MovieChat Forums > Gaslight (1952) Discussion > I wish I could compare fairly

I wish I could compare fairly

posted 16 years ago by bunnymen
18 replies | jump to latest

I saw the 1944 version on TCM recently (Netflix doesn't have it!) and chased tonight with 1940. I really enjoy comparing versions of films/stories, and usually I'll give each the benefit of the doubt (although in the case of Dangerous Liasons/Cruel Intentions there was obviously no contest).

At any rate, I really wish I could have seen a cleaner print of Gaslight 1940. I really enjoyed 1944, and I would love to know if it's just because I have a crush on Bergman or if it was truly a superior film. Certain plot elements became clearer upon viewing 1940, and I must grant that each has its own merit. I just wish they were on comparable levels aesthetically, so I could be more objective (I have the same problem with the Japanese and Korean versions of [The] Ring, FWIW - production values vs. plot elements).

[–] Foot_Freakin_Master 15 years ago

Yes. I have read things that say the earlier version had a more foreboding sense darkness and madness, that it was edgier, that the Hollywood version was glossier. That said. Bergman, Cotten, Boyer, great style. I am not sure which movie was really better. Maybe they each just have their place.

[–] peacham 15 years ago

the 1940 is far superior. closer to the original play. no changes in characters or romantic crap. the 1944 boyer/bergman film is an atrocity.

[–] ClassicMovieholic 12 years ago

Anyone else remember those good old days when "atrocity" was reserved for things like genocide.

[–] dmayo-911-597432 10 years ago

Yes, but then atrocious has such a long history of everyday use that it's probably futile to demand more respect for the noun. What troubles me more is that genocide is no longer reserved for genocide. Since that word means the (attempted) eradication of a whole people, of which there have been several cases in Europe and Africa during the past century or so, we should keep reminding each other that it's not a synonym for things like indiscriminate bombing. When people use genocide merely to maximize their rhetorical firepower in condemning some other terrible thing, their carelessness insults both the victims of genocide and the victims of the other thing.

All of which is off topic, I know. As for the topic: A film that gets four stars in Halliwell's Film Guide probably will not strike many people as downright atrocious. Of course, anyone may find it so, but "not my cup of tea" might be a better way of putting it. Then we still have atrocious in reserve for those films that spoil our very popcorn for us.

[–] ClassicMovieholic 9 years ago

lol, thanks.

I agree with you about genocide...I meant it in its true sense.

I have no particular respect for the noun atrocity as such, but I have enough respect for the film to think it doesn't deserve that label. I don't care whether anyone likes this movie or not. I still think that what Hitler did is an atrocity; a movie someone doesn't happen to like is just a movie they don't like. "Not my cup of tea" would indeed be more appropriate.

What I do object to is the overly dramatic. Hillary Swank is not my favorite actress, but I don't call her a serial killer.

[–] jdsuggs 8 years ago

dmayo-911-597432, your witty reply made my day. A tip of the ol' ball cap to you, sir or ma'am.

[–] Jerrers (50) 3 years ago

Thanks for bringing up Halliwell’s Film Guide. This version of Gaslight was (from memory) the favourite film of Leslie’s mother. Leslie himself always thought it far superior to the later film of the same name. Just to recall the bound-up Anton Walbrook in close up with his lank hair tumbling over his face and saying “Bella, give me ze hroooobies” brings back great memories. The BFI restored the film some years ago. It’s now available on BluRay and is a real treat. Leslie, who died in 1989 is much missed. I think he would have much enjoyed the restored version.

[–] vicky_lc2001-1 9 years ago

Lol. I guess I tend to use that word in the same context as the previous poster.

[–] WheezePuppet 15 years ago

I've seen both, and just have to say 1940 was better. I love Ingrid Bergman, and she was very good in the 1944 film, but overall the 1940 was stronger. One amazing thing about 1940 is that there's not a single member of the cast (all of which were superb, especially the villain and the ex-cop hero) who I have seen in anything else. Must have been great directing.

[–] peacham 13 years ago

Diana Wynyard was the leadi n the best picture winner 'cavalcade" and Anton Walbrook played the demanding director in 'the Red Shoes'.

[–] Tchoutoye 12 years ago

The 1940 version is a good film in its own right, Anton Walbrook certainly gives a great performance as the psychopathic cad. However, the 1944 version is one of those rare cases in which the remake improves on the original.

Bergman is splendidly cast, giving more depth to the central character through her superb use of body language, in the same way she improved on role of Ivy Pearson/Peterson in Victor Fleming's 1941 remake of Dr. Jekyll & Mr Hyde. (If only Spencer Tracy was equally convincing.) Compared to Bergman, Diana Wynyard's Gaslight performance, though not bad, comes off a bit flat.

The 1940 version is of its time, in the sense that it is theatrical. And fans of the play will no doubt find that a good thing. The 1944 version, on the other hand, is truly cinematic, and in some ways ahead of its time. It has a much more eerie atmosphere, thanks to its more elaborate use of fog and lighting, but most of all its "proto-psychedelic" sound design with it reversed music and sound effects. Its no wonder it inspired David Lynch.

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 12 years ago

I certainly don't know how U could say it is a better piece becuz it is not. Everyone is entitled to their own chunks of bloodied meat, but it is quite far inferior. Charley Boyer was miscast and so it goes...It may have inspired Lynch as U say, but I am so glad Bergman and Boyer were not in a 1940's version of "Blue Velvet".

Hoarse whispers are not suitable for a desert environment.

[–] GinaRenee 12 years ago

I don't think ANYONE wants to see that. :-) Different films, different eras, different kinds of actors. This isn't about "Blue Velvet," anyway, it's about "Gaslight."

And I find the 1944 version of "Gaslight" preferable. The 1940 version has a lot of fine qualities, and Wynyard isn't bad, but Walbrook is WAY over the top. He's simultaneously so slimy and so brutal, I can't buy any woman believing him or caring about him for a single second. Call the 1944 cast "Hollywood glossy" if you will, but I think they all brought a lot more nuance and plausibility to the proceedings.

Plus, with the 1944 version, you don't have to sit through that silly can-can. :-)

[–] activista 11 years ago

Yeah, but that's what makes the 1940 one worth watching, the film tended to be so damn stodgy and creaky at times, that I was actually glad to see at least one of the actors breaking out of it. Plus Walbrook's take on the evil creepy-a** husband is scarier in this version, because you really believe he would hurt his wife if he could. Looking at it from a 21st-century view,it's clear that the husband is definitely a potential abuser--he had all the classic signs--isolating her from anyone who didn't browbeat her like he did, and messing with her psychologically every chance he got---to him, she was just some weak little creature he could manipulate. The sad part is, in reality some women in that era would have put up with a *beep* husband because society said they were supposed to, which made Bella's situation even more messed up.

But, I have to admit, the remake was better, and the original was too stage-bound at times, but they both have their merits. The policeman was a fun and funny character though.

[–] gottfrid 9 years ago

I know Bergman was oscarized for her performance, but for my taste she was specifically what I disliked of the newer version. Too artificial I would say.

Apart from that I like them both equally.

"It doesnt matter what Bram Stoker has told you... dead people don't come back from their graves"

[–] josephbrando 9 years ago

Even with if one were to watch the 1940 version on a copy of a copy of a VHS tape and compare it to the Bluray of the 1944 version -- the 1940 version would shine through all the fuzz, scratches, and debris as the vastly superior one. Hollywood lamed it up!

[–] greenbudgie 8 years ago

The latest British Film Institute DVD release of this film isn't too bad for picture quality. Just a couple of dead-end cuts which spoils the editing a bit.

[–] alaninho 8 years ago

I've seen the BFI Blu-Ray of this one and it's a decent print. I definitely would like to see the remake, sometimes the Hollywood remakes are 'easier to watch'. Saying that, I think Walbrook is a massively underrated actor.