Movie Reviews, Page Four

note: all star ratings have to do with whether I think the story told is a realistic portrayal. In fact, all reviews are about covering issues related to abuse, scapegoating, toxic family portrayal, alcoholic family portrayal, substance abuse family portrayal, children from abusive families and their experiences, and how effective that portrayal is, not about how effective the movie-making is, or the set design, or production, directing and acting. I leave those concerns to other writers and reviewers. I don't even cover whether I would recommend the movie to others based on my likes and dislikes; I only recommend movies that I think will open people's eyes as to how survivors of abuse live in the world. 

This page contains reviews for:

Mommie Dearest
Gaslight

Mommie Dearest

(written by Christina Crawford and adapted for the screen by Robert Getchell, Tracy Hotchner, Frank Perry, and Frank Yablans, directed by Frank Perry, produced by David Koontz, and Terry O'Neill)

According to IMDb, "Mommie Dearest" is about:

The abusive and traumatic adoptive upbringing of Christina Crawford at the hands of her mother, screen queen Joan Crawford, is depicted.

(spoiler alert)

Mommie Dearest is the quintessential child abuse movie, and one that almost every child abuse survivor can relate to.

It is the "must see", groundbreaking movie in so many ways. Why was it so ground breaking?

First, it was the only child abuse movie of its kind when it was released. Secondly, it was an unflattering portrayal of a pubic person. No one had really done either, to this extent, before.

Most people who see the movie latch on to the wire hanger incident, but, in fact, that incident is the rarer incident ... although going nuts over wire hangers is part and parcel of the crazy atmosphere inside a home with an abusive parent in it. The wire hanger incident is also erroneous blaming, something that all abusers like to do to make their victims walk on eggshells. It is used  by Mommie Dearest in spades, i.e. blaming children over "little nothings" as I like to call them, and terrorizing children over the "nothings" too. In other words, for other child abuse victims it will be something other than a wire hanger, perhaps a look the parent didn't like, or the fact that the child put their toys away in the wrong toy box, or left the toilet seat up, or forgot to throw their dirty clothes in the hamper while rushing to get ready for school, something that the abusive parent will see as "not perfect enough" and will use as a justification for egregiously abusing their child.

Since wire hangers are such an unusual thing to be upset about, where most of the commonalities lie is in the rest of the story (which in this case I will take from Christina Crawford's book, the movie, and interviews Christina has given):

FOOD ISSUES

Mommie Dearest serves an almost inedible uncooked bloody steak to Christina, and Christina refuses to eat it. So Mommie Dearest puts it in the refrigerator for all of Christina's other meals including the meals afterward like breakfast the next morning, then lunch and then another dinner, and then repeats it all another day. Mommie Dearest also tells Christina that she has to eat "everything" on her plate. Christina holds out and refuses to eat anything ... for days.

Many survivors have such common experiences to this one, but some of the variations are in ways like this:

A child is asked what kind of food they want for their birthday or another special meal when the parent is "acting" normal and loving (and to make sure they don't get what they don't like, the child, knowing they have the nicer Dr. Jekyll part of their parent at attention, list those foods too). Then the mother decides to serve up the foods the child doesn't want and leaves out the foods the child does want - so common. In fact, a lot of birthdays for these mothers aren't about celebrating the child's birthday at all. Birthdays and other holidays are about hurting the child. The birthday is used as a shaming session (which sends a pretty horrific message to the child).

Some children of abuse are force-fed food they find absolutely disgusting (i.e. having a spoon or fork forced into their mouth), and at ages where this is totally inappropriate behavior. Try age 14 or 15, or in some rare cases, age 18, well past the toddler stage where force-feeding for a normal mother will certainly be winding down, and over and done with by the time the child is three or four.

Since many abusive mothers with narcissistic traits cannot see their child past the age of six, these kinds of incidences do, and can, go to adulthood.

Terrorizing children over food sometimes gets to the point where children are made to eat rotten food on purpose (Christina's steak was probably pretty smelly and awful after sitting around and being out of the refrigerator so often). In some rare cases, some abusive mothers poison the food.

And if that isn't the end of it, when Mommie Dearest flies in to visit Christina, now well into her twenties, and past college age, Mommie Deareast seemingly wants to treat her, but with a twist. While she does buy Christina some jewels and a dress, the other way that Mommie Dearest wants to show affection is to take Christina out for dinner. And what does she order Christina? A very rare steak!

MOMMIE DEAREST RETALIATES AGAINST CHILDREN WHO DO NOT SHOW
BLIND ALL-ENCOMPASSING LOYALTY AND GRATITUDE TOWARD HER 

When you are a child, you aren't all that aware that complete gratitude and loyalty are the rules of most abusive parents. Normal parents are more worried about if they are bringing up their children right, and go through a number of corrections because they are self reflecting during the whole process, but abusive parents could care less about that; they are way more concerned as to how others are perceiving them as a parent. They are also worried about how they are perceived by their children (because children are the direct result of parenting), and how much the child esteems them. In fact, the more the parent abuses, the more they'll insist that you, the child, is ungrateful (which is kind of an oxymoron, since if the abuse stopped, the child would probably be exceedingly grateful, and even look forward to being in the parent's company).

When parents who are abusive worry about the abuse going public, or the child enjoying the company of another adult more, they actually become more punishing. The reason they become more punishing has to do with the parent believing that the pain she inflicts on her child will frighten her child enough to comply with the abuse never being exposed. So, in effect, the parent is trying to teach the child to lie about how she is being treated by her parent. It would be much easier to treat one's child well, and to self reflect if you aren't treating your child well, which would mean the child being way more likely to perceive the parent as a really good parent, and be genuine in saying so.

When you are producing a lot of fear and anxiety in your child, you are not practicing good parenting.

By the time your child is an adult, if you are still producing more fear and anxiety in your child with punishments and insults, than with understanding, warmth and love, you are not practicing good parenting either. You are practicing abuse. If you are practicing abuse and trying to hide it, divert it, make it your child's fault, make your child pay for how he or she perceives you, then this is narcissistic behavior. It may also be tinged with sociopathic behavior if you enjoy seeing your underage or adult child frightened by you, or if you find enjoyment out of punishing and insulting your children.

As for Mommie Dearest, she is definitely in the camp of terrorizing Christina and Christina's brother Christopher, with the constant drone that they are ungrateful children, and physically abusing them too if she feels they are ungrateful. Not only that, but they are also beaten over a look on their face, a tone in their voice, or an attitude that is perceived to be "bad" - that is more clear in the book and in interviews with Christina than in the movie, but the movie certainly suggests it enough times.

The mark of the abusive parent is about hurting their child over facial expressions, vocal tones or attitudes.

In a way, the wire hanger incident is about the same thing as all of these other things.

In the wire hanger incident, Christina's and Christopher's clothes are sent out to the dry cleaners, and when they come back, they have wire hangers. The servants hang the clothes back in the closet with the wire hangers still on them, but Christina and Christopher have been told by Mommie Dearest that they, the children, are responsible for replacing the wire hangers with the expensive hangers Mommie Dearest has purchased for them.

The problem is that the children forgot, and Christina is not only verbally terrorized by Mommie Dearest over that fact, but beaten with the wire hangers. When Christina cries out for the abuse to stop, that it hurts, Mommie Dearest seems incapable of having any empathy about the pain she is causing the child, and escalates the abuse instead, with more punishments where Christina has to clean up a big bathroom she shares with Christopher that Mommie Dearest has trashed. All in the middle of the night.

Christina has said in interviews that the real Mommie Dearest was much more seething, quiet and cold about the abuse than the dramatic way that Dunaway portrayed Joan Crawford in the movie, but whether the parent is a loud rage-a-holic or a seething cold hater, abuse is abuse, no matter what.

Either way is realistic because abusers come as rage-a-holics and they come as seething  "I'll get you and your little dog too!" witches. So, we got the rage-a-holic drama queen in the movie. And so be it. It was well performed and shows how crazy-making and frightening abuse can be for a child.

By the way, temper tantrums of a child over what a parent is doing is normal; temper tantrums of a parent over what their child is doing is not so normal, especially if it is a pattern. Parental temper tantrums will make a child grow up too soon, much sooner than he or she should.  

STRANGLING CHRISTINA 

In the movie, Mommie Dearest asks why Christina can't just treat her mother the way Mommie Dearest's fans do. Christina answers back that she is not a fan; she is a daughter.

Mommie Dearest goes into a rage about that. It's a "lack of narcissistic supply issue" for Mommie Dearest and the lack of narcissistic supply makes most abusive mothers become unhinged in a big way. So, Mommie Dearest strangles Christina on the floor (in the book Christina is sure that Joan means to kill her) until a servant intervenes and pulls Joan Crawford off of Christina.

After this incident, Joan Crawford attempts to put Christina in a juvenile detention home.

Hmmmm, Christina is the one to be strangled to the point of almost losing her life, but Joan turns the situation around so that Joan is the victim (so common in child abuse - the Mommie Dearest kinds of parents do love to pretend they are victims!).

The man who comes to the house to take Christina away to the juvenile detention home tells Christina that the juvy-home is probably not a good place for her, and it will probably not improve her life or circumstances, so he advises her to put up with the situation the best that she can and then escape when she turns eighteen.

Christina finds it incredible that there is no real justice or protection in a situation like this, and the best that can be offered is to wait it out. 

So instead of a home for underage criminals, Christina is put in a convent school.

All of it is meant to hurt and punish Christina.

Does all of this change Christina's genuine opinion of her mother? Does it make her treat her mother like all of the Mommie Dearest fans do out there? No.

This is where "the Mommie Dearest plans" to turn their children into narcissistic supply go very, very awry.

MOMMIE DEAREST BELIEVES IN NOT SPOILING CHILDREN

Mommie Dearest makes big plans as to how she will not spoil her children like the "other Hollywood brats".

The way that children become spoiled the most (and I'm taking the analogy that spoiled over-ripe fruit in a bin of other fruit can spoil all of the fruit ... the spoiled child doesn't make a good citizen of the family, or in a marriage, or in a community) happens when a child grows up with the sense that he deserves more than other children, other siblings, other people. He's deemed to be "special."

Giving gifts will not spoil a child; giving praise will not spoil a child; giving love and affection, even if it is constant, will not spoil a child.

Signs of a spoiled child are: bullying others, manipulative behavior, lack of empathy, they act entitled, they believe they are better than other children, they believe they are better than their siblings, they ask for more than others can reasonably give and go into a temper tantrum if they do not receive it, they demand to be the center of attention, they think they deserve to be heard but won't hear others out, they demand to get their way, they are controlling, they attempt to be authority figures inside the family and outside it, they do not have the same emotional maturity level that their peers have, they have unregulated emotions.

So spoiling children has more to do with "you are better than --" statements or actively showing a child that he or she is better than another child:

"Don't play with those dirty children. You're better than that."

"You are better than your sister. So we expect better behavior from you."

"You were born white. That means you are more privileged." - can lead to prejudiced behavior and entitlement

"You are much more talented than your classmates."

"You are brought up to be privileged. As long as you show us that you deserve to be there, we'll reward you." - can make a child disingenuous.

"You are so much better than your friend. Why on earth do you want to 'pal around' with someone like that?" - can lead to prejudiced behavior.

"I'm so glad you are a boy. I really don't like girls." - can lead to prejudiced behavior and entitlement

But Mommie Dearest believes that spoiling children has to do with giving them too much comfort, and gifts, and love.

So Christina is only allowed one present at Christmas (and even those are taken away from her when Mommie Dearest doesn't like the way Christina is playing with them, pretending to be a mother to her dolls).

As for love, Christina is sent away a lot.

As for comfort, there is not much comfort in abuse, so she pays there too.

Later on, Christina has to put herself through college, and she lives in a tiny apartment afterward.

So, who is the spoiled one in this movie? 

Why, of course, it is Mommie Dearest herself. She does a lot of self-spoiling.

So, let's take that list again:

* Is Mommie Dearest bullying her kids? Yes.

* Is Mommie Dearest manipulative when it comes to her kids? Yes.

* Is Mommie Dearest entitled and does she expect her children to give her unusual treatment? Yes - expecting a child to be a fan is just one

* Does Mommie dearest believe that she is better than her children? Obviously

* Does Mommie Dearest believe everyone should listen to her, but that she doesn't have to listen to others? Obviously.

I won't go through the entire list, but you get my drift ...

THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT

If you are privy to scapegoat stories you know that most of the time they are left out of the Last Will and Testament. Or they are given two dollars (just to make them be present to hear what the other children got). This is what happened to Christina and her brother, Christopher: out of a two million dollar estate, Joan Crawford left the twins property and money, but not in equal amounts (she favored one of them) and nothing to Christina and Christopher. She also gave a nominal amount to her grandchildren, and the bulk went to charity so that her name would be on a plaque. This is very typical of abusive narcissistic parents.

If you are privy to scapegoat stories, you also know that many scapegoats end up to be the ones to take care of their dying, ill parent. Christina was the only one to do so among her siblings. In fact, she put two years into care-taking her mother.

When Joan finally died, she was also the only sibling to go into the room where her mother's body lay, to pay her homage.

So after Mommie Dearest spends her life time focusing on how much gratitude her children are giving her and not giving her, and making it the hallmark excuse for abusing a child, she goes out of the world a hypocrite - ungrateful as ever. 

I have heard and read more stories like this than you could ever imagine.

WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE LATCH ONTO THE WIRE HANGER INCIDENT,

AND WHY DO CHILD ABUSE SURVIVORS SHOUT "NO MORE WIRE HANGERS!" 

WHEN THEY ARE SUPPORTING ONE ANOTHER

The reason why so many people latch onto the wire hanger incident is because it is outrageous ... but not so outrageous for an abuse survivor; it is pretty commonplace.

In fact, it is just a metaphor for everything a parent can become enraged about, and get abusive about:

"No more books in your room!"

"No more facial expressions!"

"No more talking to you! And no one else should either!"

"No more pie!"

"No more dessert!"

"No more emotions!"

"No more food until you eat the disgusting cold vegetables I prepared for you!"

"No more tones in your vocal expressions!"

"No more Chistmases or birthdays!"

"No more caring about you!

"No more attitudes!"

"No more considerations for you!"

"No more supper!"

"No more toys!"

"No more drama!"

"No more praying to God! God won't listen to a brat like you!"

"No more of my love!"

"No more crying or I'll keep hitting you!"

For the Turpins it was about "No more water on your wrists!": The children were punished and chained if they got water on their wrists.

For Ariel Kornegay it was about "no more furniture!" in her room and "no more bathroom privileges!" - she had to sleep on the floor in a bedroom that was empty, constantly locked and to relieve herself in a bucket.

It is all so "nuts-o," and it doesn't make a difference if it is one thing or another, because the point is that it is crazy-making: it is about being punished over normalities and trivialities (erroneous punishments).

