Tag Archives: angela lansbury

Gaslight(s).

Posted on by under blogathon, sarah's faves

 

In the early 1940s, two different film versions of Patrick Hamilton’s play Angel Street were produced. The first version was released in 1940 and titled Gaslight. The second version of this film, which kept the same title, was released just four years later. Although both films were based on the same play and follow the same basic plot line, the 1944 version of Gaslight is superior, in part due to the strong cast and Hitchcockian elements.

Directed by Thorold Dickinson, the first version of Gaslight (1940) begins with a gloomy night. The darkness and fog create the perfect setting for a gruesome murder.

It’s a lovely night for a murder…

While an elderly woman peacefully sews, a faceless man comes up behind her and strangles her.  We do not see the face of the killer; we see only his hands and his shadow as he searches the house; we watch his feet as he runs up and down the staircase. Eventually, a maid finds the body and screams for the police. In the next scene, the camera zooms in on a headline in a newspaper (a very Hitchcockian element) that reads: “DREADFUL MURDER IN PIMLICO SQUARE: BARLOW RUBIES MISSING.” Thus, the story begins.

After what seems to be a long amount of time, a young couple moves into the house where the murder took place. From the very beginning, Paul Mallen (Anton Walbrook), the husband, is a rude, unpleasant person. We never witness a great deal of love shown toward his wife, Bella (Diana Wynyard). In fact, while enraged with his wife at one point in the film, he tells her he hates her. He flirts with the maid, Nancy (Cathleen Cordell), in front of his wife. At one point in the film, Paul even goes so far as to take Nancy to a show and kiss her.

Paul Mallen and Naughty Nancy

Paul disappears at night to “work.” Mysteriously, each night, the gaslight dims as if someone were turning it on from another part of the house. Bella hears footsteps each night in the attic, which is supposedly not in use. Whenever Bella complains of these mysterious happenings to her husband, he dismisses them and leads her to believe that she is dreaming or believing things that aren’t real. He attempts to convince her that she is going mad.

Hitchcock seemed to love the idea of the charming and refined sociopath: a character idealized at the beginning of a film who later turns out to be a villain. Unfortunately, one of this film version’s lacking points is that there is never any mystery that the husband is a very bad person. His treatment of his wife is appalling from the very beginning. Throughout the film, he manipulates his wife into thinking that she is losing her mind and that she is absentmindedly losing things, stealing things, and moving things around the house. He also alienates her from her family and community; he tells their neighbors that she is not well enough for social events.

The Not So Mysterious Killer

Also, there are no trains in the first version.

The remake of Gaslight in 1944 has proven to be much more popular. Granted, the all-star cast probably had a great deal to do with the film’s success.

Although the main characters’ names and some plot details change, the story is basically the same. The husband, Gregory Anton, is played by the debonair Charles Boyer. His wife, Paula Anton, is played by the innocent and charming Ingrid Bergman. A handsome neighbor who saves the day, Brian Cameron, is played by Joseph Cotten. Last but not least, making her very first big-screen appearance is Angela Lansbury, who plays the naughty parlor maid Nancy. Director George Cukor had a promising opportunity with this dynamic cast.

Like its predecessor, this version of the film also begins with a gloomy, dark night. The camera zooms in on a newspaper headline reading: “THORNTON SQUARE MURDER UNSOLVED; STRANGLER STILL AT LARGE.” A major difference in this film is that we witness a young Paula being taken from the home where her aunt was murdered. The next scene shows Paula all grown up, a decade after her aunt was brutally murdered. She is explaining to her singing instructor that she has fallen in love. Who is the lucky fellow? The young man who plays the piano while she sings. When the piano player, Gregory Anton, expresses his love to her, she tells him that she must take some time to think things over on her own. She takes a train to a vacation location. On the train, he meets an elderly lady (Dame May Whitty) who lives on the square where her aunt was murdered. Paula is surprised to find that Gregory is waiting for her when the train stops. (Stalker.) She marries him, and they honeymoon.

In this version, the husband is very charming and romantic at the beginning. On their honeymoon, he manipulates her into agreeing to move to her aunt’s home in London:

“Paula, if you won’t laugh at me, I should like to tell you something … it’s an idea, a silly idea that’s been with me for years. I was in London once in the winter. It seemed to me there was no city in the world that was colder for the homeless, but it could be warmer to the ones who had a home. How I used to long for a home of my own. One of those white houses in little London squares with a woman I would come to love.”

Paula tells him of her aunt’s murder, and she tells him that her aunt left the house to her. This, of course, he already knows.

Paula: “I’ve found peace in loving you. I could even face that house with you.”

Gregory: “Oh, no, no, Paula, beloved, I would not ask that of you.”

Paula: “Yes, yes, you shall have your dream. You shall have your house in the square.”

In the next scene, they arrive at the house. Gregory is still nice and comforting. He listens attentively as Paula shows him the house. When she gets upset, he tries to comfort her: “How would it be if we took away all these things that remind you so of her. The painting, all this furniture, shut it away so you can’t even see it. Suppose we make it a new house with new things, beautiful things for a new, beautiful life for us?”

Gregory asks, “Now where should we put all these things?” It is Paula who suggests that they keep it in the attic. Clever, Gregory, clever.

He snaps on her when she finds a letter sent to her aunt two days before her murder. This is the first time we see his dark side, and this is what makes the film so brilliant and delightfully Hitchy, for he seemed so wonderful at the beginning of the film. He seemed so charming, so accomplished, so handsome. Slowly and subtly, however, he begins to become colder and crueler. He tells everyone he meets that his wife is ill:

Nancy: “What’s the matter with the mistress? She don’t look ill to me. Is she?”

Elizabeth: “I don’t know. Not as I can see, but the master keeps tellin’ her she is.”

On a rare outing, Paula and Gregory go to the Tower of London to view romantic sights such as the guillotine. Gregory tricks Paula into thinking that she’s lost the broach that he gave her as a gift. He also interrogates her for bowing to a man who was smiling at her:

Paula: “I have no idea who he is, Gregory. He seemed to know me.”

Gregory: “Do you usually bow to people you don’t know?”

Paula: “No, I supposed I’d met him somewhere.”

Gregory: “Are you telling me the truth?”

Paula: “Of course, why should I lie? I don’t know who he is.”

Gregory: “Yet you smile at him. Why?”

Paula: “I tell you, I wasn’t thinking. I don’t know why I did it.”

Gregory: “Like the other things.”

Paula: “What other things?”

Gregory: “Oh. Nothing. Only I’ve been noticing, Paula, that you’ve been forgetful lately.”

Paula: “Forgetful?”

Gregory: “Well, losing things … and oh, don’t look so worried, Paula. It’s nothing. You get tired …”

Paula: “Yes, that’s probably what it is. I get tired. I’m tired now, can’t we go home?”

Gregory: “Oh, no! We still have the crown jewels to see. They’re in that building over there.”

Paula: “How do you know? You’ve never been here before.”

Gregory: “The guide told us inside. Are you becoming suspicious as well as absent-minded, Paula?”

The more perceptive Paula grows, the stronger his deceptive manipulation grows against her. Unlike in the 1940 version, where we are told from the beginning that the character is going mad, we can witness her descent into self-doubt in this version. Another classic Hitchcockian element, the transference of guilt, is extremely evident in the relationship between these two characters. When the nosy but friendly Mrs. Thwaites comes to visit, Gregory tells Nancy to tell her that her mistress isn’t well enough to see her. Paula is upset, explaining that she would have liked to have seen Mrs. Thwaites. Gregory pretends that he is confused, and acts as though he was attempting to spare Paula the trouble of receiving their obnoxious neighbor: “And you thought I was being cruel to you, keeping people away from you, making you a prisoner … haha.”

Haha … ha … oh.

While both films were Hitchcockian in tone and setting, the 1944 version, complete with a murder mystery, plenty of staircase scenes, a lovable sociopath, and plenty of dark gloomy nights (as well as a train scene!), truly could be mistaken as a genuine Hitchcock product. Frankly, I’m shocked that Mr. Hitchcock wasn’t involved!

This post is one of three contributions True Classics will be making to the “Best Hitchcock Films Hitchcock Never Made” blogathon, hosted by Dorian of Tales of the Easily Distracted and Becky of ClassicBecky’s Brain Food. Check out all of the wonderful contributions throughout the week!

Horseathon: The Last Unicorn

Posted on by under animation, blogathon, carrie's faves, saturday morning cartoons, they made movies after 1970?

Considering that lately I’ve been in  a rebellious frame of mind, it’s fitting that my selection for the Horseathon stretches the rules of “horse” as well as “classic film.” Having grown up with horses, there is no other suitable excuse for what I am about to do, except perhaps that I’ve reviewed National Velvet (1944) at least twice and have nothing further to say (other than to reiterate again that if you haven’t seen it, you should). Also, I’ve been looking for a compelling reason to write about this particular film, so a giant THANK YOU for the Horseathon! Regardless, I hope you enjoy my little foray into 1980s animation.

The Unicorn gets vaguely helpful information from an addle-brained butterfly.

I remember loving The Last Unicorn (1982) growing up. We rented it countless times. In college, when I ran into a copy on DVD, I had no choice but to purchase it immediately, full of nostalgic glee. The story depicts the life of a unicorn, who hears that she must be the last of her own kind. She gets vague advice from a poetic, flighty (pun fully intended) butterfly, and leaves her home in search of the other unicorns. On her way, she encounters other perspectives and different forms of magic: humans who have no concept of it, a not-so accomplished magician (who oddly reminds me of Rincewind the Wizard of Terry Pratchett’s Discworld), a harpy (the darker side of her own magic), and the evil Mommy Fortuna, who captures animals and makes them appear to be magical creatures in her travelling novelty show. All of the other unicorns have been forced into the sea by the infamous Red Bull (who doesn’t give you wings, or freedom … I didn’t think it was funny, either) near the castle of King Haggard. King Haggard wanted all of the unicorns for himself, and has kept them prisoner in the sea.

The Unicorn faces the Red Bull. Tell me this image isn’t like LEGEND (1985).

The film is based on the book (with the screenplay) by Peter S. Beagle and features an all-star cast you might not expect: Alan Arkin, Mia Farrow, Christopher Lee, Angela Lansbury, and Rene Auberjonois, just to name a few. The film was actually animated in Japan, where the anime style for film was taking flight (though it originated in the early 1900s–for more information on the history of anime, click here.)  This accounts for the trademark anime elements of the characters, including large eyes, somewhat exaggerated expressions, round mouths, and the unicorn’s not-so-horselike tail.

Now for the horse elements:

Mia Farrow plays “the unicorn” or “Amalthea,” as she is called when Schmedrick the Magician turns her into a human to save her from the Red Bull. As the unicorn travels the land, those unfamiliar with magic mistakenly see her as a beautiful, white mare. She quickly discovers how clueless most people are of unicorn legend.

Molly gives the wizard Schmedrick a verbal lashing for turning the Unicorn into a woman–Amalthea.

This is about par for much of unicorn lore. In most stories about or including unicorns, they are rare creatures at best: pure, powerful, gentle, and in many cases the very holders of the world’s magic. Frequently, the story is that there are as few as one or two remaining in the world (think Legend, which came out a few years later). Unicorns are sometimes considered the landbound relations of the Pegasus, although the Pegasus derives from Greek mythology. The ancient Greeks considered the unicorn to be an actual creature, perhaps from India. The unicorn is referenced throughout ancient history, including Mesopotamia and in the Bible. Its magic and legend is so prevalent that it is often considered synonymous with the fantasy genre (particularly in the debates of fantasy vs. sci-fi, but we’ll leave that for another discussion).

Not just a cartoon character

Our fascination with unicorns resembles our fascination with horses in general, but on a different level. While horses are common–though beloved–tools of civilization, making and breaking societies in both agriculture and war, unicorns are a rare mythology that many storytellers are afraid to approach (vs. the current popularity of vampire lore, however destroyed it may be). Perhaps it is the sacredness of the creature, or the lack of depth (how can the embodiment of purity be a complicated character?), or our current social pessimism (evidenced by the re-popularity of dystopia) that drives us away from it. Regardless, the comparative rarity of unicorns in film reflect the rarity of the creature itself.

… not just for girls, either.

The answer is simply this: “film magic” could not have been created without the horse (please, they’re in so many films, though disproportionately the stars). The truly magical unicorn, however, creates its own magic, making it sometimes unwieldy in the unprepared film. Nevertheless, it reflects our own awe of seeing that rare bit of cinematic perfection that makes us sit in wonder. The Last Unicorn can hardly be regarded as that film. Though entertaining, the story trolls along a bit, and the characters tend to be underdeveloped. That doesn’t even cover the fact that the singing in at least one or two songs is noticeably flat. Still, it’s a cult classic of the 1980s and provides a little of what we all need: one last bit of purity in a corrupt, selfish world. That is, after all, the significance of the unicorn.

 

This post is my entry for the Horseathon, hosted by Page of My Love of Old Hollywood. The horses will run across the blogsophere through tomorrow, so make sure to check out all of the entries. And come back tomorrow for another equine contribution from the crew here at True Classics!

“Of course I’m going to win … I just arranged it with God.”

Posted on by under blogathon, carrie's faves, LAMB, lit adaptations

A version of this post originally appeared as a part of our series of Summer Under the Stars recommendations in August 2010. It’s being reprinted here as part of the LAMB’s “Acting School 101” tribute to Elizabeth Taylor.

Growing up with horses, it’s probably a given that I should be a fan of National Velvet (1944), which is one of the many classic stories (based on the novel by the same name) about a girl and the horse she loves. Moreover, this film includes a great cast, also including Angela Lansbury and Mickey Rooney. Velvet (Taylor) lives with her family, who are hardly wealthy but not destitute. While her elder sister (played by a young Lansbury) is mooning over boys, Velvet moons over a particular horse who tends to break free from his pasture by jumping over the fence—effortlessly. Through a curious twist of fate and a lot of devotion to the horse, Velvet manages to get him for her own. She and Piebald could live happily ever after from there, but there’s more.

Because Pie is so talented, Velvet decides he should steeplechase (horse-racing crossed with jumping. Very exciting. Very fast. Very demanding. Very dangerous. Only performed by men. You get the idea) and that he could win. She encourages a traveling gambler and swindler (and former jockey), Mi Taylor, played by Rooney, to help her train Pie for racing. With more heart and determination than anything else, she manages to scrape together the entrance fee and gets Pie to the track.

Unfortunately, they are met with more challenges as their jockey turns out to be unacceptable, as he doesn’t believe in Pie the way that Velvet does. Never quitting, Velvet decides to ride, disguised as a young man. In the interest of avoiding spoilers, I won’t give away the ending, but suffice it to say that Velvet’s true-blue belief in The Pie is far from misguided.

Elizabeth Taylor is endearing as the dreamy-eyed, innocent, yet determined Velvet Brown. This is the role that would make her a star, and the young actress fought hard for the part. Taylor had been riding since she was a girl, so she does many of her own riding scenes, which adds to the authenticity of the film. It’s a great movie, a great family movie, and definitely a great choice for animal people and especially “horse people.” Velvet also displays the  big dreams that are often associated childhood, but combines them with hard work and undying determination, and Elizabeth Taylor gives Velvet a great human appeal.

If you’re looking for an entertaining film with a lot of heart, you can’t go wrong with Velvet.

Tale as Old as Time

Posted on by under disney renaissance, nikki's faves, saturday morning cartoons, they made movies after 1970?

This week’s film, 1991′s Beauty and the Beast, is probably my favorite of the Disney Renaissance-era films and is a very close second behind my personal triumvirate for best Disney film ever. The voice cast is awesome, the animation is fabulous, and the music is just beautiful. And then there is a story that is as old and as well told as Cinderella. Like Cinderella, Disney opted to use the French version of the original fairy tale, as it is probably the most famous and more family-friendly.

This film features not only a great cast but great characters in general. Gaston is just so full of himself that he has no idea why anyone would turn him down. Beast mostly just needs to learn some manners and to count to ten when he’s angry and he’d be fine. The household objects have their own idiosyncrasies but wouldn’t you after 10 years as a wardrobe or a mantle clock? But of all these, my favorite is Belle. She is probably my favorite of the Disney Princesses (shocking, I know): mostly kind, loves to read, wants to take care of her family, and is a little bit out of the social “norm.”

Library from Beauty and the Beast

"Forests of books, cascades, mountains of books"

As I said earlier, the voice cast is just phenomenal. Almost the entire cast had serious Broadway credits, which was actually part of the idea because the music was written with a Broadway show style in mind. What’s interesting (to me, anyway) is that the three lead actors (Paige O’Hara—Belle, Robby Benson—Beast, and Richard White—Gaston) are still not all that well known except for these signature roles, while three of the supporting actors have been household names in various TV and film roles for years:

David Odgen StiersDavid Ogden Stiers was probably best known to audiences at the time of the release for playing Major Charles Winchester on the TV show M*A*S*H but would go on to do more voices for Disney including Ratcliffe in Pocahontas and the Archdeacon in The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Stiers actually originally auditioned for the role of Lumiere, but thankfully someone there asked him to try Cogsworth as well, and that’s the role he ended up with. He also provides the wonderful narration at the beginning of the film.

Jerry OrbachJerry Orbach actually started his career on Broadway and starred as Billy Flynn in the original production of Chicago (who knew!), but he had trouble breaking into more serious roles because of that musical background. Eventually, though, he did get those serious roles that we know him best for: Dr. Jake Houseman (Baby’s father) in Dirty Dancing and Detective Lennie Briscoe on Law & Order and its various spinoffs–he was actually one of only four actors to appear in all four L&O series, playing the same character.

Angela LansburyAnd then there is one of my all-time favorite actresses ever and, for a long time, the only person I could point out when watching this movie: Angela Lansbury. Longtime film and Broadway actress, she was in such movies as Bedknobs and Broomsticks, The Manchurian Candidate, Gaslight (her first movie and Oscar nomination), Anastasia, and Nanny McPhee. But she is, of course, best known as Cabot Cove’s favorite mystery writer, Jessica Fletcher, on Murder, She Wrote—on which, interestingly enough, both Jerry Orbach and David Ogden Stiers made guest appearances (Orbach as recurring character Harry McGraw and Stiers in various roles).

Just like in The Rescuers Down Under, Disney used a hybrid system of hand drawings and digital postproduction effects to complete the film. One thing that really sets this movie apart was it was the first use of CGI in an animated film. While Beast and Belle’s dancing figures were hand-drawn, the ballroom backgrounds, camera angles, and chandelier were all done by computer. It was a huge risk because they were running a little low on time and weren’t sure if they could get it to work, but they did, and it is one of the best animated scenes ever.

You cannot talk about this film and not talk about the music. Among the many firsts for this film is that “Beauty and the Beast” was the first Disney song to have a pop version recorded for the ending credits (sung by Celine Dion and Peabo Bryson). Also of note is that Angela Lansbury really did not want to be the one to sing the movie version of “Beauty and the Beast” because she did not feel her voice was right for it, but eventually they talked her into doing one take just to see how it went and that one take is the one that’s in the film.

Alan Menken and Howard Ashman were, in some ways, much like the Sherman Brothers of the 50s and 60s in terms of using music to tell the story and collaborating with the rest of the creative team on story, animation, casting, etc. It was Howard Ashman who suggested that household objects should have dialogue and individual personalities. Along with a Best Picture Oscar nomination (the first animated film to ever be nominated in that category), Beauty and the Beast won Oscars for the score and the song “Beauty and the Beast.” But Ashman would sadly not live to see it. He died on March 14, 1991 from AIDS, eight months before the film premiered. Beauty and the Beast is dedicated to his memory—at the end of the credits, a tribute reads: “To our friend Howard, who gave a mermaid her voice and a beast his soul, we will be forever grateful.” So I would also like to add my thanks, some twenty years later, for his help—along with that of so many others—in bringing Disney back to its former glory.

SUtS: Margaret O’Brien

Posted on by under 4-star films, brandie's faves, summer under the stars

Carrie’s choice: Tenth Avenue Angel (1948)

Airing at 9:30AM EST

This dramatic movie is not exactly the silly comedy or musical/comedy I enjoy so much in classic film. What I like about it, though, is that it’s a story of redemption- or not.  Margaret O’Brien plays Flavia, whose aunt (played by Angela Lansbury, no less) is receiving her fiance. However, instead of the world-wide traveler Flavia has been told to expect, the fiance just got out of prison. While he works to build his life on the outside (be it socially favorable or unfavorable), Flavia has to come to terms with his past.

I love this idea. It’s the story of Les Miserables told from a personal instead of social perspective. The fiance, however, is not exactly Jean Valjean. He is a legitimate criminal and looks to some of his old criminal associates. The question here is can he redeem himself and change and can Flavia accept his past, as apparently her aunt seems to manage?

