Review: Gaslight

Ingrid Bergman marries pianist Charles Boyer and they move into the London home formerly occupied by her Aunt, who was murdered several years ago. Things seem to be going well until Bergman starts to slowly lose her mind...but is someone giving her a helping hand? Angela Lansbury (in perhaps a forerunner to her role in “Kind Lady” 6 years later) plays the couple’s young, floozy maid, who has little sympathy for the lady of the house. Joseph Cotten plays a Scotland Yard policeman (about as British as Col. Freakin’ Sanders!), who suspects something is not quite right with the couple, whilst Dame May Whitty plays a nosy but friendly neighbour called Bessie.

 

The basic plot might’ve become a staple of TV movies in recent years (not to mention I’d wager author V.C. Andrews is a fan), and some would argue that the 1940 film version is the better one, but this 1944 George Cukor (“Little Women”, “The Women”, “The Philadelphia Story”, “Adam’s Rib”) psychodrama is still a rock-solid display of slow character transformation. Adapted from a Patrick Hamilton (“Rope”) play, the film might be almost 70 years old, but it’s still hard not to feel disgusted by what is being done to Ingrid Bergman here. Some have said the shine has worn off the film, but I found it an uncomfortable, unsettling experience watching it all play out. I mean, it’s truly evil what is going on here.

 

Charles Boyer is absolutely sensational as the husband, perfect casting right there. The man could be charming or downright evil at the flick of a switch. With his arched eyebrows and cold, dead eyes, I’m surprised Hitchcock never worked with Boyer. It might seem trivial, but Boyer is such a beacon of calm throughout the film that when he finally raises his voice, it’s quite startling.

 

The other scene-stealer in this is a young Angela Lansbury, in her startling debut. Seeing the depth and range of this actress from her early roles, through “The Manchurian Candidate”, and her later and popular TV success on “Murder She Wrote”, is remarkable. She instantly steals her scenes with a wonderfully snotty performance. Her character is actually quite shocking for the time. I mean, Oscar-nominated screenwriters John Van Druten (“Gone With the Wind”), Walter Reisch (“Niagara”, “Journey to the Centre of the Earth”), and John L. Balderston (“Dracula”, “Frankenstein”, “Gone With the Wind”) can’t really say it in so many words, but you’d swear that Lansbury was playing the biggest tart of all-time here.

 

Ingrid Bergman won an Oscar for her sympathetic portrayal here. She looks so young and delicate, but by this point she had already made “Casablanca”, so she was hardly a newbie. I’m not going to suggest she didn’t deserve her Oscar win here, and indeed I’ve become quite a fan of hers over the years, but it’s just that Boyer and Lansbury (who both earned Oscar nominations) commanded my attention more. No doubt about it, though, her physical appearance becomes more sickly and confused as the film goes on, rather well-done. Her performance is actually deceptive because most actresses would camp up a storm in the role, but because Bergman doesn’t, she seems to be overshadowed by the showier Boyer and Lansbury. Yet, if she adopted some histrionics, it would look silly and out-of-place. So I actually appreciate her restraint.

 

Also worth mentioning is the great Dame May Witty as Blood-Thirsty Bessie, who despite the crude name is your typical chatty old lady of the period, the kind of role Witty plays perfectly. In fact, the only one who misses out here is a thoroughly wasted Joseph Cotten. One of the greatest and most underrated actors in my opinion, Cotten is above this secondary male lead role (originally written as a sardonic old man, which apparently wouldn’t appeal to young women in 1944) that honestly anyone in the vicinity of Fred MacMurray, Hugh Marlowe, Farley Granger or Van Johnson could’ve tackled adequately. This role just doesn’t give Cotten anything to work with, and by this time he had already worked with Hitchcock and Welles (the latter several times). Maybe if the role actually had more prominence in the film, as is he drops in and out far too much to make a great deal of impact.

 

I also found the conclusion to be a bit of a letdown in one aspect. These days, “American Pickers” would have this mystery solved in less than half an hour.

 

For me what actually holds this film back a bit is George Cukor’s restrained direction and lack of style. Outside of some wonderfully foggy exteriors at the outset and some jarringly effective camerawork by Joseph Ruttenberg (“Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde”, “Mrs. Miniver”, “Julius Caesar”) towards the end, there wasn’t much sense of style or atmosphere here. In terms of reining in performances, ‘woman’s director’ Cukor is perfectly capable. But if ever there was a story that could’ve benefited from a director more commonly associated with thrillers, chillers or even noir, I think it’s this one. Then again, Hitchcock’s “Suspicion” isn’t all that far removed from this, and despite Hitch’s talent, “Suspicion” was weak as piss. I guess it comes down to a matter of personal taste, if anything. Some will like Cukor’s more dramatic/character approach. The film does deserve praise, though, for the Bronislaw Kaper (“Lili”, “Song of Love”) music score, which is instantly memorable and foreboding.

 

I’m sure you would’ve seen a lot of these plot elements before and since, and the film could’ve used a touch more macabre atmosphere, but all in all this is pretty entertaining stuff, with at least three top performances. Boyer and Lansbury, in particular are incredible.

 

Rating: B-