Faces in the Dark

John Gregson plays a very unsympathetic character, a genius inventor at a firm for making bulbs, and he makes a breakthrough with a new revolutionary invention, but the laboratory explodes, and he loses his sight. Fortunately he is married to the always lovely but ambiguous Mai Zetterling, who takes well care of him with his main partner at the job by her side, but there is also John Ireland as his brother, a good-for-nothing always needing money, drinking and playing the piano and with a bad heart at that, for running too much after women. That's the set-up.

It's a cruel drama, almost nasty in character, Boileau-Narcejac are not quite convincing this time in their contrived intriguing but overdo it, while the main theme is the more interesting: a blind man finding himself not only groping in the darkness but finding that darkness growing ever thicker as his closest of kin are more and more lost to him. It starts on a very small level, he fails to recognize his cat, he finds himself smelling trees that weren't there, and he is not helped at all by his own very aggressive nature losing patience all the time. It's a story about darkness and loneliness that constantly grows worse, and the end isn't exactly any answer to his predicament.

The acting is perfect, the psychological realism is consistent, but there are flaws in the concrete story, just as in their other unsurprassed thrillers, like "Vertigo" and "Les diaboliques."

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.

FACES IN THE DARK is one of those intriguing, long-forgotten little British thrillers of the early '60s. It's an essential three-hander in which the unlikeable John Gregson plays an industry boss who ends up getting blinded in a freak factory accident. He's forced to recuperate, being looked after by his wife Mai Zetterling and second-in-command John Ireland, but soon becomes convinced that everything isn't as it should be.

This is a film that makes the very best of a low budget thanks to a unique-feeling storyline and plenty of suspense that builds up, particularly in the second half. The first half is a little slow and stately, but as a mystery this throws clues at you every now and then before finally letting rip towards the climax with an excellent twist. From that point in it never disappoints, right up until the arresting climax. FACES IN THE DARK certainly holds its own against bigger budget fare in this viewer's opinion.

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.

I was staggered to read some of the other reviews of this film, as I found it to be one of the best mystery thrillers it has been my pleasure to see. From start to finish, this is a film which does not flag, which remains taut and full of suspense throughout, and which keeps the viewer endlessly and tensely speculating about just what is going on : is the blinded Mr Hammond just paranoid, or is he really likely to be murdered ? That is perhaps the main question, but there are other related issues which keep the viewer on tenterhooks, and the overall result is an excellent hour and a half's viewing. All good things come to an end, as they say, and this film certainly comes to an end that one never could see coming !