User reviews

We're in Saint-Luc, a picturesque village in the Upper Valais, and everyone is heading to the Mayor's house to commiserate with him as he mourns the death of his wife. The mayor is Pierre Amsler, played by Victor Vina, but the real lead is his young son Jean, portrayed by Jean Forest. Forest had debuted three years earlier in Crainquebille, a decent expose also directed by Feyder who had apparently discovered Forest on the streets of Paris. By this time though, he's a full twelve years old and with four films behind him, so almost an old hand in the business!

His character is old enough to know something about death and what it means, but his younger sister doesn't have a clue. He walks with his father behind the coffin to see her buried, grieves for her and watches his father's tears with sympathy, while young Pierrette plays with her cat and whatever else she can find. Forest is very good here, all young pillar of strength until he collapses at the graveside, but he's ably assisted by some rapid fire montage work by the editors. This was originally released in 1925 so I wonder if it was before or after Battleship Potemkin with its groundbreaking sequence on the Odessa Steps.

Jean is obviously very attached to his mother, to the degree that he visits her grave every Sunday and sees her portrait come to life and smile at him. However his father feels bad that in the absence of a wife his house and children are being neglected, so he marries again, his new wife being Jeanne Dutois, a young widow who can't pay her rent. This impacts Jean not just because he has a stepmother but because he acquires in the process a stepsister, Arlette, and that leads to plenty of conflict.

The story is solid, very much in the European vein of slow and serious stories full of character development, and that's a good thing. There's decent camera-work too, Feyder and his cinematographers also making plenty of use of the gorgeous countryside to frame his story. It's supposedly France but it was shot in the Swiss Alps and you just can't go wrong with the Swiss Alps as a cinematic background! Feyder seems to be always great when filming in crowds or in public and this film is no exception to that rule. The accompanying 2004 soundtrack by Michael Coppola is great if not awesome, and in fact there's very little bad to say.

The only downside to me was pretty minor, and that was in what seemed to be a little clumsiness in the delivery of some of the actors early on: all adults, I should add, as the children are simply superb. I'm not talking about the traditional overacting of the silent era as this would have been seen as an underplayed film on those grounds. I think it just took a half hour or so for everything to get moving properly, because the film, as you'd expect from the title, is about the kids and maybe the adults had a harder time getting into the story when there were no kids around.

I can't fault any of the scenes that have children in, whether they be between Jean and his stepsister, played by Arlette Dutois, or with adults like Henri Duval as his uncle or Rachel Devirys as his stepmother. It's only early scenes between Vina and Duval or Vina and Devirys that don't quite carry the same weight. Thankfully the children are present for almost the entire film and these scenes are hugely impressive and yet very subtle, often without the benefit (or the distraction) of title cards.

I got drawn into this one far more than into Crainquebille and, to be honest, got lost in the magic of it. By the time the end arrived, which seemed far too soon even though the film is nearly two hours long, I'd forgotten about all of that minor downside entirely. What amazed me most is that none of the three children had long careers in the film industry, stunning given their performances here. According to IMDb, this was Arlette Peyran's only film, and Pierrette Houyez only made three. Jean Forest, the star of this film, went on to appear in ten in all, but switched to a career in radio. What a shame!

In the mountains of Saint-Luc, devastated pre-teen Jean Forest (as Jean Amsler) attends the funeral of his mother. Too young to understand, little sister Pierrette Houyez (as Pierrette) happily plays at home. She will be told mother is on a trip. Despondent father Victor Vina (as Pierre) is especially concerned about raising his girl without a mother. Soon, he passes on visiting his deceased wife's grave with son Jean to spend time with neighboring widow Rachel Devirys (as Jeanne Dutois). They are married and Ms. Devirys moves in with her own daughter, Arlette Peyran (as Arlette). Shuttled away for the wedding, Jean resents the intrusion...

This excellent silent is almost derailed in the early running. Specifically, it is when young Jean is determined too sensitive to attend his father's second marriage and sent off to live with his godfather (Henri Duval). The kindly priest's mission is to break the news to Jean gently, and return him within a month. It ends with Mr. Duval dropping Jean off some distance from his house; the boy walks home, alone and unannounced. Then Duvall, presumably a close family friend, is not seen again. All in all, this is a strange way for the adults in this drama to treat a child. It illustrates isolation, of course, but could have been left out or done more eloquently...