IN CONCLUSION

This is from a survivor of abuse (from a forum) talking about why the young generation is going "no contact" in record numbers with their parents:

Many of us were raised with the direct and implied notion that the only emotion we are allowed and encouraged to express with our parents is gratitude. Today we call it “toxic positivity” we are not encouraged to entertain negative emotions especially ones directed at our parents. We were raised to silently endure criticism, dismissiveness and rejection ... If the adult child sets a boundary or airs a grievance they are automatically considered ungrateful because they are interrupting the hierarchy between the parent and adult child. These parents intrinsically believe that they are to be respected as an authority first and foremost. They dismiss the younger generations belief of one person respecting another on equal level ...

There is a lot of room to make poignant movies and series about child abuse issues, and I would bet that a lot of them will look like and take their inspiration from "Mommie Dearest" since child abusers are pretty predictable and practice similar punishments. 

The one challenge moving pictures hasn't taken on (that I know about) is the unrelenting Dr. Jekyll Mr. Hyde behaviors of perpetrators that makes living in a home with child abuse going on in it frightening for the children. One could also show how children endure it all, and are given sickening roles like the scapegoat role, and even give their parent one more chance after another, only to end up in domestic violence therapy with horrific physical and emotional symptoms that are the hallmark of PTSD. The happy ending could be much like the happy ending in Good Will Hunting.

VIDEOS AND MORE READING

Chistina Crawford - from Wikipedia

excerpt:
In 1978, Crawford's book "Mommie Dearest" was released. It accused her mother of being a cruel, violent, neglectful, and deceitful narcissistic fraud who adopted her children only for wealth and fame after she had been labeled "box office poison". It also raised public discourse about child abuse, which was only then beginning to be widely acknowledged as a problem.[1] In 1981, a movie adaptation of the book was released, starring Faye Dunaway as Joan Crawford and Diana Scarwid as Crawford. The film, while critically panned, grossed more than $39 million worldwide from a $5 million budget and garnered five Golden Raspberry Awards. "Surviving Mommie Dearest" at St. Luke's Theater on November 20, 2013, in New York City. Crawford has published five subsequent books, including "Survivor". For seven years, she served as a member of Los Angeles' Inter-Agency Council on Abuse and Neglect Associates, where she campaigned for the reform of laws regarding child abuse and child trafficking.[1]

Review of Mommie Dearest - by Yardena Arar from the Associate Press 

excerpt:

By all accounts, Miss Crawford had serious failings as a mother, but the film pounds so unrelentingly on her raging cruelty to her children -- and her equally offensive public sweetness -- that she emerges as a laughable caricature.

My own response is:

Yes, "caricature" is right, because the Mommie Dearest kind of mother is an actress, and one of the things so many abusive mothers have is a sweet face for the public and a nasty one for the children.

Mommie Dearest Review - by Roger Ebert:

excerpt:

"Mommie Dearest" is a painful experience that drones on endlessly, as Joan Crawford's relationship with her daughter, Christina, disintegrates from cruelty through jealousy into pathos. It is unremittingly depressing, not to any purpose of drama or entertainment, but just to depress. It left me feeling creepy.

The movie was inspired, of course, by a best-selling memoir in which adopted daughter Christina Crawford portrayed her movie-star mother as a grasping, sadistic, alcoholic wretch whose own insecurities and monstrous ego made life miserable for everyone around her. I have no idea if the book's portrait is an accurate one, but the movie is faithful to it in one key sense: It made life miserable for me.

My own response is: 

The quote he made "It made life miserable for me" stuck in my brain. You have no idea how miserable and un-entertaining abuse is, Mr. Ebert! 

But, Roger Ebert is not alone in his response to movies that are largely about abuse - so many reviewers say the same thing about all of them, and it does sound "creepily" unempathetic when they take a movie like "Mommie Dearest" and make it about how good they feel.

However, if you are a child abuse survivor, you will find that it speaks to you, in many, many ways, and validates your experiences . 

While I respect Roger Ebert, he is like so many people who aren't child abuse survivors in that he just "doesn't get it": he doesn't want to see it, he doesn't want to know that it exists, he doesn't want to be depressed by child abuse stories or even be reminded that abuse is a world-wide problem. 

Doesn't this sound so familiar when you are talking to people who have never lived through abuse? 

That's no reason to stop making films about child abuse, however. Keep making them, and get better at them! They can be a box office success too. From Wikipedia:

The film was a commercial success, grossing $39 million worldwide from a $5 million budget.

12 Over the Top Facts About Mommie Dearest - by Tara Aquino

excerpt:

Christina Crawford opened up about the film’s famous title, saying that, “‘Mommie dearest’ was a term of enslavement. If we just called her ‘Mother’ or ‘Mommy,’ she corrected us over and over and over again.”

I'll never forgive Mommie: Joan Crawford's daughter gives first interview in 10 years - by Elizabeth Day for The Guardian

excerpt:

"What my mother wanted was fans and puppies, not human beings. She was as close to being a totally manufactured person as I’ve ever met.’" ...

... Does she believe Joan Crawford ever loved her? ‘Maybe in the very, very beginning but I think she wasn’t a healthy person. If a lot of what she did had happened today, that woman would be arrested and taken to jail.’

