This film is good. It’s a 1944 classic movie with disturbing overtones of modern society. Ingrid Bergman is quality as the paranoid induced woman while her psychotic husband Charles Boyer is chilling. Angela Lansbury makes her debut in movies as the 17-year-old housemaid with a surprisingly accurate London accent. The slow decline into delusion is well staged and the foggy London roads create a smarmy atmosphere. Lots of the sets are very claustrophobic with deliberately too much furniture and the gaslight flickering is a great monument to suspense and fear. It’s a gold-plated black-and-white classic.
Don't watch TOWIE, rent this instead.
Patrick Hamilton's gothic play gave the English language a new verb, which makes it particularly relevant for our times. It's a film about domestic abuse, shaped into historical drama and noirish thriller. A manipulative and ominous Victorian gentleman (Charles Boyer) means to use his psychological dominance over his timid new wife (Ingrid Bergman) to drive her insane.
Boyer wants the jewels he knows are hidden in her house and Bergman's mental frailty will allow him to deliver her to an asylum and keep the loot. He uses the building itself as an instrument of duress. Some of the audience might be wondering if it's him who is crazy, so extraordinarily beautiful is the female star.
Ingrid got an Oscar for her suffering. It's a vivid and expressive performance. But there's something amiss in the chemistry between her and Boyer and the film only comes to life when Joseph Cotten appears as the conscientious detective who works to save her. Maybe it's too difficult to watch a vulnerable woman be tormented at such length. And Boyer is so patronising.
George Cukor was a great director, but not of suspense films. The 1940 UK adaptation has a meagre budget but is more exciting. Still, Gaslight is a handsome production with beautiful set décor and an unforgettable film debut for the 17 year old Angela Lansbury as a rather mercenary maid. Plus the luminous star power of the exquisite Ingrid Bergman.
I found it hard to warm to. Charles Boyer seemed to me rather too remote a figure at the start to cause the attachment between him and Ingrid Bergman's character, and some of the underlying premise is not believable. There must be many simpler ways to get at the jewels (or at least try to get at them) in an uninhabited house than going through a marriage, whatever the delights of Bergman. And on that subject, why on earth was she lumbered with such an unflattering hair style for most of the film? Of course she is not just beautiful but also a good actress, but she always seems to be slightly unreal in this role. As for the detective, it is impossible to believe in him as someone from the time period in which the film is set - he could be wanderinga round 1940s New York. Disappointing overall and interesting mainly for historical reasons.