Angel Street

The later version is Hollywood English, which I sometimes think is a downtown section of Hollywood Transylvanian. Believe me, the original is the real thing, from the small details up to the social assumptions: it's recognisably English. As such, the thriller is grounded in a reality that the later version can never have. And so it's scary! Of course, I admit that this justification of the original might be a lot less convincing if you're reading my words on the other side of the world...

As for the difficulty of getting hold of a copy, well every few years it's shown on one TV station or another over here, so there has to be a good copy somewhere out there.

Let's face it - the British do psychological suspense VERY well! This 1940 British production is more streamlined and suspenseful than the MGM version of 1944, as it sticks more closely to Patrick Hamilton's play. The MGM version had more 'back-story' and padding to it. I love Diana Wynyard - she was lovely to look at and seemed wonderfully edgy and vulnerable - I wasn't surprised to learn that she played the anguished mother in the West End production of THE BAD SEED - she's really only remembered today for this film and CAVALCADE (1933), but she's definitely worth watching. Anton Walbrook is a little hammier than Boyer was, and there are those obvious streaks in his hair to make him look a little older - but he has a wonderful moment at the films end when, quite suddenly, his eyes go wild and you can tell that he's completely lost his mind - might have been a nice touch if the 1944 had included such a moment. Highly recommended.

I've noticed that people seem surprised that MGM attempted to suppress the 1940 British version of GASLIGHT to avoid any competition with their version. I don't know why anyone should be surprised - Hollywood's business is a cut-throat one: remember that L.B. Mayer, along with Jack Warner and others, offered to buy CITIZEN KANE from RKO and then destroy it, all to appease William R. Hearst - fortunately they didn't (just imagine the history of film since 1941 if they had!) And although MGM didn't destroy all prints of GASLIGHT, they did manage to keep it out of sight for many years - I think I first saw it on a cable station in the early 1980s - I tuned in expecting Boyer and Bergman and got Walbrook and Wynyard - as it turned out I didn't mind at all, and have enjoyed it many times since! MGM did the same thing with Paramount's 1932 DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE which, except for an occasional screening, went unseen (but much written about) until it came out on video around 1990 (under the MGM label - imagine that!)

It's easy to see why MGM locked this away in their vaults when they issued their 1944 remake--it's really great!

An evil crook (Anton Walbrook) slowly tries to drive his wife (Diana Wynyard) mad for some jewels.

This isn't as lush as the remake, but it more than makes up for it in other departments. For one thing--it's shorter by about 30 minutes and there's no romantic interlude at the beginning. This one starts dark and gets darker. Walbrook is frightening as the husband--much better than Charles Boyer in the remake. The scenes where he yells at his wife had me jumping. Wynyard is great as his fragile wife. She doesn't go into hysterics and chew the scenery like Ingrid Bergman did--she plays it calmly and quietly and very very realistically. Her final confrontation with her husband was just great. Also Cathleen Cordell is lots of fun as Nancy, the parlor maid. In the remake she was played by Angela Landsbury (in her film debut). Surprisingly, Cordell is better than Landsbury!

The remake copied this film virtually scene by scene--and suffers somewhat by comparison. It added on the unnecessary romantic subplot with Joseph Cotton. Thankfully, there's nothing like that here. This just grips you from the very beginning and doesn't let go.

Both movies are great but this one is marginally better. Very recommended.

What a crisp, deeply rooted thriller Thorold Dickinson created. With vile creatures (Paul) and goofy policemen and maids, we are easily captured into the world of the Mallens. Diana Wynyard does a spectacular job as Bella, giving us the right amount of insecurity coupled with fear. She is the true victim of this film and Dickinson does not let us forget that. Wynyard is nearly overshadowed by my favorite character of the film, Paul Mallen, played with so much evil by Anton Walbrook. I have seen several films in my life, and I must say that Walbrook ranks among some of the most sinister villains of them all. He has no super powers, just the ability to manipulate Bella mentally, proving that he is stronger than her. He thrives on Bella's insecurities and makes them into his greatest form of punishment. These two working together really transformed this 40s thriller into something concrete and powerful. It is the dynamic between the two that kept me glued to my seat and continually asking for more.

Coupled with the superb acting is the creativeness of Dickinson and his writer A.R. Rowlinson. Together they set the mood with darkened corners and alleyways with that constantly looming feeling that the events are going to get grittier down the road. This team made Victorian London a spooky place to visit at night. They make Bella the victim throughout this entire film, making even me wonder if she really was slowly going mad. It isn't until the end that the truth is revealed and even then we are left in suspense. It isn't until the credits roll is the film over, and that is hard to accomplish for directors of the thriller genre today. Dickinson proved that he could handle all the elements with the greatest of ease and bring them to the screen in a film that would last the test of time. I am not embarrassed to show this film to friends because I do believe that they would see the value in this production.

Grade: ***** out of *****

It is inevitable that this 1940 film and the 1944 "remake" with Charles Boyer and Ingrid Bergman are going to be compared, and people will have different opinions as to which is the better version.

To me, both 'Gaslight' films are great in their own way, and this reviewer ranks them equally, yet with one or two things in things that are done better in the other. Like the 1944 film (the only real drawback to that film was the uneven performance of Joseph Cotton), there is very little wrong here. The secondary characters could have been better fleshed out, and while Richard Adinsell's music score is suitably ominous Bonislau Kaper's score for the later version has more atmosphere, subtlety and tension.

However, while not as glossy as the later film 'Gaslight' (1940) regardless is incredibly well-made. It's shot beautifully and menacingly, is hauntingly lit and has sets that are picturesque yet give off a great amount of dread while over-stating it. It's intelligently and suspensefully directed by then-famous-and-well-regarded, now-almost-forgotten (undeservedly) Thorald Dickinson.

The script is thought-provoking and tense, everything feels relevant to what's going on and nothing seemed padded. Tighter-paced and more theatrical somewhat, the story never creaks and is leaden with tension and suspense with nothing obvious that came over as unnecessary or clumsy.

Performances are great here and hardly inferior to those in the later film, despite being less familiar. Anton Walbrook, while not as subtle as Charles Boyer, is terrifying and a huge part as to why the film is as atmospheric as it is. Diana Wynward demonstrates Bella's vulnerability incredibly movingly with no histrionics and she's hardly dull either (though the character has more range and depth to her in the 1944 version).

Frank Petingell looks more comfortable than Joseph Cotton, his performance is more even (though Cotton was hardly bad), the character is better written and he is more believable as a police officer (where Cotton's performance particularly fell down on). Robert Newton is a strong presence in an early role, and Cathleen Cordell is a hoot as Nancy.

All in all, despite being in the shadow of the 1944 'Gaslight' in popularity the earlier 1940 film doesn't deserve to be, because it is every bit as great. 9/10 Bethany Cox