Gaslight

How would you do without the electric lights to which you are so accustomed? What if you had only fires and gas lights to see by after sundown? Even better - or more terrifying - what if you lived in a creepy old London rowhouse with gas lights, a cruel husband, and the memory of your dead aunt, who was murdered there?!


This is precisely the situation that Paula (Ingrid Bergman) finds herself in after determining to face her worst fears with her new, and mysterious, husband. The worst is yet to come, however; in the flickering light of the dimming gas, Paula is losing her mind.  As she sinks into despair and misery, two men are poised on either side of her sanity: her husband trying to take her mind and a fond onlooker trying to save it.

Image via Wikipedia

The result is a fascinatingly tense film that keeps you guessing and hanging on every word. For acting it can't be matched. Charles Boyer nails the part of the sadistic husband who has a nefarious motive for driving his wife slowly and systematically out of her mind. He was nominated for Best Actor for this role. 


Ingrid Bergman won the Best Actress Oscar for her performance in this film, and it was well deserved. She is at every moment believable, and in every instant sympathetic. Her performance of growing terror will draw you out to the edge of your seat. 


Angela Lansbury ("Murder, She Wrote" and Beauty and the Beast) made her screen debut in this film and turned out such an accomplished performance that she too earned an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actress. Not bad for a first outing. 


Joseph Cotten plays our hero. The man who once admired Paula's aunt and now sees in Paula a deeply troubled and threatened young woman. Can he intervene soon enough to save both her life and her mind?


Besides Bergman's win Gaslight scored the Best Art Direction-Interior Decoration, Black-and-White Oscar and was nominated for three others:

1. Best Cinematography, Black-and-White
2. Best Picture
3. Best Writing, Screenplay

Bergman also won the Golden Globe that year for Best Motion Picture Actress in this role. Even if you are not one to be swayed by awards, however (I usually don't trust 'em myself), I hope your interest is piqued enough to give this one a try. 

George Cukor directed this film to great emotional effect, but he also succeeded in producing a film that is visually intriguing if nothing else (but it's so much else!). His use of shadow in story-telling is unique and should be noted. Keep in mind, also, that Boyer was shorter than Bergman and had, on occasion, to stand on a box to make the scenes work. 


I hope you check this one out and come back to give your opinion. I'd love to hear what you think about it.

CMBA Hitchcock Blogathon: The Man Who Knew Too Much

I am honored to be taking part in the Classic Movie Blog Association's Hitchcock Blogathon - its largest blogathon yet. I'm not alone. In all there are 20 classic movie blogs covering a wide variety of Hitchcock masterpieces, staples, and lesser-known jewels; look to the bottom of this post for a full listing of all of the reviews and where they can be found. I look forward to reading each of them myself. I'm bound to learn a lot!


When I opened the invitation to participate in the blogathon, I didn't even have to think about which movie I would review. If you've been with this blog from the beginning, or know me personally, then you know that I adore Doris Day. Jimmy Stewart doesn't hurt either. So The Man Who Knew Too Much it is. Now, I've seen this film a number of times over the years, and it is one of my favorites to show friends who know nothing about Day and little about Hitchcock. But I knew that for a review of this kind I needed to watch it again and pay more attention to the details I had never focused on before. While I was at it, I figured I might as well start by viewing the original Man Who Knew Too Much made in Britain by Hitchcock in 1934. By Turner Classic Movies' account, this was the film that launched Hitchcock into the uninterrupted string of successes that made him world renowned. 


It was a fascinating experience, mostly. The audio quality of my copy is not exactly stellar, so I'm not sure I caught more than 80% of what was said, but that could also be due to the plethora of distractions that were assailing me as I watched. Incidentally, distractions do not affect me while I am watching the 1956 version with Doris Day, but more on that later. 


The 1934 version is notable, not so much for its story line or action, but for the performance delivered by Peter Lorre and the way in which Hitchcock framed the tension and suspense with dry and ironic humor interspersed throughout. As per Hitchcock's style, this humor is subtle, mostly visual, and it is entirely up to the viewer to take it or leave it. Peter Lorre, who is legendary in his creepiness and strangeness, doesn't disappoint in his role as the spy ringmaster. As always, I found him intriguing. But much of the rest of the film fell flat for me. 


The plot is this: 
A family vacationing in Switzerland is drawn into a spy caper when the wife becomes privy to the dying breaths of an operative who has uncovered an assassination plot against an important official. When their daughter is kidnapped to keep them quiet, her father and family friend go into the spy business themselves to recover her. Unfortunately, the child is a brat with whom it's hard to sympathize, and the film ends in a long shootout that lost my interest. 


In my opinion, Leonard Maltin had it backwards when he said that this version was the most exciting. Apparently, Hitchcock agreed with me. As he stated in an interview:

"Let's say that the first version was the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional."

In 1956, the famed director was ready to begin the remake of The Man Who Knew Too Much he had been planning since 1941. It was the only time he ever remade one of his own films. Having recently visited Morocco himself, the wheels of Hitchcock's unmatched morbid imagination began revolved around the idea of placing the plot in precisely that part of the world. The result was a American couple sucked into the dangers and excitement of espionage  in Marrakech, rather than a British couple drawn into similar adventure in Switzerland. The new plot involved a woman of musical talent as the wife and mother, and because of this Hitch had his mind set on Doris Day from the beginning. 


The project, originally retitled Into Thin Air, took shape under the supervision of both Hitch and Jimmy Stewart from the production end, with John Hayes and Bernard Herrmann on the scripting and musical ends. Hermann may be seen conducting the orchestra himself in the famous Royal Albert Music Hall scene at the end.


It was Jay Livingston and Ray Evans, however who were responsible for the Oscar-winning song that is to this day an integral part of Doris Day's image: "Que Sera, Sera" (though in those days it was officially, "Whatever Will Be, Will Be"). The tune, sung with such heartfelt emotion and capability by Doris Day, remains for me one of the highlights of the film.


According to Paramount production files, the project ended late and over-budget, but has grossed substantially more than it cost and gave Stewart and Day the never repeated opportunity of working together under the direction of one of the most brilliant and famous movie masterminds in history. The result is splendid.


Hitch's 1956 Man Who Knew Too Much, is, in a word, deft. It accomplishes the blend of adventure, intrigue, suspense, and humor that the earlier version hinted at but did not expertly combine. Sold by the excellent performances from all the actors involved, but particularly by Doris Day, the film not only distinguishes itself as a class act thriller, but also comes in as a fairly good musical in some respects. 

Here's the plot if you're unfamiliar:
Dr. and Mrs. Ben McKenna (Stewart and Day) are touring Morocco with their little boy Hank when they become acquainted with a mysterious Frenchman by the name of Louis Bernard. Their acquaintance is short but perplexing, with Bernard's odd and inquisitive behavior troubling Mrs. McKenna, formerly Jo Conway, the celebrated stage artist. The next day, while they are exploring the market place with a British couple they've befriended, the McKenna's are witness to Bernard's public murder, and Ben is the sole hearer of Bernard's last words. It isn't long before Hank is kidnapped and used to keep Ben silent about what Bernard told him. Ben tracks the kidnappers to London and the McKennas pursue them there. Once arrived, they decline to cooperate with Scotland Yard in fear of Hank's safety, and set off on their own to save Hank and stop an assassination attempt at the same time. The climax is a supreme combination of good music, high suspense, and dramatic accomplishment.


The film as a whole is also a telling demonstration of Hitchcock's genius and the extent to which he developed his own talents in the time between the two versions of the film (besides the general improvement in technology and methods). We see his mellow, dry humor lightly sprinkled throughout the film, deftly weaved in among the threads of tension and suspense. Particularly in the final moments Hitch seamless transitions from the emotional high of the conclusion to a very funny and similarly short moment that immediately precedes the credits.


Cultural depictions and foreign language are also used to much better effect than in the first film, with the foreign setting elevated the expectation and dread of the viewer. Priceless cinematic moments in which little movements and subtle staging say much more than lines being uttered are also highlights. Watch for the scene where Ben is called away from his interrogation with the French police to take the call from the kidnappers. Pay special attention to the small movements of his fingers and those of Drayton as they make a follow-up phone call. The import of those movements and the way in which they are framed by the camera is outstanding. 


In the end I always come back to the performance by Doris Day, however. The scene in which Ben gives her the news of their son's kidnapping is of Oscar calibre, in my opinion. Also impressive is the way in which she can intone such meaning and foreboding into the simplest of lines. Listen carefully when she has the following exchange with Ben early in the film:


Ben: "What does that mean?"
Jo: "It means that Mr. Bernard is a very mysterious man."


Ben: "I have nothing to hide."
Jo: "I have a feeling that Mr. Bernard has."


Such simple words packed with such foreshadowing. 


I hope you'll find time to fit this movie into your schedule soon. It's worth your while. As always your comments and feedback are welcome her at Reel Revival. Enjoy those films!


Check out these other Hitchcock Blogathon reviews at the blogs of other Classic Movie Blog Association members:
 The Birds – Classic Film & TV Café 
Dial M for Murder – True Classics: The ABCs of Film
The Lady Vanishes – MacGuffin Movies 
Lifeboat – Classicfilmboy’s Movie Paradise 
Marnie – My Love of Old Hollywood 
Mr. and Mrs. Smith – Carole & Co.
North By Northwest – Bette’s Classic Movie Blog 
Notorious – Twenty Four Frames
The Pleasure Garden – Thrilling Days of Yesteryear 
Rear Window – Java’s Journey 
Rebecca­ – ClassicBecky’s Film and Literary Review 
Rope – Kevin’s Movie Corner
Shadow of a Doubt - Great Entertainers Media Archive
The 39 Steps – Garbo Laughs
Three Classic Hitchcock Killers – The Lady Eve’s Reel Life
Torn Curtain - Via Margutta 51
The Trouble with Harry – Bit Part Actors
Vertigo – Noir and Chick Flicks
The Wrong Man – The Movie Projector

The Fall of the House of Usher

My husband sighs.

"Do you not agree with his approach?" I ask.

"No, he should have a weapon.  And some body armor.  And a gun."

"So he should have a Glock, a riot shield, and a bulletproof vest?"

"He should really have a bear suit.  That's what he needs.  Do you know about those?"

"Not really."

"People go out and get mauled by bears in them and they're fine.  Did he just step on a skeleton?"

No, he did not just step on a skeleton.  But he was wandering around by himself in a ridiculously creepy house during the middle of the night without a weapon. We all know this is a bad move.  Especially when you're in the house of Usher, and it's about to fall.  Literally.

I watched this as a child, but I only remembered two moments from it, so watching it last night was like a totally new experience for me.  I won't tell you what I remember because that would spoil the fun for you.  And let it be know that while I hate modern horror movies and refuse to watch them, old ones are game for me because they were made at a time when directors and screenwriters still had a moral compass, and when the viewing public didn't have the stomach for the gore and violence we see today.

The Basics:

Released in 1960, The Fall of the House of Usher, also promoted as House of Usher, was one of a string of horror movies in which Vincent Price starred as a bone-chilling villain.  The main cast is small, only four people, and Price is the only recognizable name among them.  Mark Damon (no relation to Matt), Myrna Fahey, and Harry Ellerbe are all new to me.  In a way I think that adds to the effect of the film, because when you don't recognize an actor you are better able to be absorbed in the story they are acting out. 

The Plot:

Young Philip Winthrop (Damon) has come to the house of Usher to see his intended, Miss Madeline Usher (Fahey).  He finds himself in a desolate wasteland: black, dead, and deserted.  In the dankness sits the house: vast, gloomy, sinister, and decrepit.  Philip is not welcome at the house of Usher; when he stubbornly insists on being admitted, he is met with strange requests and a hauntingly bizarre situation.  The formerly vibrant Madeline is ill, confined to her bed, and her brother Roderick (Price) maintains that Philip must leave without seeing her, that he must leave forever and forget Madeline.  

When Philip repeatedly refuses to comply, he is drawn deeper and deeper into the dark, dangerous world of the Ushers.  He is made privy to secrets he won't believe and prophesies he won't accept.  It is just he, the butler (Ellerbe), the two remaining Ushers....and the house.  I'll not go into more detail than that, because I think these really are more fun when you haven't heard everything before hand. 

Here is a sample for your perusal.

Highs and Lows:

Like in any good horror movie, the characters in this film do things and behave in ways that are appallingly short-sighted and stupid to the audience.  Why would you, for instance, wander around an impressively creepy house by yourself, without a weapon, during the middle of the night?  When you have decided to escape with your beloved and make a mad, hopeful dash toward the future, why do you go separate ways to pack your bags?  When the evidence of your unwilling host's evil madness and deceit is before your eyes, why do you not look up and see it?  Why do you fall into his trap?  If a chandelier fell from the ceiling and almost landed on you, would you say "I don't know" in response to "what happened?"  

But these are just little things, for overall the lows aren't too bad.  I mean, the aren't too low, and the highs are pretty impressive.

• The house is creepy.  This is set in the 1800s, and the styling lends itself very well to creepiness.  
• The music is sufficiently horrible.  I don't mean that the quality or composition of it is horrible, but that it makes you feel horrible.  You should only watch this movie if you want to feel horrible.  
• This is an adaptation of Edgar Allan Poe's story of the same name, so the script is pretty fantastic in places.  
• It was not made in Technicolor, but in just plain color, so it lacks the brightness and punch you see in other films.  This is perfect.
• Vincent Price was being himself here; he'll give you the willies.  You would never guess that he was from Missouri.  
• The climax made both my husband and myself brace ourselves and cringe.

-Sidenote- I know many children are desensitized to blood and gore these days, but just the same I wouldn't recommend this for anyone younger than 12 or 13 because of some frightening images. 

Conclusion:

Pick a dreary night, preferably a stormy one, and scare it up with this movie.  The trick is to suspend disbelief and let the film carry you along.  Don't be too analytical, don't be underawed by the unadvanced camera techniques and lack of computer effects, just let yourself be freaked out.  I think this is an admirable adaptation of Poe, and therefore I would recommend it to anyone but the very young. 

And, note, if you yell loudly enough at Philip to take the ax with him, he might just do it ;)