been a little affair for Gregory, but that naiveté went well with her being so young (17 when filming began).
Cathleen Cordell was good at being flirty and seductive, but it felt more superficial to me than Lansbury. Somehow I felt Cordell's Nancy had more experience.
Christine Maybach was okay, but didn't offer as much as the other two.

I think Joseph Cotten is a bit young for the role. They had to make him Alice's child admirer from years ago to give him a reason for being interested in this cold case. That was probably necessary to hint at a love story.
Rough, the ex-cop in the other two adaptations, makes more sense to me - this is an open case that has been haunting him for years before he recognizes the murderer and prevents another crime.
What I liked better, however, was how Cameron could make Paula trust him by presenting the second glove that Alice had given to him as a child. Rough is gaining trust mostly through his age and by being kind of fatherly. I don't know that a woman who is already frightened out of her mind would so readily listen to a complete stranger.

One question - what was the purpose of having Dame May Whitty as the nosy neighbor in the 1944 movie? Just so she could tell Cameron about the house? Or for comic relief?

***

Would you believe that MGM actually attempted to gaslight the audience when they did their remake? MGM bought the rights to the play, but insisted on all prints of the British film, which hadn't reached the US market yet, to be destroyed in order to wipe out possible competition. The film's director, Thorold Dickinson, had the foresight to make a personal copy.
I don't know what kind of competition it would have been at the time the 1944 movie came out.
They had the stars and they had the money for some glamour. Just compare the sets, oh, and the clothes. Bergman's dresses were absolutely gorgeous and I loved the way they did her hair.
Well, and the German version, being a television play, was the simplest one regarding both sets and costumes (but the waffles with the tea looked pretty 😉).

All three adaptations were quite different in several points, but you know what? I really enjoyed all of them.
Nevertheless, I do have a favorite and much to my own surprise, it's the 1940 film. I'm actually fine with it not having a long backstory. Maybe I'm getting more impatient with some things, but I enjoyed that the film was shorter, didn't have as many embellishments, seemed tighter. Yeah, and you might have noticed that I prefer Paul to Gregory - if you can say "prefer" in case of a villain at all.
Possibly I just like Walbrook better than Boyer (I liked him in "The Red Shoes" as well and hope to find access to other movies with him).

It would have been fun to find the other adaptations as well, the German ones and an Australian one, and maybe it would be interesting to watch the play on stage. I'll have to check that out.

Kudos to you if you have made it till here and thank you!
Have you seen "Gaslight", either version, and what do you think?


Sources:

1. Amanda L. Chase Avera: Gaslighting: What Is It And How Do We Fight Back? On: Middle Georgia State University - News, April 17, 2023
2. Gideon Haigh: GASLIGHT-ing: An Inquiry. On: Cricket et al, May 22, 2024