Why did no one intervene? ‘That was the worst thing - that nobody did. Because everyone knew. Our staff, certain neighbours ... But she was a celebrity, they had jobs they didn’t want to lose, and by the end there was no hired help any more because she was so difficult to work for. The agency stopped sending people.

‘It was complete and total hypocrisy between the public and the private. She adopted us for the publicity,’ she says ...

... She tells me she stopped referring to Joan as her mother several years ago and now calls her ‘my adopted parent’. She has clearly never forgiven her. ‘I think she took absolutely no responsibility for changing her behaviour. Forgiveness is a two-person process.’ ...

... When, on that long-ago night, Christina claims that her mother tried to throttle her, a secretary eventually pulled them apart and summoned a juvenile officer to the house. According to Christina, the officer said there was nothing he could do; that she would have to sit it out until she was 18 and could leave home of her own accord; if one more call was made to the authorities Christina would end up in a detention centre. ‘That changed my world view,’ she says, dryly. ‘That the victim could be punished while the perpetrator got away scot free. That made me kind of cynical.’

Cynical, but no longer terrified. ‘The most gratifying part of getting well is that I’m not afraid,’ she says. ‘If she walked in the door now I’d tell her she’s not welcome and could she please leave. Because that’s what I couldn’t do as a child.’ ...

Following is an interesting video, but one thing that people should know who are not part of an abusive family is that abusive parents play favorites. I believe in Christina's portrayal. It goes with everything I know about abusive parents: erroneous punishments, retaliations for not being completely enamored with one's parent, not being completely subservient to one's parent so that you put up with egregious abuse in a docile manner, the "authoritarian family" and all of its double standards depending on who the members are (golden children like the twins, lost child like Christopher Crawford, or scapegoat like Christina Crawford):

The Estate of Joan Crawford

Full 2010 Documentary, HD

Interview with Christina Crawford
(with Larry King Live):

clip from the movie, "Mommie Dearest"
No Wire Hangers - Mommie Dearest (6/9) Movie CLIP (1981) HD

making the rounds on facebook:

Gaslight

(the 1944 film adapted from a play by Patrick Hamilton, directed by George Cukor, 
and starring Ingrid Bergman, Charles Boyer, Joseph Cotten and Angela Lansbury
won seven academy awards including best picture, best actor, 
best screenplay and best production design)

According to Wikipedia:

Gaslight is a 1944 American psychological thriller film, adapted from Patrick Hamilton's play Gas Light (1938), about a woman whose husband slowly manipulates her into believing that she is going insane. The film was nominated for seven Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Actor, and Best Screenplay; winning two for Best Actress and Best Production Design.

Paul Byrnes of the Sydney Morning Herald said the movie was:

An essential movie in anyone's canon.

(spoiler alert)

Gaslight is a brilliant script, and a very good movie for the the times (1944 era). It was the first of its kind in terms of taking on the subject of a particular kind of emotional and psychological abuse, aptly referred to as gaslighting (after the movie).

It depicts the mental torture that abusers put their victims through to make them believe they are losing their mind. It also extends to those outside the relationship too, where the abuser tries to get everyone else to believe his victim is insane too.

Gaslighting is extremely common for narcissists and criminals. It would be a rare individual who would not run across this form of abuse (and lying) at some point in their life, if only once or twice. If you are in an abusive relationship, however, you will be experiencing it often.

In this movie, a man with ulterior motives named Gregory (played by Charles Boyer) uses it to seduce and to get a whirlwind romance going with a young lady and singer, Paula (played by Ingrid Bergman).

THE WHIRLWIND ROMANCE 

Gregory asks Paula to marry him after only two weeks of courtship. She tells him that she has decided to think about it by going away to a vacation spot. However, Gregory does not respect her wishes and follows her there. He re-instates his desire to be with her.

In terms of abusive relationships, whirlwind intense romances are very common. The object of the pursuit is to get control over the victim as soon as possible, which requires a lot of love bombing, whispering sweet nothings and proclamations that you are the one and only.

If you put up resistance and constant barriers to the pursuit of being swept off your feet, the abuser usually lets go and tells you that he has a lot of other pursuits anyway (usually pursuers who turn abusive later on feel insulted by boundaries and waiting - the hallmarks of narcissism). But in this case, Gregory wants something from Paula. It is not clear what he wants in these beginning scenes, but it becomes clear later in the movie. So, he will pursue her no matter what. He hopes his passionate kisses are melting her heart enough for her to view him as someone who will always have her best interests at heart.

And that is what we see with abusers. They usually initially come across as "Can't live without you" kinds of people, very passionate, very insistent, will not take "no" for an answer, plus they constantly re-iterate that they will spoil you (called future faking), always be by your side through thick and thin.

Which brings me to Paula's boundaries ...

She tells Gregory that she has to think about his marriage proposal. She is pretty insistent on it. But he does not respect her decision about it and surprises her at her destination point. Abusers cannot afford to have someone "thinking about it" or "thinking about ulterior motives" - especially allowing the victim to have doubts about them in their mind. In order to avoid the possibility of her making a cognitive decision (i.e. based on practicality and not on overwrought emotions, sexual attraction and longings for love), he bombs her with insistence once again.

We know that this happens a lot.

