![]() His charismatic and romantic presence becoming the only light in her life and she allows herself to be consumed by it.Īt first, Bergman plays Paula like a lost girl, highly impressionable and prone to long bouts of melancholy. Restless and frustrated with where her life is going, an older man is a welcome escape. Instead of forging her own path and trying to truly find herself, she has been trying to emulate her aunt with a middling singing career. She’s been alone since the death of her aunt at the beginning the film, and has no parental figure to guide her. A young woman has fallen in love with an older man and he wants to marry her after only two weeks. Ingrid Bergman is key to that.īy the 20-minute mark of Gaslight, the plot becomes obvious. The film took me on an emotional rollercoaster, unlike any thriller I had seen before. Instead I focused all my note taking on how every individual scene made me feel. I didn’t write down basic information like names and locations. When I did, a flow of observations descended from my fingertips. I was forced to pause the film entirely to take notes. At times when I wanted to look down and jot a note, I found that Bergman’s gaze wouldn’t let me. You can’t simply watch Gaslight, it controls your viewing experience entirely. ![]() Throughout the film, she has complete control of your eyes. 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.In 1944’s Gaslight, Ingrid Bergman fills the screen entirely. Robert Newton is a strong presence in an early role, and Cathleen Cordell is a hoot as Nancy. 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). 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). 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. Performances are great here and hardly inferior to those in the later film, despite being less familiar. 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. The script is thought-provoking and tense, everything feels relevant to what's going on and nothing seemed padded. It's intelligently and suspensefully directed by then-famous-and-well-regarded, now-almost-forgotten (undeservedly) Thorald Dickinson. 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. However, while not as glossy as the later film 'Gaslight' (1940) regardless is incredibly well-made. 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. Like the 1944 film (the only real drawback to that film was the uneven performance of Joseph Cotton), there is very little wrong here. ![]() 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. 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. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |