Faces in the Dark

The "roman de la victime" ("victim novel") pioneered by the writing team of Pierre Boileau & Thomas Narcejac - lovingly detailing the cruel gaslighting by others of a vulnerable victim - after providing the raw material for 'Les Diaboliques' and 'Vertigo' inspired many imitations during the early sixties, particularly by Hammer Films; although 'Faces in the Dark' is one of the few direct adaptations of their work. Had this been adapted for Hammer by Jimmy Sangster (who had been regularly providing them with 'psychological' scripts commencing with 'The Snorkel' in 1958) the result would probably have been much scarier.

Like most black & white features of the early 60's it looks good. But despite the occasionally gothic lighting, strange camera angles, the menacing presence of Mai Zetterling (who always looks guilty of something) and a cool title sequence aided by an eerie ondes Martenot score by Mikis Theodorakis it becomes very plodding and garrulous (although the ending is satisfactorily grim).

A similar subject concerning a blind patriarch made a much better film a few years earlier called 'Silent Dust' (1949). Catch that if you get the chance.

Richard Hammond is injured badly in an accident at the company he owns. He is blinded and disfigured and isn't adapting to this well at all. He seems angry, on edge and is not a particularly noble blind man. So, it's easy not to like the man. However, over time you start to wonder if perhaps SOME of his anger is because something else is going on...something or someone is manipulating him...and what he seems to experience isn't exactly real...at least not what they tell him it is. What REALLY is going on here?!

This movie is unusual because an American actor, John Ireland is in it BUT doesn't play a very significant part. Now a lot of American actors went to Europe to make films during the 1950s and 60s....but they always starred in the films. This time, it seemed more like he was just working a day or two and that's all.

So is it any good? Generally yes...though the very end is a tad sloppy. You really have a hard time imagining the wife meeting her fate the way she did...it just seemed HIGHLY unlikely. Some might also dislike how vague parts of the ending is as well. Still, it is different...and I love different.

I finally got to watch this film on a scratchy DVD from a VHS copy bought off ebay- so the sound quality was muted at times, but i've tried to see it for years and failed. It is a good taut little thriller, on a moderate budget but well acted (everyone is suitably mysterious and two-faced) though John Gregson had to work very hard to convince as the tough, unpleasant workaholic boss (he just looks too affable). His dilemma, after an accident blinds him, gave me a few empathetic shivers and that dilemma is what kept my attention right through to the unexpected ending. There are some genuinely creepy moments,and an initially unsympathetic main character makes headway in conjuring our sympathy.

Enjoyable and should be better known.

In terms of the number of votes for this movie (mine is the 10th), this could be the most obscure film I'm ever seen! Which of course means nothing to you, but it does get me wondering about how some films survive the decades and others just vanish. Certainly there are many much worse ways of spending 80 minutes than watching "Faces in the Dark". On the very slim chance that you might get to see this movie, I won't spoil what was for me the most enjoyable aspect of it, which was speculating as to what would happen next: is it a horror film? a psychological drama? or what? Anyway, the basic plot is that the main character goes blind after an accident; he and his wife plus sundry other relevant persons take a break at their holiday home; and then strange things appear to happen. There are a few things wrong with this film, primarily the rather dull direction (it's not all told from the main character's POV, which deflates some of the tension), and I found John Gregson a little too gruff at times (I only know him from comedies, including, by the way, a film called Genevieve which is one of the most thoroughly entertaining movies I know). Some of the other acting is occasionally dodgy too. Overall, though, it held my interest up to the end, which is, I think, a good enough recommendation for any obscure movie!

Like the preceding comment by JimShine illustrates, this movie is only half-good : an average-to-good acting job; and indeed the direction lacks energy and tension.

The strength that remains in this movie comes basically from its clever story, its suspenseful plot. The explanation is simple : it is adapted from a novel by Boileau-Narcejac! Voilà ! Of course ! For the sake of anecdote, let's remind the reader that the British publishers of Faces in the Dark / Les Visages de l'ombre (that was in the early 60s) asked Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac if they couldn't, by any chance, change the conclusive chapter because it was too dark. Well, if they called it 'Faces in the Dark', it must have been for some reason, bozo ! Like many people in the same trade, Boileau-Narcejac wrote and published too much. As a result, let's say MOST of their novels are at least enjoyable, SOME are pretty boring - especially the late ones, as often happens with thriller/suspense writers - and a solid DOZEN are masterpieces of suspense, atmospheric and chilling to the bone ! They also wrote an adorable jewel of the pastiche, 'Arsène Lupin : Le Secret d'Eunerville' which is a full-fledged Arsène Lupin novel better than some of the original ones written by Maurice Leblanc.

In fact, lots of people may know very well a couple of their stories without realizing it : H.G. Clouzot's Les Diaboliques and Alfred Hitchock's Vertigo were both adapted from a Boileau-Narcejac novel.

They also can be counted are among the rare true INVENTORS of the genre, because in the immediate postwar years, they decided to escape from both the whodunit (written from the point of view of the detective) and the noir (written from the point of view of the criminal) and decided instead to write their novels - a genuine breakthrough - from the point of view of the victim. And it is the case with Faces in the Dark, which could well be their most efficient suspense ever - but to know that, you have to read the book, for this movie adaptation, though acceptable, doesn't really do it justice. Reading 'Les Visages de l'ombre' is a really frightening experience (especially the conclusive chapter!), while watching this movie is at best intriguing.