So this is very true to the abusive relationship: constant love bombing, exceptional positive treatment, not respecting boundaries and the decisions of the other person.

THE EXPLOITATION OF THE INNOCENT

AND ISOLATING THE VICTIM

Another thing we know about Paula is that she is very young. She is a virgin and has not had experience with men. 

Her aunt, Alice, brought her up. Aunt Alice was murdered when Paula was only 14 years of age. So Paula has no one who is invested in her happiness except virtual strangers who she decides to trust or not to trust. 

Who to trust is actually very hard to decipher. It turns out that lying and manipulating are almost impossible to decipher until you know a person really well, but there are subtle signs to be aware of along the way. 

If you are the only one analyzing and making the decisions on who to trust, you are more vulnerable to getting it wrong. 

If you are sheltered, which she was for a time, then you are more likely to trust. If you grow up in a hard-scrabble environment, you are not as likely to trust (you have seen a lot of situations which make you wary).

So she does not have a strong family background, or anyone who will come to her aide or check up on her in case things go south. For Paula and her new lover (who becomes her husband after he breaks her boundary) this has some consequences. In fact, no one can be an objective observer in the situation. She is alone with him. 

When they move into her aunt's house (which Paula has trepidation about because her aunt was murdered there) she is still alone with him with the exception of two servants. But to keep Paula isolated, the two servants are told by Gregory not to bother Paula, that if they have any concerns, they should only go to him. He also triangulates with the servants, to ensure that the servants have the same perspectives on Paula that he has.  

This sets the stage for the beginning of the isolation.

It reaches its apex when Paula agrees with Gregory that she is too crazy and unhinged to go out in public. 

But before that, in one scene, Paula insists that she is going out to a friend's party. But Gregory tries to force her to stay home. She refuses. He does not want her to go alone, so he goes with her (and switches his mood a little too quickly: puts on the act that he is sweetly accommodating her). When they get to the party he pretends to have just discovered his pocket-watch missing, and conveniently finds it in Paula's purse (I will get to this scene again because it is packed with gaslighting tactics and trying to switch the culpability of stealing on to her). Anyway, she freaks out about the pocket-watch being in her purse, and the frightening accusatory glares of her husband's, so they leave the party where Gregory gets his way at isolating her further. It has residual effects as Paula does not want to venture out again. 

Gregory constantly drones on to everyone who is concerned about Paula about how his wife does not feel very well, isolating her further. 

This is what we have found to be true of most abusers, targeting the innocent and unprotected, going for people who they perceive as weak, as well as open to suggestion and manipulation, going for victims without support and who can be easily isolated, who they feel they can have power over without interference, who they feel they can talk into anything without interference, who they feel they can trick (where a trusting nature comes in handy to them), who they feel they can drive away easily without accountability in case they get caught and interrogated about their motives. 

It is quite sad because Paula has wonderful qualities: sweetness, empathy, compassion for others, an open-ness, an innocent nature, full of joy and a love of life, a capacity for authentic love, and it all gets destroyed by Gregory before our eyes. She ends up frightened and jittery, feeling alone, feeling insane and highly anxious, wondering what happened to the person she used to be. This is also very realistically portrayed, and it is what women look like after they have been abused and gaslighted to this extent.

THE MANIPULATIONS AND THE GASLIGHTING

One of the first signs that something is not quite right with Gregory is when he blows up at Paula when she discovers a letter written to her deceased Aunt Alice by a man named Sergis Bauer. Gregory's reaction is a little too strong, plus he abruptly seizes the letter, but then he immediately tries to cover it up by saying it was over Paula's sad memories of her Aunt.

That is the first time that the audience is cued into something not being quite right about Gregory, although the hints were already there: he has already pushed her into making up her mind about marrying her, and now he has snatched away a letter that should not be of concern to him. Hmmmm....

But like so many victims, she enters into cognitive dissonance, seeing evidence that something is wrong, but wanting to believe the best about her husband. So she ignores the evidence and takes him into her heart again.

But then, things take a worse turn from there.

She loses his family brooch after Gregory puts it in her purse for safe keeping. A picture goes missing from the wall. Then there is the missing watch scene. The light from the gaslights go down and then back up. She hears footsteps up in the attic, but no one hears them but her. Basically, Gregory is trying to paint her as a kleptomaniac who steals and is insane. And because a wife is likely to believe her husband has the best of intentions towards her, she eventually believes she is insane too, that she is not remembering where she puts things.

"You're always losing things!" Gregory tells her - also very typical of gaslighting.

The interesting thing here is that Gregory is actually the one who is trying to steal: jewels from the dead aunt. In fact, he is kind of obsessed with jewels when they go on site-seeing expeditions around London.

If an abusive partner is into stealing, they will try to convince their victim that the victim is a thief instead. The culpability usually goes outward into blaming someone else. We see not only gaslighting in these scenes, but evil and Machiavellian traits in Gregory (indicative of a personality disorder). We see a lot of projection, blame shifting and lack of empathy for her too. At the very least, she is infantilized when treated with fake empathy (treated as a child instead of as an adult - also common among abusers): "Oh, you poor thing! I'm so sorry your mind isn't what it used to be!" - these scenes should send chills up anyone's spine.

So that is realistic.

THE CLIMAX

Eventually Paula realizes her mind has been played with, that she is married to her aunt's murderer, that she is being driven insane so that Gregory can obtain Power of Attorney to get her institutionalized, that he is a jewel thief and married her to get his hands on the jewels. 

In the last scene, when he is tied to a chair by Inspector Brian Cameron, Gregory again tries to appeal to Paula's heart to set him free. He has counted on her heart. But she has a little fun with Gregory. She taunts Gregory that the knife in her hand to cut him free might not be real and tosses it aside and lets the inspector arrest him. 

While a victim could conceivably have a little fun with the revenge of throwing away a knife and mocking him, most victims ask why instead: why did you do this, why do you care about jewels, why would you pretend to care about me when you don't, how could you do that to my aunt? Of course, he would be rolling his eyes because he doesn't care and her emotions are irritating. For a survivor of all of this, it is much harder to snap out it than is portrayed here. I am not saying it is impossible, and it could go the way Paula did it, but it is somewhat unlikely. Too much of Paula's time, love and attention went into Gregory for her not to feel deeply, deeply wounded and betrayed, horrified by his motivations, deeply grieving, have a lack of trust within herself as much as Gregory, to have one's innocence taken away in such a cruel and thoughtless manner. The film touts itself as a thriller, so we don't see the years-long aftermath.

IN CONCLUSION

I did not give this movie five stars because of the ending. I give stars based on whether I think the movie succeeds in portraying abuse accurately, and whether I think it is the best portrayal. Which is to say that I think that the set design is top notch, the crispness of the picture for the time it was made is very good, the acting is excellent, but it's main purpose is, again, to entertain, not to enlighten. It's a thriller rather than a look into the human condition.

Which is to say that I think better movies can be made about gaslighting. The one thing this movie portrays that so many other movies about abusers don't portray is the abuser as doting and sweet, and then flipping to nasty and cruel. That is how most survivors experience abuse. That is the reason for the denials, the cognitive dissonance, Stockholm Syndrome, the brainwashing, and why it is sometimes hard for women to leave: the doting sweet side may be in place for as long as months or an entire year until it turns cruel and sometimes even deadly again. Or there can be periods of abandonment over and over again. What is common in most relationships with abusers is the agenda of power, control, domination and infantilizing the partner. Lecturing is pretty common too, though not every single abusive relationship has it.

Gaslighting usually takes some Machiavellian-ism because of the planning, but there again, it can also be reactionary and impulsive and used to protect the abuser's image in the heat of the moment:

"I would never say that to my own spouse!"
"What are you making up about me? You really need to see a psychiatrist."
"I never said that." - when they did.

The milder versions of narcissists may give apologies in full or in part for the gaslighting (but go right back to it again when they become enraged about something else: it is part of their condition), or perhaps even grudgingly concede that it wasn't sensitive, but if they are not self reflective at all and gaslight without a conscience or brush it away as "stress" they are usually at the higher end of the spectrum of narcissism or psychopathy. This is especially true if they have Dr. Jekyll Mr. Hyde traits (splitting) where they are super nice for awhile and then become very cruel and punishing. 

Machiavellian narcissism and psychopathy is evident in Gregory's style of gaslighting. He's a killer and a thief and manipulates everyone with the tactics known to narcissists and psychopaths to get his way. 

Some of the more common Machiavellian gaslighting tactics include:

* An abuser tries to convince his partner that her glances and facial expressions mean she is being disloyal. - very common, and the gaslighting can get increasingly worse over time, especially if the abuser thinks she will stay and put up with it. In this case it is also common for the abuse to become illegal and criminal. For more information, you can read my post on punishments over facial expressions and glances.
* Somatic narcissists and sociopaths are known for cheating on their partners. The way they do this is to love bomb their partner ("You are my one and only") so that the partner will not be suspicious. If the partner catches on that something is not right (perfumes and colognes, the cheater not being where they said they would be a few too many times, a neighbor asking "Why was your wife (or husband) with ---", etc), the cheater narcissist or sociopath usually becomes enraged and insists they are a trustworthy person. They are even known to say, "You didn't see me kissing so-and-so. That's all a figment of your imagination." The Dr. Jekyll Mr. Hyde personality becomes evident at this point. When they are caught, and the wounded party files for divorce, the cheater will usually try to destroy the wounded partner's self esteem: "You were never attractive anyway." "You made me cheat! All of your suspicions drove me crazy!" "You were nothing to me! I'm so glad we are getting a divorce!" - imagine the cognitive dissonance, especially if they have been love bombed the entire time! Or: "We can work it out! So, I like sleeping with other men (or women)! Learn to live with it!" When they are high on the scale of narcissism or are sociopaths, the blame will always be going outwards, blaming their partner for "making them cheat." That is why divorces can be really nasty with narcissists and sociopaths. They will not only be trying to pin "fault" on to their partner, and trying to do everything to ruin the partner's reputation and self esteem, but also they will be trying to get every last penny and "thing" out of the joint property. A gaslighting movie about this would definitely be an acknowledgement and vindication for many people who live through this kind of common form of gaslighting, much in the way that "Kramer vs. Kramer" changed the perspective that men could be good (and even preferable) care-takers of children. Laws were even changed after "Kramer vs. Kramer" came out.
* An abuser tries to convince a partner that they are too crazy (or stupid) to run their own lives, so the abuser must do it instead. Usually the trick here is to make the partner believe it enough so that they become financially vulnerable, vulnerable to suggestion, vulnerable to situations and tactics that they cannot easily get out of. The gaslighting incidences increase to isolate the partner from other viewpoints and people to the point where the partner is a kind of slave, rather than an equal. He or she is completely dominated by the narcissist or psychopath. Sometimes abusers are proud of their total domination over a partner and even announce it: "She does what I tell her to do!"
*  Gaslighting does not work all that well unless you isolate the victim by putting doubts in their mind as to their sanity (as well as creating embarrassment for them in public and through false or exaggerated gossip). So isolating a victim and then telling them who they are, what they are, what they are capable of and not capable of, how they are losing their mind, and what they are thinking and feeling (the abuser puts himself in the position of mind reader), is the other common way that Machiavellian abusers gaslight. 
   
