Photo
infinitybuttons:

365 Films in 2012
92. Gaslight (dir. Thorold Dickinson, UK, 1940)
A man (Anton Walbrook) schemes to drive his wife (Diana Wynyard) insane.
Less famous than the Hollywood remake. Pretty decent. There’s a scene early on where the word “queer” is like every 5th word or something, which is great because a) they’re using it in the old-fashioned sense (to mean strange, unusual) but also because b) the writer apparently had no idea about synonyms? Anyway, Anton Walbrook owns this, as per. You could do a really good modern remake where the audience keeps being pushed from one character to the other but never sure who to trust.
Verdict: pretty queer hmm - yes rather

infinitybuttons:

365 Films in 2012

92. Gaslight (dir. Thorold Dickinson, UK, 1940)

A man (Anton Walbrook) schemes to drive his wife (Diana Wynyard) insane.

Less famous than the Hollywood remake. Pretty decent. There’s a scene early on where the word “queer” is like every 5th word or something, which is great because a) they’re using it in the old-fashioned sense (to mean strange, unusual) but also because b) the writer apparently had no idea about synonyms? Anyway, Anton Walbrook owns this, as per. You could do a really good modern remake where the audience keeps being pushed from one character to the other but never sure who to trust.

Verdict: pretty queer hmm - yes rather

Photoset

jools-the-kid:

‘The man who cheated life by making a bargain with Satan.’

(Source: tea-with-theo)

Photo

Anton Walbrook and Martine Carol listen to director Max Ophüls on the set of Lola Montès, 1955

Anton Walbrook and Martine Carol listen to director Max Ophüls on the set of Lola Montès, 1955

(via whenwewerecool)

Photo
WOW.

WOW.

(Source: mrsleaud)

Photo

Anton Walbrook, Anna Neagle, Felix Aylmer— Victoria the Great, 1937

Anton Walbrook, Anna Neagle, Felix Aylmer— Victoria the Great, 1937

(via whenwewerecool)

Text

jools-the-kid:

Lawrie Knight, a young assistant on The Red Shoes, is asked by Walbrook if he can screen the rushes from the previous day’s shoot: the mirror-smashing scene. Knight hastily arranges it.
The lights got down, the image appears, but there is no sound. Knight apologizes and offers to see the projectionist, fix the problem. Walbrook demurs—it doesn’t matter. So they sit together in the whirring silence.
“Wonderful.”
The voice is a mere whisper. Knight looks around. He’s alone, except for Walbrook.
“Marvellous. Oh, wonderful. I’m fantastic.”

And of course he is.

(via tea-with-theo)

Video
Photo
Sixty Glorious Years (Herbert Wilcox, 1938)
Photo
Esmond Knight, Michael Powell and Anton Walbrook, who was visiting the set of Black Narcissus
Photo

(Source: gwyon)

Photo
constancemilligan:

Anton Walbrook - The Queen of Spades (1949)

constancemilligan:

Anton Walbrook - The Queen of Spades (1949)

Photo
emilygracey:

100 Movies for you to watch next Halloween
 #80 - Gaslight (1940)
Paul:  You will die, raving, in an asylum!

emilygracey:

100 Movies for you to watch next Halloween

 #80 - Gaslight (1940)

Paul:  You will die, raving, in an asylum!

Photo

(Source: joan-webster)

Photoset

loveinexcess:

Then there’s this little number, perfect for brooding alone in the half-light about how your ruthless commitment to your artistic vision is destroying your life and the lives of those you love.

Photo
powellandpressburger:

It’s a crucial moment in The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (1943), and thus all the more conspicuous as it elides the payoff of  the long sequence preceding it: as Clive Candy (Roger Livesey) and Theo  Kretschmar-Schuldorff (Anton Walbrook) begin their duel in 1902  (heralding the start of their forty-year relationship) after a prolonged  dithering over protocol, the camera, while observing them from  overhead, pulls back into the rafters, and then (courtesy of a dissolve)  into the sky above the wonderfully obvious miniature of the gymnasium, a  miniature Berlin in the distance, false snow whipping the lens;  reaching its peak, it descends back to the cardboard earth towards a toy  hansom cab, in which Edith Hunter (Deborah Kerr) anxiously awaits the  outcome.
A virtuoso shot, and one with more than an echo of the famous  “unbroken” take craning into Susan Kane’s nightclub a mere two years  previous. But Michael Powell’s willfully grandiose gesture carries far  more resonance than Welles’s masterful showboating. Stanley Kauffmann’s  rather harsh charge that Welles was “a scene and sequence-maker, not a  filmmaker” nevertheless contains an irreducible truth at its core: for a  great majority of “ambitious” filmmakers in the first two decades of  the sound era, scenes and sequences took precedence over the film as a  whole. One need think only of Ford’s overt preciousness of composition  in The Informer (1935) or The Fugitive (1947), or  Mamoulian’s aggressive playfulness, or Milestone’s uniquely weighty  sense of innovativeness to realize that Welles was only the most  pronounced (and publicized) example of Hollywood’s erratic but  consistent romance with capital-A Art. Innovation in cinema never  springs from some pure and untapped creative well. For those Thirties  and (more dwindling) Forties Hollywood producers who counted prestige as  a subdivision of profit, these occasional ventures into the Artistic  were only good business sense.
…
Powell and his partner Emeric Pressburger (credited as co-director,  actually the film’s chief writer) are noticeably arch about the actual  meaning of the duel, though slyly nationalistic at the same time: the  Germans are stiff-backed and insistent, the British side viewing the  whole affair as decidedly archaic but unfortunately necessary. Colonel Blimp looks back to this earlier era not with fond nostalgia for a better and  truer time, but with a pronounced sense of its absurdity. Yet  underlying that absurdity is a genuine regard for those who, knowing its  absurdity, nevertheless adhered to its strictures—which is either the  greatest absurdity of all or the true nobility that so often accompanies  it. Candy’s friendly and amused smile to his opponent just before the  match that may cost either of them their lives—occasioning a quizzical  furrowing of the German’s brow—is not only a bit of “typically British”  bravado, but a recognition of the idiocy of their position as well as an  appreciation of the utter seriousness with which they undertake the  playing out of that idiocy. It would take a dogmatically rigid view of  such things not to see the equal weight of both sides of that balance,  nor the mysterious, dreamlike quality in the midst of the enervatingly  precise preparations which elevates this encounter into romance—a  romance founded on the entrance into, and acceptance of, the presence of  death.
Naturally, death has no real place in Powell’s masterpiece either,  despite the promise of the title. The duel will result in mutual injury,  mutual recovery, and mutual friendship, but in that one extra-narrative  camera movement, Powell subtly unites the many movements operating  within his most ambitious film thus far. It is a narrative movement,  eliding the outcome of the duel and increasing the suspense by focusing  upon those who wait outside. It is a technical and stylistic movement,  evidence of a cross-pollinating influence from the American cinematic  flair exemplified by Welles. It is a movement towards fantasy in its  delicately lovely miniaturization of a snowbound commencement-de-siècle Berlin even as it moves against nostalgia by the preceding  disparagement of the duel itself. And as Allan Gray’s music shifts from  an urgent swashbuckling theme cast to the clashing of blades to a  wistful and melodic one timed to the gentle blowing of snow as the  camera reaches its apex, we are moved away from the disparities of these  other movements and invited to reflect upon their confluence, on the  curious and curiously beautiful progression of life even as death hangs  over it. More than anything, Powell’s intentionally conspicuous shot is  an emotional movement, an exemplar of the great tenderness underlying  his stylistic flourishes, as opposed to the so often forthright  assertiveness of his American contemporaries (the Ford of Grapes of Wrath and How Green Was My Valley excluded). No one sequence can encapsulate The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp,  for its beauty exists as a film entire. In moving his film always  forward, however, Powell can still find time for the grace notes, for  those spaces of reflection that cause us to consider where all the many  movements within this single, gentle flow intersect, and bloom.
Up and Away - Andrew Tracy on The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp

powellandpressburger:

It’s a crucial moment in The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (1943), and thus all the more conspicuous as it elides the payoff of the long sequence preceding it: as Clive Candy (Roger Livesey) and Theo Kretschmar-Schuldorff (Anton Walbrook) begin their duel in 1902 (heralding the start of their forty-year relationship) after a prolonged dithering over protocol, the camera, while observing them from overhead, pulls back into the rafters, and then (courtesy of a dissolve) into the sky above the wonderfully obvious miniature of the gymnasium, a miniature Berlin in the distance, false snow whipping the lens; reaching its peak, it descends back to the cardboard earth towards a toy hansom cab, in which Edith Hunter (Deborah Kerr) anxiously awaits the outcome.