However, there are no problems understanding this story. In the opening, director Jacques Feyder crushes the screen with the dead mother's coffin, which we see through the eyes of her son. The death of a parent and introduction of a replacement has a profound effect on young Jean. We feel the full weight of that casket. Performers, especially the children, are captured acting naturally. Location photography of the Swiss Alps is beautiful, especially as set up and angled by Mr. Feyder and his crew. The indoor/outdoor sets are terrific, also. And, the ending approaches D.W. Griffith's "Way Down East" (1920) in icy edited excitement.

******** Visages d'enfants (1/24/25) Jacques Feyder ~ Jean Forest, Victor Vina, Rachel Devirys, Henri Duval

Perhaps I am wrong but it seems to me that having once been counted among the great quintet of 'classic' French film directors, the reputation of Jacques Feyder has dwindled somewhat. This might be due in part to the fact that only one of his films is readily available, the miraculous 'La Kermesse Heroique'. Happily 'Visages d'enfants' which apparently flopped at the box office, has been wonderfully restored and gives us the chance to see the incredible images captured by one of the finest cinematographers of them all, Leonce-Henri Burel. Both Feyder and his wife Francoise Rosay had a hand in the writing. The film is aptly named as the faces of the child actors are magnificent. Their performances show a maturity way beyond their years. As far as I am aware Pierette Houyez made only four films and Arlette Peyran none but this. As for Jean Forest he was a truly amazing find, having been cast by Feyder as the newsboy in 'Crainquebille' in 1922. He did not alas make a successful 'transition' and made his last film at the age of twenty-three before going into radio. Such a pity as he possessed a natural sensibility that cannot be acquired. This is a tender, heartfelt and beautiful film that leaves a deep impression.

Just saw the film with live music in Helsinki. It's amazing how he was able to make such a film over 80 years ago (it was shot 1922). And, unlike many other soundless films, it was not at all over-acted. Plus the children were unbelievable! They make films today with a thousand cameras and months for editing it and this one is more powerful than many those of our time. Wow.

I just wonder how long time did they have for shooting the film.

What can I say, whosoever has the chance to see it, highly recommended!

After eighty years it is quite remarkable that this film presents such a keen glimpse into the minds eye of a child.

Breathtaking scenery and brilliant cinematography help to capture the raw wild beauty of a troubled child's view of the world.

It would take many years and the brilliance of a Bergman or Lean to recapture such insight and clarity of vision on film.

One interesting note...I think I discovered a rather major gaffe not mentioned on IMDb.

The csreen fades out on a visciously chilling depiction of a brutally cold night (which includes a character being rescued from an avalanche of snow...a title reads "The Next Morning"....and we are suddenly in spring (if not summer) and the horse drawn sleigh of the previous scenes is now a cart...

Still...an otherwise brilliant and fascinating film.

This is a unique silent film--partly because of its location and partly because of the story. While "The Faces of Children" was a French-made film, the movie was shot in the French-speaking portion of Switzerland. This provided a wonderful backdrop for the story--with lovely mountains and rustic scenery. As for the story, it was much more personal and sweet than you'd typically see and was very compelling.

The film begins with a funeral. The Mayor's wife has just died--leaving him and his two children behind. After trying to make a go of it, the man realizes he needs a mother for his children and proposes to a local widow--who herself has a young daughter. But, unlike the Brady Bunch, this new blended family did not magically work out--as the parents, in hindsight, did a pretty lousy job of breaking this to the kids--in particular, the 12 year-old boy. It actually came to him as a bit of s surprise--and to make matters worse, they gave his old bedroom to his new step-sister and sister. You could understand how the kid could feel alienated. Over the next few months, the boy (Jean) had a hard time adjusting. Much of his anger was displaced on his step-sister. Ultimately, this resulted in two near-tragedies.

Overall, a very good story that doesn't get too schmaltzy and has a lot of nice action. Well-paced, nice cinematography and very good acting by the children--this one is well worth seeing.

By the way, while it doesn't significantly harm the picture, like many of the silents, a small portion of the film has severely degraded. This is very normal and the damage is minimal but pretty obvious when it occurs. The old nitrate film stock was very unstable and tended to turn to powder, liquefy or even explode!

Two well-intentioned adults (three including the priest) are nevertheless lacking any sense or sensibility towards children, building in that way (without being aware) the tragedies incumbing on them. I don't even think this was apparent to the filmmaker.