Gaslighting children is also extremely evident in almost all child abuse cases, and is considered to be one of the most egregious forms of child abuse because young children's minds and who they can and cannot trust are not built up enough to defend themselves properly from the derisive labeling and having their minds and perspectives toyed with. 
   One of the most common gaslighting tactics done to children is that the parent hides the toys of the child, and when the child goes to play finds that the toys are missing, at which point the child is told "You are always losing your toys!" Then mysteriously the toys are back. This is very, very similar to what Gregory does to Paula in the movie, except the victim is a child rather than an adult. 
   Motives for gaslighting a child are:
* In the old days (in the United States): if you did not want your child, you could exaggerate the child's behavior and put him or her in an insane asylum. So this is similar to what the movie presents. 
* These days (in the United States) you can't do that. But you can drop the child off at a nearby hospital where the child will be put into foster care. This has a stigma attached to it for parents who are well-off, of course, unlike insane asylums where you could blame your abandonment of the child on the child's insanity.
   Narcissists, sociopaths and psychopaths can't deal with any kind of rebelliousness from a child. They don't have the skills to deal with rebelliousness and they flat-out do not want a rebellious child at all under any circumstance (at any age). They groom their children to have the same perspectives that they have. They think that children should worship them and "do as they are told" at all times, so their answer to a child who is recalcitrant about being a "yes man" to them is to egregiously abuse the child in hopes that the child will "behave" and become a full time sycophant.
   Many of these kinds of parents-who-don't-act-like-parents can't even handle their grown child getting married with any grace or acceptance without ruining the wedding of their child in some way (see survivor stories HERE). 
   It was not much different for Paula in the movie. Her will and autonomous decision-making is hardly allowed to be expressed without severe consequences. 

So there is a lot left open for other movie makers who want to cover gaslighting including all of the above very common gaslighting tactics. 

I personally would like to see films on abuse that "awaken" and not just "entertain." I realize that many audiences find movies that portray abuse and dysfunctional families to be depressing (thus the reason why movie makers make them into thrillers with tidy endings), but there are ways to lighten them up by having some characters who are helpful, speaking up, and are out for victims' rights, who even have patience for victims' cognitive dissonance, brainwashing and PTSD. 

For instance, "Gaslight" would have been a dreary depressing disturbing movie if it hadn't been for Inspector Brian Cameron coming on the scene. But not every movie about abuse has to have a savior inspector. 

"Goodwill Hunting" (which I also reviewed HERE) would also have been a depressing movie if Will hadn't conquered the child abuse of his past, and hadn't had a remarkable bond with therapist McGuire. The audience pulls for Will, and it was probably a successful movie because of that. In many ways, that is how child abuse issues really resolve in the end (more than through inspectors): years and years of therapy. 

Surely there are some "star therapists" to feature in another kind of movie about gaslighting.

MORE READING AND A VIDEO

* Gaslighting - A description from Psychology Today
discusses how it works, how it begins, the gaslighter's tactics, how to know if you are being gaslighted, can gaslighting be unintentional, how to recognize a gaslighter, who becomes a gaslighter, what the difference is between being manipulated and being gaslighted, what the difference is between narcissism and gaslighting, how gaslighting changes you.

* Gaslighting: Preying on the Vulnerable (One woman's story) - by Teresa Gil Ph.D. for Psychology Today

* Gaslighting Instead of Love (Surviving your own mother and father) - by Iskra Fileva Ph.D. for Psychology Today

* Stop Overestimating Narcissists and Gaslighters (Here's how to respond to their harmful habits) - by Jeremy E. Sherman Ph.D., MPP for Psychology Today

* Explaining the Narcissistic “Critical Thinkers" in Your Life (How critical thinking can be abused by know-little know-it-alls) - by Jeremy E. Sherman Ph.D., MPP for Psychology Today

GASLIGHT (1944) - "YOU THINK I AM INSANE" SCENE:

BACK TO MOVIE REVIEWS