There are two excellent versions of Gaslight, so we might as well straighten that out right away. One can't really review one without reference to the other. The one under review here was made in Britain in 1940, directed by Thorold Dickinson, and starring Anton Walbrook and Diana Wynyard. The other was made by MGM in Hollywood in 1944, directed by George Cukor, and starring Charles Boyer and Ingrid Bergman. Head-to-head comparison is facilitated by a very nice DVD release from Warner Brothers, which presents both films in DVD transfers that preserved the original aspect ratios. Both versions are fine films. Each has strengths and weakness relative to the other. The two versions will also be eternally linked to one another by the fact that MGM attempted to literally obliterate the earlier film while making its version by buying up the rights and destroying as many negatives as it could locate. So much for respecting a work of art.

Historical Background: Thorold Dickinson, who directed the British version, was born on November 16th, 1903, in Bristol, England, and died in 1984. He attended Oxford, producing plays while he was there. He joined the film industry immediately upon graduation. He acquired experience working as an assistant director, screenwriter, film editor, sound editor, and production manager. He got his first shot at directing in 1937 with The High Command, which was a thriller. His breakout film was Gaslight, made in 1940. Dickinson further strengthened his standing as a director with Next of Kin (1942), The Queen of Spades (1949), Secret People (1952), and Hill 24 Doesn't Answer (1955). Dickinson retired from directing at that point, moving into administration. He was Chairman of the British Film Academy in 1952/3 and Head of the U.N. Office of Public Information from 1956-60. He also served as President of the International Federation of Film Societies from 1958-66. In 1967, he became the first ever professor of film studies for any British university, at the University of London.

In 1944, when MGM purchased the rights to the story on which Gaslight was based from British National Films (BNF), they also purchased the rights to the negatives and all copies of Dickinson's version. The negatives were promptly destroyed. Several prints turned up later, however, and the film was shown in the United States in 1952 as Angel Street, which was also the name of the play on which both films were based. The pairing of the two versions together on the Warner Brothers DVD perhaps sets right a vile moral transgression (whatever the legality might have been).

The Story: In Victorian England, a woman, Alice Barlow (Marie Wright), is strangled to death at #12 Pimlico Square, in London. She had been in possession of some rubies valued at £20,000. Ten years pass by and the crime is never solved nor are the rubies recovered. The house, long vacant, is finally purchased by a couple of newlyweds, Paul Mallen (Anton Walbrook) and his wife, Bella (Diana Wynyard). Married women, in Victorian England, were considered property of their husbands and the sinister Paul is using his authority over his wife in a most dastardly way. Paul systematically accuses his wife of hiding objects (a wall painting) or losing things (her brooch) that he himself has removed, misremembering events that he's misrepresenting, or imagining occurrences that he's secreted created (gaslights dimming or sounds in the attic). He also torments her by his chastisements and accusations that she's going insane, interspersed with isolated instances of seeming kindness. He prevents her from going outside on her own or entertaining visitors. He also manipulates Elizabeth, the Cook (Minnie Rayner), and Nancy, the Parlor Maid (Cathleen Cordell), into thinking that his wife is mentally unstable. With no reassuring viewpoint, Bella begins to doubt her own sanity. Her resultant insecurities only serve to reinforce the impression that she is going mad, both for herself and others.

One neighbor, B.G. Rough (Frank Pettingell), a former Scotland Yard detective who had worked on the murder case at #12 Pimlico Square, becomes suspicious. He thinks that he recognizes Paul as the nephew of the murder victim, a man by the name of Sergis Bauer. He begins to observe the home of the Mallens and finds the man's treatment of his wife peculiar and suspicious. On one occasion, he is able to bump into Bella in the playground in the center of the square and enlist her in a charitable undertaking (buying some pastries for some poor children). Later, Rough spies Paul entering the adjacent tenement, at #14, and then crossing over via a balcony into the attic of his own home. Rough also enlists the help of Cobb (Jimmy Hanley), a young man who is one of several lads who flirts with the maid, Nancy. Now it becomes a race between Rough's effort to gather enough proof of what's happening, so that he can intervene, and Paul's efforts to have his wife committed to an asylum and to find the long-hidden rubies.

Script: Screenwriter A.R. Rowlinson adapted the script from a play called Angel Street by Patrick Hamilton. This 1940 film version is truer to the story of the play than is the 1944 MGM film, though I don't personally consider that a critical issue. More important is that the 1940 film recreates the mid-Victorian period more effectively, not so much in the mise-en-scene, which is excellent for both films, but in the social assumptions and manners. The 1940 film is believably English whereas the 1944 film is the Hollywood imitation of nineteenth century England. The dancehall scene in the 1940 film is especially effective, both dramatically and in established a lower class venue and atmosphere through the exciting Can-Can performance. Also, the script for the 1940 film is tauter and leaner. It's almost thirty minutes shorter, mainly because the MGM film provides more romantic back-story. The 1940 film script has more of the feel of a "psychological thriller" while the 1944 film is closer to "psychodrama." On the other hand, the script for the 1944 film provides more "star moments" where one or the other of the high-visibility romantic leads can shine. Obviously, my sympathies lie more with a taut script and well-told story than with Hollywood's star system. That, as much as any other reason, is why I'm a foreign film buff.

Themes: Although the storylines are similar, they are not identical and the changes made to the 1944 film have a significant effect on the film's theme. That theme, of course, is domestic abuse, which has been a problem throughout history, but which was all the more a potential in relation to married women in Victorian England because of the prevailing view that wives were the property of their husbands. I've known men in the current time in America who tormented their wives and threatened their mental stability by constantly questioning their perceptions, opinions, and competence. I've seen a smaller number of instances of women having the same impact on their husbands. Here, in this film, we have an instance of unusually high potency because of the extent of control that Paul was able to exercise over Bella's life. By keeping her out of contact with sympathetic outsiders, he prevented her from deriving support or emotional sustenance from other people.

So, both films have to do with spousal abuse, but I think that the 1940 film makes a stronger statement from a feminist perspective. In the 1940 film, the character B.G. Rough who intervenes to spoil Paul's diabolical plan, is a heavy-set older man and not a potential love interest for Bella. In fact, he quickly dispenses with that issue by telling Bella, when they meet in the playground, that he's old enough to be her father, so as to set her at ease about his intentions. By contrast, the 1944 film substitutes a handsome young Scotland Yard agent (Brian Cameron, played by Joseph Cotton) as the "rescuer." In the 1940 film, Bella, in the end, asserts her independence, breaks free from Paul's influence, and becomes, symbolically, a liberated woman. In the 1944 film, Bergman's character (renamed Paula) simply switches romantic allegiances and gains Cameron's protection. She's only shifted from an exploitive, dependent relationship to what one imagines will be a benevolent, but dependent, relationship

Cast: The relative merits of the casting for the two films runs in both directions. To begin with the four stars, I'd rank the four performances as follows, from best to worst: Anton Walbrook (BNF), Ingrid Bergman (MGM), Diana Wynyard (BNF), and Charles Boyer (MGM), a very distant fourth. Ingrid Bergman won her first Oscar as Best Actress for her performance, but Wynyard was very nearly as effective. Bergman is more stunningly beautiful, but overacts a bit, while Wynyard seems more believable in her psychological anguish. Walbrook is sensationally diabolical and sinister. It's a great performance, although not quite so great as the one he provided for The Red Shoes (1948). When we first meet Walbrook and Wynyard in the 1940 film, they are already playing the dysfunctional married couple, so we never get an understanding of what could have attracted her to him in the first place. The 1944 MGM films attempts to establish the positive relationship first with a half-hour opening segment, but Boyer is so transparently ingratiating that I immediately recognized that he was going to be the villain (I saw the 1944 version first, and did not know from prior exposure to the story that he was the villain). I know that Boyer was, by reputation, a famous romantic lead, but to me he always came across as . . . well, acting. I found his performance so dissatisfying that I was tempted to stop watching the film.

On the other hand, the MGM version has a clear edge in the supporting roles. There's a fine performance by Angela Lansbury (her first cinematic role) as the saucy Nancy. Elizabeth Tompkins is effective as the older housekeeper and Dame May Whitty is excellent as the snoopy neighbor, Miss Twaites, who didn't exist as a character in the 1940 film. The roles of Nancy and Elizabeth are better developed in the 1944 film. Frank Pettingell was very entertaining, however, as B.G. Rough, in the 1940 film. There's also an enjoyable appearance by Robert Newton in a small role as Bella's cousin, Vincent Ullswater.

Diana Wynyard was otherwise best known for roles in Rasputin and the Empress (1932), Cavalcade (1933), and An Ideal Husband (1947). Walbrook's other work included Victoria the Great (1937), 49th Parallel (1941), The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (1943), The Red Shoes (1948), La Ronde (1950), and Lola Montès (1955). Robert Newton went on to bigger and better things in Henry V (1944), Odd Man Out (1947), Oliver Twist (1948), Treasure Island (1950), The High and the Mighty (1954), and Around the World in 80 Days (1956).

Cinematography and Transfer: Here, the MGM version wins hands down. The sets are as good or better in the British film, but the photography is superior in the Hollywood film. Both films provide plenty of shadowy atmosphere both inside the townhouse and in the streets outside. The DVD transfer quality is noticeably better for the MGM film as well. There are periodic specks in the BNF version, especially near the beginning. The difference can be attributed to the destruction of the negatives of the BNF film by MGM. The BNF transfer had to be made from the limited number of existing prints.

Bottom-Line: You can purchase either version of Gaslight separately or you can buy them as a pair on the Warner Brothers DVD. I've placed this review under the solo release for the British film and have only fully reviewed that film. Nevertheless, I'll mention that the DVD that pairs both films also comes with worthwhile extras. There's one called Reflections on Gaslight, featuring Angela Lansbury, and another that is a reminiscence by Pia Lindstrom about her mother, Ingrid Bergman.

The English film gets my vote as the better of the two, but only by about half-a-star. If we had a more differentiated rating system, I'd give the BNF film about 3.8 stars and the MGM about 3.3. The MGM film is worth seeing just for Bergman, but Boyer is woeful and the script and theme was greatly weakened and subordinated to the star power. The Hollywood remake, in this case, is pretty darn good, but the original is still better.

Recommended:
Yes

Viewing Format: DVD
Video Occasion: Better than Watching TV
Suitability For Children: Suitable for Children Age 13 and Older