There will be a remake of this, to be directed by the director of Pride and Prejudice, Joe Wright. Hollywood is officially out of ideas.
Which begs the question, who is the Ingrid Bergman of today?
Anyone?
*crickets*
---The only way I'll bore you is with a knife---
Which begs the question, who is the Ingrid Bergman of today?
I wouldn't know but it would be an ideal project for Rachel McAdams.
My post suggesting Isabella Rossellini never got posted (story of my life)!
You trumped my ace!
No comment but don't quote me!
I know Rachel looks nothing like Ingrid but I think she could handle the part. Was Rachel your second choice?
shareI didn't have a second choice, wasn't even sure about Isabella being as big a star or right for the role. Rachel is as right as anyone, purely on acting ability. I am not sure a remake is a good idea though. It is a little dated.
No comment but don't quote me!
Ingrid was 29 at the time this film was made.
Wouldn't it work at all now? It's been ages since I last saw it.
Yes. I haven't seen it for ages and not that often either, not sure at all how it would work. Was very melodramatic as I remember it.
No comment but don't quote me!
Yeah, I caught it on Turner Classics a while ago, and I'm not sure today's audiences would buy it. It might seem quaint. The script is being written by Abi Morgan, who is apparently a British TV writer. Not sure if that bodes well or ill.
---The only way I'll bore you is with a knife---
I quite like quaint. But I'm just one person.
Abi Morgan: Continually pushes the envelope; her Splendour was Lyn Gardner's 'most baffling, beautiful play of the 2000 Edinburgh Fringe'.
Yeah, they might need to sell tickets to more than just the three of us.
So she's a playwright? And an edgy one at that. Could be interesting after all.
So Mary had figured out the gender - thanks I was confused there.
---The only way I'll bore you is with a knife---
"Splendour by Abi Morgan
Originally commissioned by Granada Television's AWARD and presented in a association with the Peter Wolff Theatre Trust.
Directed by Vicky Featherstone
Winner of a Fringe First and Herald Angel Award, Edinburgh Festival.
Her husband's done a runner. She must keep them talking. Anything. "Toy Story 2, Prada handbags, Chilli vodka". But as the bottle runs dry, she seizes her moment; the ultimate retribution - to avenge herself on her country and husband, to take her place in history. The dictator's wife is ready to greet her press."
With wit and a characteristic delight in the strange, Abi Morgan's writing brilliantly encompasses both the cruel veneer of our lives and the beating heart within. Splendour - because women will talk.
"Abi Morgan has elaborated a play of remarkable intensity and richness; splendour gleams with ice-cool wit, glistens with the sweat of animal fear."
Time Out Aug 2000
She. We must have posted almost together. Was nominated for an Olivier for a stage play so must be good.
I had a yen for some spaghetti but when I got to the cupboard I saw this tin of baked beans and shook in several drops of Worcestershire Sauce and ate them cold out the tin. Not that 5.30am is a funny time to eat or anything. S'pose it was breakfast, was about 12hours since I had eaten much, apart from a bowl of cereal when I came online. No, that was supper not breakfast.
No comment but don't quote me!
I was just reading the thread and you posted that Ingrid was 29 just before I did. It must've looked a bit odd but I didn't realise.
Cold baked beans. Ewwwwww! Cereal for supper?? Not food talk again. And bad food talk at that.
Having a bowl of cereal for supper is very popular here. Nutritious and easily digested. You waste a lot of the vitamins when you have cereal for breakfast, the body doesn't absorb much when you first wake up. Not bad food at all, Crunchy Nut Red is better than manna!
No comment but don't quote me!
How did food get into this, yet again? And you say I have a one-track mind?
Okay, now I'm really going to bed before I get tempted into a midnight snack!
---The only way I'll bore you is with a knife---
I only have a one-track mind when I'm hungry!
No comment but don't quote me!
Where have you gone? Was it the baked beans?
share
No, it went quiet so I had a game of Mahjong and am having to replay it as it is a tricky one. I've got a track record of ninety eight per cent on one layout that has only a one in ten chance of coming out!
No comment but don't quote me!
So you play it the same way 98 times out of 100. I see!
shareThere were two versions! I am remembering bits of both! No wonder my memory is confused!
No comment but don't quote me!
I suppose Isabella Rossellini would be the closest thing we've got to an Ingrid Bergman of today - literally. But I think she might be too old for this part.
Then again, Rachel McAdams seems too young. Of course, all stars today seem "too young" compared to the classic stars, if that makes any sense. The stars back then just seemed more womanly and mature, whatever their age.
---The only way I'll bore you is with a knife---
How old is the woman supposed to be? I guess a rewrite could also change that. Wouldn't a near 30 year old be okay?
The stars back then just seemed more womanly and mature, whatever their age.
Isn't that because they had curves.
And they played more intelligent, mature, sophisticated and adult people. No youth cult then or dumbing down. Curves are healthier and look better though.
No comment but don't quote me!
And they played more intelligent, mature, sophisticated and adult people.
I miss that in a lot of films of today. How old was Ingrid when she played this role? I'll do a bit of IMDb research.
Twenty nine! Guess Rachel is near enough! Just that she has played so many youngsters. Not that it is a bad idea to age slowly in films.
No comment but don't quote me!
Yes, that's it. Ingrid Bergman at 29 somehow seems older than Julia Roberts does at 36 - due in part to the roles that were written for women back then. These days we have people like Meg Ryan acting like silly 16-yr-olds well into their 30s. I sound like my grandmother but it's true. "Kids today!" *grumble grumble*
---The only way I'll bore you is with a knife---
Know what you mean though. Very few films seem to have any grown-ups in them.
No comment but don't quote me!
Honestly i think Isabella would have been the only one because she sounds and looked exactly like her mother. But i can't see anyone playing this role. I hope i don't live to see them make a direct remake of this film because Ingrid was so good. The end scene the "Because I'm Mad" scene is so genious that im in love with the film because of that scene.
"the crunch means it's working"
CT, excellent suggestion. Rachel IS the Ingrid Bergman of today. Ingrid has more presence (she was a lot bigger). Rachel has more range (she's a lot funnier). But both are equally luminous, have an endless supply of tears, and are absolutely riveting on screen.
shareAlrighty then, now we just need to cast the Charles Boyer and Joseph Cotten roles, and we'll be set. No matter that the script hasn't been written yet. I'll have to rent this one to refresh my memory about their characters.
---The only way I'll bore you is with a knife---
Alas, there's no way they'll cast Rachel. It'll be Kate Winslet, Ralph Fiennes, and the guy who played Darcy in the director's version of P & P.
Get ready for some truly noxious gas fumes and a boat load of OTT Victorian sexual repression.
I take it you didn't like this guy's version of P & P? I haven't seen it, so I can't say. After reading about the scriptwriter though, I am a little more optimistic - she's apparently a well-reviewed playwright. Let's see how much the Hollywood process corrupts her.
Ralph Fiennes is fine with me. Not sure about the other guy.
---The only way I'll bore you is with a knife---
"I take it you didn't like this guy's version of P & P?"
It isn't that I didn't like it. It's just that in order to adapt a dated period piece that a large enough audience will pay money to see, it has to have some relevance to the present day -- even if it's just making a big deal over the fact that in "those" days they used to risk their lives every time they "turned on the light," or in "those" days guys didn't enjoy having sex with their wives only with prostitutes, and couples didn't marry for love, they married for "the insurance money," etc.
Right. Often, making concessions to modern attitudes in order to make a period movie more palatable to the ticket-buying public just ends up making it flat and dull, rather than relevant. I could list many movies where this is the case, I'm sure you could too. (Vanity Fair,e.g. Not *terrible*, but...) Of course, making concessions to a mass audience, pandering, whatever you want to call it, usually results in crap, period movie or no.
---The only way I'll bore you is with a knife---
Actually, I thought "Vanity Fair" WAS crap. And, as my online buddies CT and Mary know, I also thought that "TEOR" was even worse crap -- both for the pandering reason. "P&P" doesn't fall into that category, even though it played fast and loose with the period.
shareTotally agree with you about "TEOR". Not only crap, but embarrassing crap, to all parties involved, particularly the audience. It almost made me embarrassed to ever have been a fan of the first one. I didn't hate Vanity Fair as much - I didn't find it personally insulting, just dull, dull, dullsville. I may have even dozed off at one point.
---The only way I'll bore you is with a knife---
"Totally agree with you about "TEOR". Not only crap, but embarrassing crap, to all parties involved, particularly the audience."
YES! It was an insult. Particularly as the actors all went on and on about how "the script had to be right" or they wouldn't do a sequel, when in the end, it was about pandering to an audience of fat, slovenly women in return for a nice fat paycheck.
"It almost made me embarrassed to ever have been a fan of the first one."
Not I.
Well, I said "almost". It was funny, I happened to catch BJD on TV right after seeing TEOR, and I breathed a huge sigh of relief -like "Whew! I wasn't crazy to have liked this movie, it really is good."
Particularly as the actors went on and on about how "the script had to be right"...
Exactly. They held out for this? Renee gained, and then even more difficult, had to lose all that weight for this? Ooooookay.
---The only way I'll bore you is with a knife---
"Totally agree with you about "TEOR". Not only crap, but embarrassing crap, to all parties involved, particularly the audience."
I agree that parts of the film were embarrasing crap, but not all. The deleted scenes were much better than what they left in. You can't blame the actors for that. I blame the director and some of her family who she said she relied on to gauge what scenes were funny. Blimey!
I thought you might approve at least of the casting as I know that you aren't keen on remakes. Depending on how it is written, they could use the she's a lot funnier (wittier), as part of the rewrite.
share"Depending on how it is written, they could use the she's a lot funnier (wittier), as part of the rewrite. "
The Ingrid Bergman character?
"The Ingrid Bergman character?"
That's the only version of Gaslight I've seen and it was quite a long time ago. I guess I should see if it's available on DVD to refresh my memory. Am I out of line saying that? Was her character already very witty?
No, she was young, naive, trusting, kinda bubbly, and madly in love with her new husband, who was about fifteen years older and treated her like a child.
Oh. In that case it would have to be Kate and Tom then.
Perhaps the writer can change it a bit to give the female character depth.
"Perhaps the writer can change it a bit to give the female character depth. "
The writer would have to change Victorian society in order to do that. But, hey, why not? It's only social history. Give the girl an "arc." Starts out like Ibsen's "A Doll's House," ends up like "Red Eye." I LIKE IT!
Women in Victorian society didn't have depth? Portrayals of Victorian women might not show them as having depth, but I'm sure they were complex individuals - they just weren't allowed to express it. (See Virginia Woolf and Kate Chopin.) A good actress would be able to convey the depth and complexities of the character's emotions and intellect without saying much at all.
---The only way I'll bore you is with a knife---
"Portrayals of Victorian women might not show them as having depth, but I'm sure they were complex individuals - they just weren't allowed to express it. A good actress would be able to convey the depth and complexities of the character's emotions and intellect without saying much at all. "
Women like Virginia Woolf were regarded as renegades -- intellectuals wanting sexual freedom and the right to vote! Can you see a woman like her marrying the Charles Boyer character? Even if she's just portrayed as one of the clever, complex mainstream Victorian ladies who thought about but kept silent about women's rights, if the "good actress" conveys the things you're saying that she should be conveying (even just in reaction shots), there's no movie.
For the thing to work, it's vital that she be a total innocent (beautiful, charming, lovable) and not too bright for most of the movie.