Good representation of the social ties of the village people, when everybody goes to the rescue of little Arlette lost in the snow. Nowadays it would be unthinkable.

I'm not in the position to challenge the place that the movie has acquired in cinematic history, and I don't want to do it, because it's a very good movie, in my opinion. Yet, I would have liked it to last 30 or 40 minutes less...

I was extremely blessed to see the U.S. television debut of Visages d'enfants on Turner Classic Movies. My god, this was a masterpiece. Why can't contemporary films be half as good? The children were superb! The acting was magnificent. I thought Jean Forest was astonishing as Jean. Such superb acting from a 12 year old. His performance in the first five minutes of the film is exquisite. I thought Arlette Peyran, portraying Jean's step-sister was magnificent as well. I was just depressed to learn that this was her only film! How unfortunate. She had star written all over her. The adult actors are wonderful. I loved Rachel Devirys portrayal of the step-mother. Such love and grace in that performance. The scenery (all shot on location in the Alps) is glorious. This was a perfect film. The music was heavenly. PLEASE SEE THIS FILM.

This is not at all a mountain film: The pictures of mountains are few, of relatively little power even considering the time of the turning, and, as soon as the camera ventures higher than the cows and goats of the mountain pastures, of no credibility at all, if ever you have visited glaciers and alpine mountains yourself. But that's no problem; this is not about mountains, but about people, and it's an excellent film about people.

In another comment, Gerald A. DeLuca calls this is a movie about "sin, repentance and forgiveness", and certainly, Christian religiousness thoroughly shapes both the cultural context of the story and the feelings of all the characters in situations of doubt, fear and distress. Yet, this is much more than a "Christian morality tale".

In Christian tradition, there are two stories about the origin of sin: Eva and Adam and Kain and Abel. On first sight, the story of Jean and Arlette is somewhat similar to the story of Kain and Abel: It's a story about hate among brothers and sisters, about envy and jealousy. Yet, in Kain and Abel, jealousy is the primordial sin, an evil reaction to incomprehensible or unjust behavior of God.

Not so in "Visages d'enfants": there is no primordial sin in the movie. All the characters are capable of love and understanding, none of them is actually evil or cruel. In that respect, it is quite humanistic, in spite of the ubiquitous religiosity. Where, then, does sin come from? The origins shown in the movie are surprisingly simple: plain misunderstandings, subtle and unconscious inattentiveness to the feelings of others, well-intentioned behavior all the same hurtful to other's feelings, and to a large extent: fear and pain.

The ultimate cause of the drama is obviously Pierre's failure to adequately address his son's intense mourning. But my impression is that the father is above all afraid and feeling helpless. In particular, he is afraid that he won't be able to stand a solitary life for long, he is afraid that he won't be able to cope with the household work beside his duties as the mayor of the village, he is afraid that he won't be able to show enough of his love towards his two children, he is afraid of losing patience with them as indeed sometimes he does, he is afraid of failing his children's' education. His courage is sufficient to tell the priest about part of his anxieties, but he lacks the strength to show weakness in front of his son. All those small weaknesses, failures and misunderstandings are extremely beautifully and convincingly depicted in the movie and you also see again and again how small hurts done breed mistrust, malice and hate, and hate breeds new hate, getting worse and worse.

In Christian tradition, the remedy to sin is remorse, confession, prayer and penance; and ultimately, trust in divine mercy. In the film, there is indeed remorse, in particular in Jean. Confession is not done in front of God, but in front of other human beings. Prayers do not ask for divine pardon, but for help in earthly distress. There is no trace of penance at all. Salvation does not arise out of divine, but out of human mercy and love.

Of course, overcoming evil by means of forgiveness and love is a central concept of Christianity. Yet, Jean and his family need remarkably little help from God: No doubt, they do pray hard for divine help, but they are most successful when they act themselves in human, pitiful, and in particular in courageous ways. They prevent tragedies when they overcome their pride and fear, they find help when run they for it, they save lives when they put their own life at stake, they find love when they save their enemies.

In Christian tradition, even more than jealousy, the origin of sin is alienation from God, the decision of Woman and Man to live their own life, to gain knowledge by themselves, not to respect the limits that God set them. Ultimately, that's why only God can save them in the end. But in this film, people save themselves by overcoming their own weaknesses and finding their own strength, compassion and love.

'Faces of children' is an astonishing picture, based on an original screenplay by J. Feyder and his wife, F. Rosay. It is a major masterpiece in the history of the 7th art. Its main theme is the bond between a mother and her child even after the mother's death. The editing is fascinating: one frame cuts (a technique later used by D. Vertov and A. Resnais) to evoke an obsessive dream, and the cutting and mixing of two scenes in order to enhance the dramatic tension. Other elements are fetishism (see L. Buñuel) and the bringing to life of a portrait in order to stress the unconscious emotional bond between mother and child. The directing of the children is simply superb. Akira Kurosawa explained it later so wonderfully: art is not the expression of (the artist's) personal emotions, but the engendering of emotions in the heart of the spectator.The latter should really share the joys and pains of the characters on the screen. Therefore, the directing must be focused on doing things 'naturally'. Jacques Feyder knew this all important message instinctively. He was a real master of Art.

This all important masterpiece is a must see for all movie buffs.

In all the decades since, countless are those films to have been made that played with similar narrative ideas, whether as a comedy, a drama, or any other genre. Strained family dynamics, especially with step-parents or step-siblings, have been the fuel for many a feature. This 1925 French movie, though, seems to be well ahead of the curve for its timeframe, and despite some lighter moments is arguably heavier in its application of dramatic beats than many of its spiritual successors. This is indisputably thanks in part to the locale selected for the setting, and more to the point for filming on location, which join hand in hand to build the severity of the tale to unfold. The set design is lovely, to be sure, yet there can be no mistaking that the surrounding environs where Jacques Feyder set up shop are one of the chief attractions, are the plot is tailor-made for the mountainous region. Such as it is 'Visages d'enfants' may not be immediately striking, but like no few other pictures (of the silent era not least) it proves its strength naturally as the length progresses. Honestly, this is a superb movie, and it holds up terrifically even almost 100 years later.

There are many other instances among silent films where acting was characterized by exaggerated body language and facial expressions, a holdover from the stage and compensation for lack of sound and verbal dialogue. In increasing bits and pieces as the medium developed, however, heading into and past the advent of talkies, performances were gradually defined by more natural, nuanced comportment. It's to the credit of everyone involved here, both the cast and director Feyder, that these portrayals mostly fall into the latter category. This is true for all on hand, though of everyone, I'm actually of the opinion that it's the children who stand out most. Jean Forest and Arlette Peyran especially demonstrate controlled range and subtlety in their acting that feels advanced for their youth, and I can't help but be impressed. After all, it's the kids who are the emotional heart of the picture; this could have succeeded without them, as other titles have, but it definitely wouldn't have been the same.

Feyder, meanwhile, illustrates fine skill in orchestrating shots and scenes - not just in terms of taking advantage of the natural surroundings, but in generally ensuring scenes carried all the greatest impact that they could without becoming melodramatic or maudlin. With that said, 'Visages d'enfants' is also a major credit to cinematographers Léonce-Henri Burel and Paul Parguel, who play with techniques that certainly seem novel even for 1925, well after cinema had already been around for awhile. Their methods of filming at night or in the dark, providing a unique first-person point of view, or letting the camera move, and close-ups and more, show an ingenuity that enterprising filmmakers were still mostly just irregularly toying with. Taken together with the filming locations and the production design, the end result is often a mind for perspective that surpasses the more rudimentary photographic foundations that were more common even just a few years before.

If I have any critique to make, it might be that as much as the first half of the picture struggles slightly with tone. At some points it seems to be slanted toward being more of a comedy, or a comedy-drama, which doesn't mesh with the story beats that initially present. It rather comes across at first that Pierre and Jeanne are both just bad parents who don't communicate with their children, or about their children, and who don't necessarily respect Jean and Pierrette's grieving process. Such concerns melt away as the plot progresses, and the back half is as compelling and heartfelt as what one might hope of any feature, but all the same, the disparity is noticeable. Even with that in mind, though, the subjective imperfections or weaknesses are mild and minimal, and by and large the movie is outstanding. From writing and direction, to acting and all those contributions from behind the scenes, it's smartly made with unquestionable care and skill. Any comparisons that may come to call in no way diminish the value of what Feyder's work has to offer: 'Visages d'enfants' is an excellent silent classic that deserves recognition, and is well worth two hours of anyone's time to check out.