Most predictable movie ever? - Gaslight (1944) Discussion

[–] BwlBoy 18 years ago

Absolute tosh! How on earth could this be more predictable than a remake when you know exactly what is coming? Take Gus Van Sant's Psycho - carbon copy of Hitchcock's original. Peter Jackson's King Kong. WOW! Kong got shot to his death from the top of the Empire States Building. I didn't see that coming!

reply

[–] skiop 15 years ago

There's a difference between knowing what will happen and being able to predict what will happen.

reply

[–] venusnaturalis 18 years ago

Titanic...JFK...

reply

[–] cengelm 18 years ago

Only if you know about the original events.

I always thought that the Titanic would be saved.

reply

[–] Harold_Robbins 17 years ago

Historical Perspective, folks - Of course GASLIGHT seems predictable at this point in time - it's influenced several generations of thrillers by now and been widely imitated. But theater- and movie-goers of the early 1940s obviously didn't find it predictable at all, as it was hugely successful and remains one of the screen's definitive suspense thrillers.

"I don't use a pen: I write with a goose quill dipped in venom!"---W. Lydecker

reply

[–] J. Spurlin 17 years ago

I just watched the 1940 and the 1944 "Gaslight" films back to back. It's interesting that the earlier movie tells you right away that the husband is tricking his wife. The Ingrid Bergman version tries to conceal the information until late in the film.

... J. Spurlin

reply

[–] skiop 15 years ago

The Ingrid Bergman version tries to conceal the information until late in the film.

Very poorly.

reply

[–] J. Spurlin 15 years ago

I was just telling someone via PM that I generally prefer films that let us in the audience know more than the characters. Movies that try to surprise us with twists, especially about the motives of the characters, often fail. There are plenty of exceptions - Witness for the Prosecution, Psycho, The Sixth Sense. But generally it's better to tell us as much as possible. Hitchcock made the right move, for instance, when he deliberately avoided a twist ending in Vertigo.

...Justin Glory be, Delbert, you should eat! You're a count, for God's sake!

reply

[–] hoggy_warty_hogwarts 15 years ago

That's pretty much exactly what I was going to say, J.Spurlin.

Most of my favourite movies are, in fact, very predictable, but that's irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. What's relevant is the degree to which I'm engaged by the characters and the atmosphere of the movie. In Gaslight, I was engaged from first frame to last, so even though I realized early on what Charles Boyer was up to, it really didn't matter. I actually don't think George Cukor cared that much whether or not audiences realized what was going on early in the film, he cared about structuring Bergman's slow breakdown such that the ending of the movie had the right impact. Needless to say, he succeeded.

(Eric Clapton on Jimi Hendrix) "He just plays blues things and he freaks out occasionally."

reply

[–] rooprect 15 years ago

I don't think Cukor was trying to fool anyone; both versions (1940 & 1944) expect us to know immediately that the husband is the crook. The only difference is that the 1944 version is more subtle. You have to key in on his explosive temper, his cunning two-facedness, etc. I like that, where the audience has to work a little to figure out who's who.

The difference is that Cukor (1944) takes the wife's perspective whereas the original (1940) takes more of an omniscient perspective or perhaps even the husband's perspective. Cukor is widely known as the "woman's director" because he had a flair for making the audience associate with the leading lady, which he pulled off brilliantly in this production.

I think the OP was way off about "predictability". We're supposed to know what he thinks he cleverly predicted. Duh, that's like me saying The Passion of the Christ was sooooo predictable. He dies in the end!

reply

[–] mywatercolorromance 15 years ago

I agree with the above poster. It was predictable because it was supposed to be. The audience was supposed to guess what was going on from the beginning.

Nothing makes one so vain as being told they're a sinner

reply

[–] franzkabuki 12 years ago

I thought it was blatantly obvious that the dude was up to no good from the moment they set foot in that damn house. It never even occurred to me that the filmmaker´s intention was to conceal his true nature.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] MrAwersome 15 years ago

The Ingrid Bergman version tries to conceal the information until late in the film- very poorly? So you're saying the director was attempting to convey a certain perspective, and then, through some fluke of nature, he fails to see that his countless hours of film editing and sequencing have added up to the exact opposite of what his intentions were? Sounds like the worst filmmaker in the history of hollywood. Like someone saying "i'm going to make 'The Godfather'" and then after editing the film winds up with "Jurassic Park". "What are these dinosaurs doing in my mafia picture?!? This is the exact opposite of what I was going for!"

I guess what I'm saying is, everything you saw on the screen is exactly what the filmmakers intended you to see.

reply

[–] Eumenides_0 15 years ago

This movie uses a storytelling device called 'dramatic irony', which involves the viewer knowing more than one single character. Hitchcock used this device abundantly in his career, and yet he has never been accused of being predictable.

In fact I'd argue that one of the things that creates suspense is exactly the viewer knowing more than the characters; a character you love is secretly being tormented by her husband; you're on the edge of your seat waiting, hoping to see her triumph against him. Will she? Won't she? That's what you care about.

It's completely different from a mystery, which involves hiding information from the viewer. I think dramatic irony allows one to grow closer to the characters.

This world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel.

reply

[–] fanaticita 15 years ago

I loved it!!! I agree with Eumenides, all I cared about was would she triumph against her husband, and yes she did, and probably got Joseph Cotten (his character) too.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] screen14 15 years ago

The suspense of Gaslight is knowing what we know and remaining anxious to see how the pieces will fall apart for one character and come together for another. It's about the journey, not the facts themselves.

reply

[–] arman0612 14 years ago

It definitely doesn't focus in being unpredictable, it focuses on all the terrible things Gregory does and the effect it has on Paula and how his plan unfolds. It completely succeeds at being suspenseful because you don't know how it's all going to end, who's going to survive or what's really happening or going to happen. It's a perfect film with one of the best casts ever. 10/10.

reply

[–] lizcarlo87 12 years ago

I liked the journey of this movie. Movies don’t always have to have twist to be good.

reply