There's just so much you can change in the original before it becomes a "why bother" situation. Indeed, why bother? "Gaslight" is certainly no "P & P" in the eyes of the world -- no built-in audience of Jane Austen or Mr. D. fans. I can virtually guarantee that no one in America is going to see it unless there are teen favorites playing the leads. And frankly, unless by some miracle RMcA is cast, I wouldn't even rent it.
Women like Virginia Woolf were regarded as renegades - intellectuals wanting sexual freedom and the right to vote! Can you see a woman like her marrying the Charles Boyer?
No, I can't. I only cited Virginia Woolf and Kate Chopin as examples of Victorian women who - by virtue of being renegades and intellectuals - were expressing ideas that many Victorian women felt but weren't allowed to express.
Perhaps they could show her in intense internal conflict between her own thoughts and her society-dictated loyalty/submission to her husband. You're right though; make it too internal and there's no movie.
For me, the "why bother" situation is when they don't change it enough. If you're just going make the same movie over again, it's redundant and pointless. I can't really see right now how they will change it enough to make it meaningful, but not too much that it's completely unrecognizable. I'm willing to wait and see though. Although "why bother?" is what I usually say to most remakes.
---The only way I'll bore you is with a knife---
The only thing they can really do to "update" it is to make it way more scary.
shareIt's rather melodramatic! I suppose you could make her witty at the beginning and the end to emphasise the angst in the middle but it would slightly change the nature of the piece. Would modernise it more than somewnat I would think.
No comment but don't quote me!
Modernise it! Perhaps the male could be a scientologist and she develops a "brain" and breaks free of the scary cult.
shareHe's after her money not her soul! Come to think of it, it's not really all that scary compared to real life!
No comment but don't quote me!
She starts out as a bubby happy very rich girl, marries older cult weirdo not well off but who has delusions of grandeur, she turns into zombie like stepford wife, then something amazing happens and she starts to question his values, it all gets quite nasty, she remembers who she was (and could be) and breaks free...
shareThe only reason to remake an old movie is if you're going to drastically change it - if you're just going to make the same thing all over again, what's the point? This could use a bit of updating, it's definitely dated. As long as they modernize it by making the female character a little more believable, without making it too anachronistic. We'll see what this writer can do; it could be an intense psychological thriller if done right, I suppose. I wish Hollywood would put a little more faith in original work though.
As far as the Tom and Katie angle - careful you don't get sued! Tom, er, the male lead, could convince the girl she's so covered with thetans she's incabable of thinking for herself, and while Katie, I mean the female lead, is locked up in auditing sessions, Tom could destroy her career and reputation!
Oh wait. That already happened. Oops.
---The only way I'll bore you is with a knife---
Cienna~I wouldn't know but it would be an ideal project for Rachel McAdams.
*frantically reaching for barf bag* Rachel McAdams?? That girl couldn't act her way out of a wet paper bag. She's cute, but has the acting chops OF a wet paper bag. That would instantly ensure that this film would be a miserable and abject failure.
Hmmm, it will be set in California...interesting...in modern times?
---The only way I'll bore you is with a knife---
Is that so? How can it be called Gaslight? Given the power shortages perhaps the title "Blackout" would be more appropriate.
shareLOL - Yeah, "Halogen Light", "Fluorescent Light" "40-watt Bulb" - none of them have the quite the same ring to them, do they? Maybe "20-watt"? Very dim, nice and film noirish.
Actually I was speculating on the modern times part, but according to IMDb News, it will be set in California.
---The only way I'll bore you is with a knife---
Set in California but written by an English woman. This could be different.
shareYeah, I started this thread with a certain degree of cynicism -(Another remake? Of a classic film?) - but now I am definitely keeping an open mind about this.
---The only way I'll bore you is with a knife---
Depending on who they cast, it could be worth seeing.
shareI thought you all had decided on Rachel McAdams.
---The only way I'll bore you is with a knife---
They may not have our wisdom.
No comment but don't quote me!
Yeah. I wonder if she'd be interested? Now that it's set in North America, she may have half a chance.
shareShe wouldn't have an accent to worry about - still don't know if she'll need to worry about squeezing into a corset. California at that time was more Wild West than proper Victorian.
---The only way I'll bore you is with a knife---
Would mean the woman would be feistier and less repressed. That would modernise the story, but probably make it more physical and less psychological. Though I suppose even a feisty woman could fear for her sanity if she was tricked.
No comment but don't quote me!
Talk about coincidence! Angela Lansbury was in the 1944 version of Gaslight! Wonder if they'll give her a part in this one.
No comment but don't quote me!
Angela also a Libran, which I've just realised.
Yes, give her a part. She could be Miss Bessie Thwaites.
Just remembered. Don't look out for your Christmas card etc yet, SB was looking up whether you can send Chocolate to OZ and then he got ill so not posted yet. Wish I'd just let Karen post all the cards when she found them! The others will get a shock when they get them, I forgot to tell them what happened!
No comment but don't quote me!
Blimey! I was expecting the card any day. No need to send chocolate here, we've got plenty.
shareIt's Bush Tucker. Milk Chocolate spiders and other bugs like on the TV show. Seemed funny at the time I ordered it but I wish I had got you a toy corgi in guardsman's helmet or something now. Or finished making the Jemima Puddleduck fridge magnet!
No comment but don't quote me!
Yeah! She can take the Dame May Whitty part!
sharea remake of a remake? i think that it would be interesting if issabella did play the part since ingred is her mom.
shareAs much as I admire the 1944 Cukor version (I adore Ingrid Bergman, and this film was the closest anybody EVER came to Hitchcock without actually being Hitchcock), I think that Joe Wright could pull it off--Pride and Prejudice was his debut film, but it was handled with such prestige and eye for camera work, music and performances (granted, there are a few cliched shots of the stars, but you can tell from his audio commentary that he learned from his mistakes), you'd think he'd been doing this his whole life.
However, I think that Rachel McAdams is highly overrated, and I'm sick of seeing her name on every friggin' board that calls for a female character. Granted, she's been good in the thin roles she's been given, but 1) she hasn't been given a meaty role yet to really prove herself and 2)I've never really seen a huge sense of maturity in her roles; her characters always seem to be young and fresh. Besides, she's not British. Then again, neither was Ingrid Bergman, but she was European, which is good enough for me.
Why not Kate Winslet, an actress of higher prestige than Rachel. She's British, she's a brilliant actress who isn't afraid to let herself go deep into a role, and we can all safely say that she's established herself as an heir to Meryl Streep's throne.
However, with Joe Wright directing, he'll probably choose Keira Knightley or Rosamund Pike for the role--he's worked with both before in Pride and Prejudice.
Did he train you? Did he rehearse you? Did he tell you exactly what to do, what to say?!
" (I adore Ingrid Bergman, and this film was the closest anybody EVER came to Hitchcock without actually being Hitchcock),"
Have you never seen "Charade"?
Along with Gaslight, another one of my all time top ten films.
I've seen Charade and I agree that it's close to the bubbly Hitchcock, but Gaslight never gets mentioned, and it's closer to the dark Hitch--Ingrid Bergman, Joseph Cotten, British humor, a train scene, slow-burning tension--even the part where Boyer snatches the letter from Bergman is very similar to a scene from Shadow of a Doubt where Cotten grabs a newspaper clipping from Teresa Wright for fear that he'll be discovered.
But both are great films.
Did he train you? Did he rehearse you? Did he tell you *exactly* what to do, what to say?!
message to TheCanary -- even the 1944 version was a remake... The original (?) was made in Great Britain in 1940.... just proving there's nothing new under the sun... even the 39 version of Wizard of Oz was a remake...
shareomgggg nooo not a remake they will ruin it noo!!!!
and wtf no rachel mcadams! i love her, great actress but not cut for this and plus she seems to young for it
What will they ruin? This movie? How can a remake of this film ruin this movie? BTW, this movie happens to be a remake.
~~
JimHutton (1934-79) & ElleryQueen