A virtuoso shot, and one with more than an echo of the famous “unbroken” take craning into Susan Kane’s nightclub a mere two years previous. But Michael Powell’s willfully grandiose gesture carries far more resonance than Welles’s masterful showboating. Stanley Kauffmann’s rather harsh charge that Welles was “a scene and sequence-maker, not a filmmaker” nevertheless contains an irreducible truth at its core: for a great majority of “ambitious” filmmakers in the first two decades of the sound era, scenes and sequences took precedence over the film as a whole. One need think only of Ford’s overt preciousness of composition in The Informer (1935) or The Fugitive (1947), or Mamoulian’s aggressive playfulness, or Milestone’s uniquely weighty sense of innovativeness to realize that Welles was only the most pronounced (and publicized) example of Hollywood’s erratic but consistent romance with capital-A Art. Innovation in cinema never springs from some pure and untapped creative well. For those Thirties and (more dwindling) Forties Hollywood producers who counted prestige as a subdivision of profit, these occasional ventures into the Artistic were only good business sense.

Powell and his partner Emeric Pressburger (credited as co-director, actually the film’s chief writer) are noticeably arch about the actual meaning of the duel, though slyly nationalistic at the same time: the Germans are stiff-backed and insistent, the British side viewing the whole affair as decidedly archaic but unfortunately necessary. Colonel Blimp looks back to this earlier era not with fond nostalgia for a better and truer time, but with a pronounced sense of its absurdity. Yet underlying that absurdity is a genuine regard for those who, knowing its absurdity, nevertheless adhered to its strictures—which is either the greatest absurdity of all or the true nobility that so often accompanies it. Candy’s friendly and amused smile to his opponent just before the match that may cost either of them their lives—occasioning a quizzical furrowing of the German’s brow—is not only a bit of “typically British” bravado, but a recognition of the idiocy of their position as well as an appreciation of the utter seriousness with which they undertake the playing out of that idiocy. It would take a dogmatically rigid view of such things not to see the equal weight of both sides of that balance, nor the mysterious, dreamlike quality in the midst of the enervatingly precise preparations which elevates this encounter into romance—a romance founded on the entrance into, and acceptance of, the presence of death.

Naturally, death has no real place in Powell’s masterpiece either, despite the promise of the title. The duel will result in mutual injury, mutual recovery, and mutual friendship, but in that one extra-narrative camera movement, Powell subtly unites the many movements operating within his most ambitious film thus far. It is a narrative movement, eliding the outcome of the duel and increasing the suspense by focusing upon those who wait outside. It is a technical and stylistic movement, evidence of a cross-pollinating influence from the American cinematic flair exemplified by Welles. It is a movement towards fantasy in its delicately lovely miniaturization of a snowbound commencement-de-siècle Berlin even as it moves against nostalgia by the preceding disparagement of the duel itself. And as Allan Gray’s music shifts from an urgent swashbuckling theme cast to the clashing of blades to a wistful and melodic one timed to the gentle blowing of snow as the camera reaches its apex, we are moved away from the disparities of these other movements and invited to reflect upon their confluence, on the curious and curiously beautiful progression of life even as death hangs over it. More than anything, Powell’s intentionally conspicuous shot is an emotional movement, an exemplar of the great tenderness underlying his stylistic flourishes, as opposed to the so often forthright assertiveness of his American contemporaries (the Ford of Grapes of Wrath and How Green Was My Valley excluded). No one sequence can encapsulate The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, for its beauty exists as a film entire. In moving his film always forward, however, Powell can still find time for the grace notes, for those spaces of reflection that cause us to consider where all the many movements within this single, gentle flow intersect, and bloom.

Up and Away - Andrew Tracy on The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp