Does anybody else think the scene at the music recital where she supposedly has stolen his watch and put it in her purse was just lame? I mean why would anybody do that, even if they were supposedly "mad". Couldnt' he have come up with a better ruse?
shareI'm glad you agree with me. Not to get off topic, but this scene reminds me of some Hitchcock movies where one of the characters must sink to a level of absolute stupidity in order for the story to progress. Of course the person is intelligent in the scene right before and right after this lapse of stupidity, making me see this as nothing more than a lazy plot device, like amnesia, split personalities, fainting women, dry twigs and dropped car keys.
shareWell, he had to do something if he wanted to get her out of there as soon as possible. And what's a little kleptomania when you have amnesia, paranoia and schizophrenia already in the mix? It's a set of conditions that usually go together. He was hoping to do a thorough job on her.
This is why I don't see it as a stupid or unnecessary scene; even if at the time I was shouting to the screen "YOU NEVER HAVE ENOUGH, DO YOU, YOU BASTARD!" :)
I really wanted to kick Boyer's face in this movie!
Totally agree with the Hitchcock comment though. Spoils some of his movies for me. Cukor out-Hitched the master here.
I thought of it more as he saw her enjoying herself and for a moment becoming normal and he couldn't have that.
shareI think it's too bad you can't appreciate this climactic scene. "My watch is missing," has such a morose meaning to Paula because her husband has been priming her for months. The fact that these acts that he accuses Paula of are so senseless and insignificant (i.e. stealing his watch and putting it in her purse) only deepen her fears that she is going insane. There's no reasonable explanation for things he accuses her of doing... THAT'S THE POINT.
Like when he sets it up to appear that she hid a picture behind a statue on the staircase of their home, she breaks down again, and says she can't understand why she does these "senseless" things she can't remember.
This is really a scene that can't be taken at face value - its impact comes from all the previous scenes that lead up to it.
Yes, she has been primed for months. She is (once again, conveniently) nothing more than a mouse for her husband to swat around at his leisure. She's a one-dimensional character lacking the general intelligence of the average human being and the intellectual curiosity of a person who is wondering about her sanity. (What would you do if you heard noises in your attic?) It appears the author began with the conclusion and clumsily and lazily created sequences that allowed him to arrive there.
sharePaula was already damaged because of the trauma of finding her aunt's body. And she had been manipulated by Boyer's character for the whole ten years after the death. So she was not stupid as a plot device but damaged from her life leading up to her marriage and move back into the house where the trauma happened.
shareDo you mean that they had an illicit affair for ten years before getting married? That doesn't make any sense to the story?
"We fell in love. I fell in love - she just stood there." / http://twitter.com/Marielind
[deleted]
Exactly. How has he set her up for ten years? Yes, he knew who she was, and married her to get the jewels, but other than that did he have any direct influence over the years?
share[deleted]
Consider the time period. She is not a one-dimensional character. Taking Paula back to the house where as a child she had been so traumatized, and every thing else he did to lead up to it.... carefully hiring a mostly deaf head housekeeper/maid, and a slattern who could easily be turned against his wife, just the little things (we SAW him put the brooch in the purse, so how did he get it out again?), the elderly servant was quite trustworthy (except for her hearing), going upstairs only when Nancy would not be around... it was all carefully planned, timed and executed psychological torture.
shareI disagree--Gregory, the evil bastard, had been setting up Paula's misplacing things several times already. He knew she'd get upset and he'd have plenty of witnesses to her supposed crazy behavior.
I really hated Gregory--Boyer did a masterful job. His silky voice, moist eyes and tilt of brow made his evil work so ....so....so eviler. I had to remind myself that this was the same guy who played in Love Affair.
Do not mistake my incredulity for disbelief.
"He knew she'd get upset and he'd have plenty of witnesses to her supposed crazy behavior."
Exactly. As she didn't get out at all, he took advantage of being in public to create 'a scene'. Did the gathering discuss the music afterwards or her breakdown????
"A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five."
[deleted]
I thought that it highlighted Gregory's crafty ill-intent. She tried to assert herself by insisting that they go out and so he devises a quick way to make the whole thing backfire and blow up in her face.
She looked so happy and almost triumphant at the concert, as though she was finally able to prove to herself in some small measure that wasn't sick, until he brings up that his watch is missing. Watching her crumble and completely lose composure was heartbreaking!! The poor thing! He really chewed her up slowly but surely until she really didn't know herself whether or not she was sane!
I only wish that she'd taken that knife at the end of the story and slit his throat with it ("it's not a knife, I'm mad!!").
Ingrid is a brilliant actor. I was guessing towards the end of the movie that maybe she was going over the edge and thus rob us of the justice she deserves. Her rave in the attic was way too tame and much too lame considering the evil Gregory reaped at her expense. He murdered her aunty/mother, stole her heart, poisoned her mind, enforced her solitude, humiliated and embarrassed her, so you have to wonder why in hell she didn't at the very least SLLLAAAAAPPPPP that barstard with the nearest heavy object. Only then would she get a taste of the sweet justice we all deserve...yeah fairly lame and tis a shame but, it was a great movie anyway. Ingrid plays the drama queen extremely well and is right up their with Vivein Leigh (Streetcar) and Gloria Swanson (Sunset Boulevard) as someone else commented earlier.
shareA Hollywood picture that adheres to the Hayes Production code would hardly depict a Victorian era lady lashing out violently against her own husband, no matter how much the S.O.B. deserved to be flayed alive.
Okay folks, show's over, nothing to see here!
That would have defeated the point of her turning the tables. His weapon against her was her (in)sanity. She used JUST THAT to exact a revenge. She took his ammo and used it exactly as he did, but to HER own good. If she stabbed or shot him, that would have defeated the narrational aspect of turning the tables.
I DO agree with many other posters on this forum. I HATED Boyer and wanted to kick him in his...JEWELS!
"All I want in life is a thirty share and a twenty rating."
It's been a while since I watched Gaslight but exactly how does she takes his 'ammo' and use it against him in any effective way... narrational aspect... what contrary gasbag nonsense. She was completely at his mercy with not an ounce of spine to claim justice. You completely contradict yourself in your last sentence by confirming the very point I made... of course he had it coming to him however it was delivered but, preferably in a more convincing way.
shareYou completely contradict yourself in your last sentence by confirming the very point I made...
She was completely at his mercy with not an ounce of spine to claim justice.
of course he had it coming to him however it was delivered but, preferably in a more convincing way.
I agree that this scene is flawed, if my spontaneous reaction to it on the first viewing is to be the guide. When he said, with an incredibly grim expression, "Paula, my watch is missing", I burst out laughing. It seemed so over-the-top, it was the one moment in the movie that lost all hold on realism and became absurd and laughable. It really broke the spell, but the spell was quickly reestablished.
The situation demanded that he do something to enable their departure. He had seen Cameron behind them and had to make sure that Paula would not be able to talk to Cameron. Perhaps the problem was not what Gregory did in that moment, but how Boyer did it. The contrast between his deadly expression and the triviality of "my watch is missing" just didn't work for me.
It wasn't "trivial"---it was another step in his campaign to make her think she was losing her mind. By that time she had become afraid of him---that's why she reacted the way she did. As others have said, the impact of the scene depends on what had happened before. And that outing was very important to her psychologically (as he well knew).
share
I understand why he did it, to publicly show that she is having a breakdown. But how was she supposed to have taken his watch?..He was wearing it. Did she mug him? Never made sense to me.
I guess it's like looking at clouds. You see one thing and I see another. Peace.
Maybe they got, um, 'intimate' in the carriage?
shareIt was just one of many 'ruses' the key to which is that she had no proof she wasn't culpable. He was forcing her to choose between two directly opposed ideas - the idea that she might have a failing memory and bouts of madness, or that he is lying to her. This particular ruse is especially pointed. It's easy for us as strangers to see that he's in a position to hide his own watch in her purse and that this is what has happened. It shows how extremely she is committed to her love for him and the notion that he could never deceive her. She's more willing to believe she is mad. That's the point, and it's very well made.
It would not make sense to set up a less crazy ruse. The point of madness is that you do things that don't make sense.
"I'll book you. I'll book you on something. I'll find something in the book to book you on."
The most important factor in this - and overlooked by the OP and also so far by any answers - is that Paula is a product of the age she lives in and its societal rules. Remember, back then, women were "under the thumb" of men in general and especially subject to the rule of their husbands (and before that, their fathers), so it would be easy for Gregory to manipulate this poor girl (who was already damaged as a child by the murder of her aunt), and even easier for him to badger her and convince her she was going mad using means and ways that, to our modern eyes, don't really have any factual basis or make sense. Remember, the film was set in Victorian times, and women back then did not question their husbands. Also, society in Victorian times - and by society I mean the stature level of the circles within which Gregory and Paula moved (i.e., "society" as a class and not society in general as meaning the common social populace) - had very stringent rules about behavior, both at home and out of doors in the company of other members of "society" - and these rules were all the more stringent where women, i.e., "Ladies" of "society", were concerned. Back then the terms "Lady" and "Gentleman" referred to a person of standing (read wealth and connections) in "society" as opposed to just men and women of the proletariat. It was like having rank instead of being just a common sailor/soldier. Stealing, being insane, being forgetful and fitful and fretful (which Gregory took pains to remind her she was very frequently and without proper cause to our eyes - but not to hers as she wouldn't question him being his wife in "society" of Victorian times), were not traits that a proper Lady should have (never mind would have, if, let's say, she really was insane) and she would be in an asylum before she knew it - or shut up in an attic tower to be hidden away as a shameful embarrassment like Mr. Rochester's real wife in Jane Eyre. So a viewer of our modern age cannot fairly look at what happens to Paula, and yes, what she allows to happen to her, and judge her harshly by our standards. It simply isn't fair to her. And it is especially in this scene at the musical recital, when Gregory deliberately brings up his "missing" watch, when his accusations (and remember Paula has been going through this torment for some months by now) would have the strongest effect on Paula. He knows by doing it in this setting that it's going to really blindside her for the double reasons that a. she's already half convinced she's mad and that he has no qualms about letting her know; and b. she's in the midst of "society" and she knows he's going to drive the point home about her "thievery" regardless (and in fact by his plan because of) the presence of other members of "society". I can easily see how this scene works perfectly within that context. He doesn't need a "ruse" to manipulate Paula; she's his wife and all he needs to do is tell her things and she's going to accept and believe them. The poor kid. Having said all that, I too wanted to kick Gregory in the face throughout this whole movie. Props to Charles Boyer for playing it so well.
shareGreat point, CromeRose. Women back then were conditioned, by the culture they lived in, to believe they were weak, fragile little flowers. People back then would be shocked to see how much stronger modern women are. We're definitely products of our culture, aren't we?
shareRuby, I beg to differ with you somewhat. Women of today are NOT "stronger" than their previous generation counterparts, except in some areas; just as, in some ways, our female ancestors were stronger and more hardy than most women from the modern generation.
Our foremothers suffered through the elements, labored through the ages without benefit of modern technology, and bore and reared children who hardly ever saw their own hard-working fathers; I presume you are yourself female or a grown woman so I thus pose the question: Can YOU physically perform all of what your and my women ancestors had to do in order to survive, provide a better way of life for their children and descendants and contribute to the cultivation of a civilized society?
So you could just as easily say that women of previous eras were much hardier and stronger than modern women.
I don't buy this propaganda that's been force-fed during the last couple of generations in education and media which dogmatically claims that women of bygone days lived out every single minute of their entire lives in a living hell "because of an evil patriarchal world." In days of old, rules and conventions were established in order to protect women and mothers and thus preserve the human species. In time, many methods in relation to this became outmoded and it did increase the hardships and unfair treatment women endured due to ignorance and tradition and the failure and/or unwillingness to shed such practices. But I am in full support of the advances women have made in society and throughout the world during the last century. The advancements of technology and civilization themselves have made male dominanation unnecessary and it certainly brings to light the shameful worthlessness of any man, whether living today or from any past generation, who would abuse, mistreat, shortchange and disrespect any female for his own, craven gratification.
Okay folks, show's over, nothing to see here!
Hi Vinidici and all - just as a point of interest as far as lives of women in the 1800s went: you might want to take a look at Anne Bronte's _Tenant of Wildfell Hall_, published in 1848. It's a wonderful novel just on its own merits (but don't get one of the several corrupted editions which begin "You must go back with me to the autumn of 1827." Get an edition which begins with a letter to Halford).
Anne has both her male and female characters struggle through, against and/or in spite of subjugation to husbands, both legal and psychological; education; alcoholism; freedom; and the possibility of universal salvation - which was a controversial topic at the time that Anne was writing. Anne was seeing her society through the gaze of a young, genteely-poor, keenly observant and intelligent woman, and the obstacles, legal and otherwise against women don't appear to be exaggerated.
@RubyHypatia
It is not true that women of the past were unaware of their own strength(s). You give them very little credit for common sense and everyday lived experience. They also observed the strength(s) of other women in their lives.
yeah very weak scene.When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...
Is the scene itself weak, or the delivery of the scene? I have a hard time criticizing Boyer and Bergman, they are flawless. I think what makes us squirm is how quickly she breaks down, and as observers we would like to think we would see right through him. We can see his plan, and we know what he has done.
She reacts, and turns into a puddle of stupid. A bawling mess. But, she's the victim, we AREN'T. It's laughable and uncomfortable just how far down she has gone. Maybe it was over done, but how else could the scene have played out?
Has anyone here been subject to a much stronger person who left them helpless? I know I have!!!
I often think of how foolish, even down right stupid some character actions are in various movies. And then, I listen to the news about what real criminals and victims do. After putting them together, the movies seem much more realistic than before.
It is depressing how stupidly intelligent people can behave.
Paula reacts the way she does because of Gregory's *prior* psychological abuse. At that point, he knows how little he has to do to cause her to break down.
shareThis scene may be lame, but if you look at the movie as a whole, Brian Cameron is the character that moves the plot along to take a different turn than it otherwise would've. To do that, he had to be brought in to the situation sooner than later. The incident of the missing watch and reaction by Paula served to immediately involve him. Thus, it was a ploy to move the action along and it was interwoven with her past (as was much of the movie's action). It was a bit out of place for Gregory to provoke Paula in public, but it was the one time it needed to be done since Brian Cameron was an onlooker.
Maybe not the best, but needed.