Dreadfully Boring

an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.

This is ultimately a movie about the very bad things that can happen when we don't address our unease, when we just try to brush it off, whether that's to fit in or to preserve our self-image.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

I had a lot of expectations for this movie, but I was disappointed. There are several films of this genre frankly superior. I found the rhythm of the film unnecessarily too slow and boring. The scene of Ingrid Bergman's "forgetfulness" induced by her husband Charles Boyer repeats itself too often, becomes irritating. The film would look better with less than 30 minutes of duration, because it was in the same to tell the story perfectly, would have more rhythm and avoid so many "repeated" scenes. Ingrid Bergman won the Oscar for best actress for this film. I've seen her it in several films with far better interpretations than this one. In this case, it is the typical case of the woman psychologically tortured by the husband and his performance brings nothing new to others of this kind. In this aspect I even find Charles Boyer's role more convincing, although it is also a "typical" performance. Too bad the little time Joseph Cotten had on the film, he always had great acting, he was a great actor. Angela Lansbury is doing very well in her first film role. In short, the film brings nothing new to the genre "noir," which I so much appreciate, and which has had so many good examples in film history, especially in the 1940s and 1950s. It's a reasonable film, nothing more.

Every heard of the term "Gaslighting?" This film is where that term comes from. It means trying to get another person to believe what is not true - convincing them that their thoughts and feelings are not valid even when they are.Though I usually don't like murder mysteries, I do love this movie because I think it has great psychological value. I think it is one of the best films of showing the emotional abuse of gaslighting. I think this film shows us that we can't believe all people in all situations.

George Cukor's "Gaslight" (1944), based on a play by Patrick Hamilton, was the MGM studio's attempt to overwrite history and replace the British film adaption of the same name made four years earlier. They succeeded. Few have seen Dickinson's "Gaslight" (1940), and most remember Cukor's. And it is indeed quite a treat. It's simply a well- made piece of cinema. British suspense has often been well translated into Hollywood and Alfred Hitchcock is probably the best example of this popular phenomenon. Cukor's film's British nature is veritably strong since it takes place in Victorian England, it has British humor and its share of Hitchcockian elements. The basic set-up of the story is that a woman, Paula Alquist (Ingrid Bergman) has lost her closest and dearest relative, a famous opera singer, at a very young age and now, as an adult, returns to the very place of crime with her husband, Gregory Anton (Charles Boyer). The familiar environment brings back memories and mysteries involved with the death of Paula's aunt. The strangely secretive marriage of Paula and Gregory as well as their few public appearances draw the interest of Brian Cameron (Joseph Cotten), a former fan of Paula's aunt, who thinks that Paula might be in danger. Overall, the story is very simple. The classical narrative works extremely well with a tight structure supported by a conventional style. To some, the film might seem utterly predictable, but in a way that's the whole point, and this is yet another parallel to Hitchcock. For the essence of Hitchcockian suspense lies in build-up rather than surprise. The viewer knows the mystery of "Gaslight" but is nonetheless excited to see the development of its revelation to the characters. As many know, the English expression "gas-lighting" refers to mental abuse where information is distorted in such a way that the person who receives it is made to think that she has lost her mind. This supplies the story with its basic motif, the gaslight, which strongly belongs to its historical milieu and is, despite its seeming narrative significance, left ambiguous in deeper meaning. Given this set-up, it is easy to see how "Gaslight" is really a film about power and imprisonment. On a historical-social level, it can be seen as an ironic comment on marriage as a prison for women who have been sentenced to a lower social status in comparison to their husbands. (Interestingly, Robert Siodmak's "The Suspense" (1944) reveals a situation where murder is the only escape for the husband from his Victorian-age marriage). On a general level of psychology, the film might also be seen as a story about being imprisoned by one's past, whereas, on a more private level, it can be seen as a story about the tormenting experience of manipulation. There is one scene in particular that deserves attention. Gregory has reluctantly taken Paula to a social get-together where he is able to make Paula believe in her kleptomania as well as in the urgent need of keeping her locked up, away from the eyes of the public. The private anxiety of Paula as she is surrounded by a large number of people is pure Hitchcock, whose films often feature brilliant sequences where characters feel most alert in crowded spaces.Although the film is hardly an imitation, its subtle sense of film-noir, the powerful presence of Ingrid Bergman, and its story about a frail woman being terrorized by a deranged man draw immediate associations with Hitchcock. For one, Hitchcock made his share of such stories in the 1940's, most notably "Rebecca" (1940), "Suspicion" (1941), and "Shadow of a Doubt" (1943). The films also bear a similar "predictability". If Stanley Donen's "Charade" (1963) is the best pastiche of the later Hitchcock style, "Gaslight" is a wonderful reflection of Hitchcock's style in the 1940's. Overall, and despite these parallels, Cukor's narrative in its classical nature is quite different from Hitchcock's perpetual desire to regenerate cinematic narrative and stands strongly on its own. The film is very worth seeing simply for the divine pleasure of watching the story unfold in a tight, precisely considered structure, making one yearn for Hollywood in the 1940's.

Lacks mystery and intrigue - quite predictable.A young woman, Paula Alquist (played by Ingrid Bergman) leaves her home in England for Italy, for singing lessons. There she meets and falls in love with a pianist, Gregory Anton (played by Charles Boyer). They marry and move back to London, to live in the house Paula's aunt was murdered in, 10 years earlier. However, Gregory's intentions toward Paula aren't entirely romantic, or benevolent...For a movie with such sinister plots involved, this movie is quite predictable. You can see all the links and plans involving Gregory in the first 40 minutes or so. And some of his plans are just plain lame (the watch at the concert...). Good performances from Bergman and Boyer plus Joseph Cotten and Dame May Witty. 18-year old Angela Lansbury made her debut in this movie and puts in a solid performance. The minor performances can be quite laughable though - the risk of filming an English setting in the US (and you can thank WW2 for that). Best example of this is the scene with a cop whose accent frequently veers violently between English Cockney and southern-US in mid-sentence! Unintentionally funny.Ultimately a mediocre story, with some solid performances from the leads. Had heaps of potential, but much of this was squandered.