Faces in the Dark
Faces in the Dark
NR | 02 September 1964 (USA)
Faces in the Dark Trailers

A businessman loses his sight in an explosion on the day his wife planned to leave him for another man.

Reviews
Spidersecu Don't Believe the Hype
Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?
SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.
Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.
howardmorley Maybe because of the French writing connection which other reviewers have touched on, what should have been explained to the viewer was how John Gregson was stumbling to a local Cornish village to summon help one minute, then in the next scene he is suddenly in France in a French hospital still driving the his Mark 1X Jaguar.Did "Talking Pictures" on channel 81, cut out a vital scene for commercial break reasons, or did we see this movie in its entirety? Its always a pleasure to see Mai Zetterling on screen.Talking Pictures recently aired "Only Two Can Play" with her & Peter Sellers.I find myself watching channel 81 frequently to see the old movies from the 40s 50s & 60s in preference to the garbage often shown on more mainstream channels.The subject film was made in 1960 and I always check the date from the listing of movies of this vintage, particularly one like this I saw for the first time.Unusually, the producer leaves a lot of unanswered questions to the viewer at the end leaving them to make their own minds up as to the denoument of the characters.
Martin Bradley "Faces in the Dark" was based on a novel by Boileau and Narcejac, the same guys who gave us "Vertigo" and "Les Diaboliques". This certainly isn't in the same class but it's still a watchable thriller. John Gregson is the thoroughly unpleasant industrialist blinded in a factory accident on the same day his wife is planning to divorce him. She's Mai Zetterling and she's somewhat better than the material. Others involved include Michael Denison, John Ireland and Tony Wright. It's a good looking picture, (Ken Hodges photographed in widescreen and future director Desmond Davis was a camera operator), and Mikis Theodorakis did the score but the director, David Eady, doesn't muster any real suspense and it is fairly predictable.
dbdumonteil I have always thought that "Les Visages De L'Ombre" was Boileau-Narcejac's best novel,even Superior,in several respects to the more celebrated "Celle Qui N'Etait Plus" (which Clouzot rewrote as "Les Diaboliques" ) and to "D'Entre Les Morts " (transferred to the screen by Hitchcock as "Vertigo".Much to my surprise,this movie was never released in France,at a time when their novels were extremely popular over here :in the late fifties and sixties,there was "Les Louves" (Saslavski,1957),"Meurtres En 45 Tours "(Etienne Périer,1960 from "A Cœur Perdu" )"Maldonne" (Sergio Gobbi ,1969) and "Maléfices" (Henri Decoin,1962,starring Juliette Greco,which is never to be found:however,given the quality of the book,it must possess considerable appeal for fans of Boileau-Narcejac's style.)These books are,par excellence,"the novel of the victim" ,and the victim is always a man;women are all femme fatale in these works which some may find misogynist ."Les Visages De L'Ombre" ,as an user already pointed out,is a cruel story :so hard and so desperate was the ending that the editors asked their winning team to sweeten it ,to make it more moral:they did not ,but anyway are their other detective stories so optimistic?Among all these murder mysteries ,"Les Visages De L'Ombre " is the hardest to transfer to the screen:when you read it,you live the whole story through a blind man's eyes,so to speak.You do not know what Christiane and David (Hubert in the book) feel ;in the last part of the movie,the actors are compelled to overplay,whereas in the book,the characters remain "neutral" ,even kind .The suspense is increased tenfold.David Eady made the best of the novel:he certainly could not direct a movie with a central character surrounded by fog and smoke and darkness.His actors direction is faultless,particularly John Ireland as Maxime ,the unfortunate hero's brother.He made Christianne's lover an amateur painter ,which is a good way of introducing the peach tree episode.By and large ,except for the final ,in which the screenwriters did what Boileau-Narcejac's editors urged them to do before their book was released ,the screenplay is faithful like a dog to the initial story . The scene in the cemetery ,which scared me to death when I read the book for the first time,is skillfully filmed :Richard's fingers touching the cross and discovering the awful truth compares favorably with Clouzot's and Hitchcock's best frightening moments ;on the other hand,Richard's desperate escape in the country is too short :this is perhaps,however,the only moment when Eady could recreate Richard's plight ,alone in the darkest night and losing his bearings ,and the trick of the level crossing -not from the book- does not make up for it.It was an arduous task :I do not think a remake would do the novel justice or else it would have to be an avant-garde thriller with one character and darkness.But I would recommend it to all Boileau-Narcejac's buffs in my country.NB:There's also a German MTV version "Gesichte Des Schattens" .(1984)
steve powell John Gregson plays a hard nosed businessman who is a workaholic. He gets blinded by a prototype lightbulb blowing up in his face. As he was the one to push the lightbulb to its maximum he caused his own fate and this film sees him in a tortured painful state throughout.One advantage of his blindness is that he cannot see the dire wooden acting!! of Michael Dennison. Dennison is someone I like but his performance in this film must have stunk the place out.The music in this film is quite brilliant and counter balances Gregsons state of mind and he slowly believes that he is going mad. John Ireland probably offended by Dennisons acting disappears from the film about three quarters through. All in all an effective little shocker except for Dennison whose acting is abysmal.