The interesting thing about this movie, among other things, is the ideas it presents within its time. In 1948, the world was still recovering from the horrors of WWII and the Holocaust. Many questions about bad, criminal, or “evil” behavior littered society and especially psychology. Who do you blame for crime and seemingly evil acts? Can you forgive them? Can people change? Psychology, literature, and film have worked hard to understand and answer these questions since before Nuremberg, and continued after 1946 when the trials were completed. Despite all of these, the debate continues today.

In this case, however, the debate appears in the form of the adorable Margaret O’Brien. Child stars are extremely common now, but few compare to her charming smile and genuine expressions. Her films are worth watching, even if only for the the gentle purity that classic film child stars provide. While many many young stars and their film plots emphasize adventures requiring some form of adult strength, and sometimes adult themes, this film brings real world experience and complex value judgments to a young child while maintaining her childlike wonder.


Brandie’s choice: Meet Me in St. Louis (1944)

Airing at 3:45PM EST

Was there ever a cuter child star than Margaret O’Brien?

Well, maybe Shirley Temple. But she only beats O’Brien by a ringlet.

And when it comes to sheer acting ability, O’Brien takes it by a mile and a half.

If you’ve never seen today’s recommendation, it really is a shame. One of the most effective, moving musicals to come out of the 1940s, Meet Me in St. Louis combines catchy songs, a lovely setting, and great performances by Judy Garland and O’Brien, resulting in a movie that is truly something special.

But let me warn you ahead of time–if you’re looking for a suspenseful plot, look elsewhere. Hell, if you’re looking for a PLOT–seriously, look elsewhere. This film tells the story of a year in the lives of a St. Louis family. The movie opens with the father explaining to his disappointed/upset family that they will have to move to New York because of his job. And the film ends … with the family still in St. Louis, having never moved at all. And that’s about it.

But of course, that’s not really “it.” The movie may not have a very progressive plot, but it is one of the best screen depictions of family life that I have ever seen. And what is a year in the life of the average American family? Typically, there’s not a lot of upheaval. What this film does so beautifully is to simply sit back and let us observe these people as they just live their lives from day to day. We see the father go to work, the mother make homemade ketchup in the kitchen, the daughters fall in love and deal with heartbreak and sadness and celebrate their little daily victories. And the most marvelous thing of all is how deftly director Vincente Minnelli keeps us interested in all of the (non)action.

And of course, this is the movie that introduced future spouses Minnelli and Garland. After filming, they got married, and daughter “Liza-with-a-Z” appeared soon after. The union did not last, but while it did, Garland and Minnelli had one of the most talent-packed families to ever hit Hollywood.

O’Brien is one of the most talented child stars to come out of classic moviedom, and there are few since who have matched her. From her earliest roles, she demonstrates a remarkable ability to slip between complex emotions with all of the maturity and agility of an actor three times her age.  This is especially evident in Meet Me in St. Louis. Her character, Tootie, is a rather morbid five-year-old; her dolls have a habit of becoming deathly ill and “dying,” and Tootie buries them in elaborate funerals. Of all of the children, Tootie is most affected by the prospect of the move, and O’Brien plays her bewilderment and anger so perfectly, it’s difficult not to cry for Tootie’s pain.

I’ve seen this movie more times than I could possibly count, and every time, I find myself singing along, smiling, and even crying a little (Judy singing “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” gets me every.single.time). If you’ve seen it, you probably understand this all-over-the-map reaction. And if you haven’t, I hope you will watch it today and love it as much as I do!

The only downside? Now I’m going to have “The Trolley Song” in my head all day long.

Meh. Still worth it!

SUtS: Ingrid Bergman

Posted on by under 4-star films, brandie's faves, carrie's faves, from stage to screen, lit adaptations, noir, summer under the stars

Carrie’s choice: Spellbound (1945)

Airing 4:00PM EST

Today it was pretty hard to choose which movie to recommend. So, let me start by saying just set your DVR up now and record the whole thing, call in sick, get popcorn, something.

That said, I’ll get to Spellbound. To fully understand how much I liked this movie, I have to explain my history with Hitchcock.  You see, I wasn’t a particular fan. I don’t like movies where things jump out suddenly. I don’t like to be scared. I did like Strangers on a Train pretty well, but that’s it. So, when Brandie told me I had to watch this movie I was not exactly enthusiastic. “But I really want to see your opinion/interpretation.” Okay, fine. So, after being assured that things were NOT going to jump out at me, I consented to watch this, at night, no less.

Well, one of the big selling points for me on this one, as you can probably guess, was Gregory Peck. Le sigh. We put this movie on, and I’m pretty enthusiastic about a female mental health practitioner getting it done in classic film. Then Gregory Peck shows up and its’ all over. That’s not the only reason I like this movie, although Brandie may tell you that it really is. Didn’t hurt, though.

IMDB Plot Summary:

“The head of the Green Manors mental asylum Dr. Murchison is retiring to be replaced by Dr. Edwardes, a famous psychiatrist. Edwardes arrives and is immediately attracted to the beautiful but cold Dr. Constance Petersen. However, it soon becomes apparent that Dr. Edwardes is in fact a paranoid amnesiac impostor. He goes on the run with Constance who tries to help his condition and solve the mystery of what happened to the real Dr. Edwardes.”

What I like about this one is the way it’s twisted. It’s not completely predictable, and only mildly out in left-field. When watching this, you must consider the time and psychological research that was popular. That said, is all the theory used in the film terribly practical/accurate/useful- not completely. But, in Hitchcock’s defense, I’ve seen much, much worse in current film and television.  That’s about all I can say without spoiling the ending.

One of the best features, for me, was that Dr. Constance Petersen (Bergman) is an intelligent, strong heroine in the film. This is not the shrieking kind of situation one thinks of with the horror/thriller genre. Moreover, she is a competent, respected doctor. Having the female lead play a strong character, for me, greatly enhanced the movie. She is believable and as a viewer, I was able to like her and identify with her as a “real” person. So, extra cudos.

I recommend this one. It’s my favourite Hitchcock (yes, I’ve seen more since this one, but none I liked as much I enjoyed this one).

As an added bonus, if you see this film, I recommend watching Mel Brooks’ High Anxiety, which plays off of most of Hitchcock’s work, but quite a bit fits this particular film.

Enjoy!

Brandie’s choice: Gaslight (1944)

Airing 3:30AM

Closing out Bergman’s well-deserved SUtS tribute is the film which won her the first of her three Academy Awards, the prize for Best Actress.

In Gaslight, adapted from Patrick Hamilton’s play of the same name (though it was originally known as Angel Street),  Bergman plays Paula, an aspiring young opera singer. Her aunt Alice, a famed opera singer in her own right, had been murdered years previously, and Paula is haunted by her aunt’s death. She meets a charming, slick man named Gregory Anton (Charles Boyer) and falls head over heels in love; before long, the two are married, and Gregory insists that the couple move into the London townhouse left to Paula by her aunt. He also insists that, in an effort to start their lives together on a fresh slate, they pack up all of Alice’s belongings and store them in the sealed attic of the home. Soon after moving in, however, the isolated young bride begins to hear noises around the house, the gaslights throughout the home begin to flicker mysteriously for no discernible reason at all, and Paula begins to wonder if she’s going a little bit mad …

The showcase of this film is undoubtedly Bergman’s performance as the frightened, bewildered Paula. She swings between feelings of madness and coherence, joy and fear, almost seamlessly. Her always-luminous face reflects the haggard weight of her character’s many concerns, but Paula does not collapse under them; this young bride has a ribbon of steel in her spine, which we see come to full fruition in her final confrontation with her shady husband. That’s the brilliance of Bergman’s acting–she’s so subtle and layered, it takes multiple viewings sometimes to see everything she’s doing with a character. A sideways glance, a tilted eyebrow, the slight raise of her chin … she acts with her entire being. There have been only a handful to match her.

Bergman is aided in the film by a great supporting cast; Boyer is perfectly smarmy as the ne’er-do-well husband, and Joseph Cotten (one of my particular favorites) makes waves in a relatively small role as the detective who helps Paula figure out what’s happening in her home. And, somewhat notably, this film features the first-ever screen appearance of the lovely Angela Lansbury, in the not-so-pleasant role of the disdainful housemaid.

This is a great little noir-lite classic, suspenseful and entertaining, so make sure you catch it (or, if you’re not a night owl like me, record it!).