![]() or am I overreacting? I think there must have been some strong reaction toward that novelty of a plot where a person drove another one insane through mental manipulation to the point that "gas light" became part of common language. After the first fifteen minutes, just when I thought I could stand it, I realized that any horror movie would have been more supportable. Indeed, enduring the psychological torture he applied to his love-seeking wife Paula, played by an emotionally versatile Ingrid Bergman, was such an infuriating experience that I left almost one decade between the first and the second viewing, and I literally tiptoed to the DVD to force myself to refresh my memory. I don't think I've been as distraught and upset by a villain as I was by the manipulative expert Gregory Anton in George Cukor's "Gaslight", the most famous and best adaptation of Patrick Hamilton's play. They say a film is as good as the villain, but sometimes, the villain might be too good for the film's own good. The real movie is in the acting, the characters in their personal wringings out, and in how beautifully it is done. It just undermines the whole premise of a man resolutely devoting his whole devious, murderous life to this one goal. The man's obsession with gems is fair enough, but when we finally get to the attic, after many months of him being there searching for them, it's as if he's up there for the first time, opening drawers with cobwebs on them, scattering through drawers like a thief with five minutes and no more. The plot, alas, is the one weakness here. And the cop, too, is a classic bobby, handsome and cooperative. Yes, the two maids are perfect, including a sassy Angela Lansbury in her first movie role. It's quite an involving experience, and because you are limited to mostly these two characters, you get very intimate with them. Most of the film occurs in an old, lavishly decorated house, and the lights and camera-work are dreamy, dripping in rim light and shadow, in odd angles and closeups of their faces. The movie is really about their back and forth, with Joseph Cotten making his appearance as a necessary line of safety and hope because we can't stand to see the woman go down without a fight. Boyer is more nuance, and is a perfect match. ![]() Cukor gets the most of her excesses, and her nuances. The wife is played with usual high stakes perfection by Ingrid Bergman (between her stunning roles in Casablanca and Spellbound). So we have Charles Boyer, smarmy, deceptive, and ultimately evil, leading his new wife down a path of mental anguish and, he hopes, madness. ![]() As with great Hitchcock, you have a sense of where you going, and you want to stop it. You might find the plot too linear, to predictable overall, to be blown away, but in fact that's partly why the suspense works. Psychological suspense was never more focused, and less distracted, than you'll find in Gaslight however. Gaslight (1944) This is an uncharacteristic film for George Cukor, slipping sideways into Hitchcock turf for this period.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |