Eyes Without A Face

got no human grace

Are you a Northwesterner? Did you see this in the same festival venue I did, on Saturday? That'd be kinda cool.

I was stunned by two characteristics of the film:

First, its prototypicality. This thing was made in 1959, and they're explicitly slicing and peeling off a chick's face. Its horrors are gradual, cumulative, so by the end we're feeling increasingly soul-sick. It doesn't tip its hand for a very long time, which makes it very, very effective. I can totally see this setting the table for a whole generation of horror writers/filmmakers; the echoes are everywhere.

And second, its surprising elegance. It's sophisticated, not pulpy, especially given the subject matter. The visuals are all very direct, but the storytelling is elliptical and ambiguous. People very rarely come right out and tell us what's going on: we're expected to fill in the blanks. The dogs behind the garage are one example; we hear them barking, and it's only very slowly that we begin to realize why they're there. We figure it out before the movie tells us, and the movie knows we've figured it out, so when it finally provides concrete confirmation, it's mentioned in an offhand way rather than blared at us like it's some kind of revelation. Quite a nifty trick, that.

The image of the daughter's blank-masked face is going to stick with me for quite a while, I think.

Fuck, I'll bet this thing's not on DVD, so I can't add it to the Goddam queue. I gotta see this, now.

Criterion put it out. It's incredible.

Truly, this deserves to be the next great "holy shit" archival rediscovery.

I posted a thread on this a month or two ago, having just imported the DVD.
It really is an amazing film.

Depressing note: Of the 15 or so people who were at my screening, I'd say fully half of them were mystified by the movie.

I got to hear, while leaving the theater, the reaction of a couple who had been sitting behind me. The female half murmured to the male: "So I guess that was supposed to be some kind of masterpiece or something, apparently." Her facial expression and tone of voice were not annoyed or irritated, but primarily perplexed. The male said nothing, but shrugged noncommittally. They clearly didn't enjoy it, but I don't think they hated it; mostly it just didn't register with them.

On the other hand, there was another couple sitting two rows in front of me, who responded with enthusiasm to the film. The instant the lights came up, the woman turned to the man and gushed: "That was awesome." He turned to her and grinned. He might already have seen it. Hard to say.

For the record, the first couple was older, late forties brushing up against fifty, while the second couple was late twenties verging on thirty. I'm not sure why that should make a difference, but apparently it did.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was another thread about this before everything since October was lost, yeah? Either I'm getting my titles confused, or this movie is getting a LOT of love lately.

Welcome to the top of the queue, Eyes Without a Face.

Yes, per post 7, there was another thread. I had a post in it: "I'm gonna see this in a couple of weeks!" And now I have.

Whoops, somehow my keen detective skills missed that comment about the other thread [shame]

In what should make for an excellent double feature, I bought this and Wizard of Oz today.

Nice mood, great climax, great neck stabbing. Leisurely, which is fine when you're 90 minutes long, but there's some fat, som estuff that feels a bit flat. That said there's some great primitive imagery mixed with technically shown cringers.

Though, in terms of sheer horror "Blood of the Beast" trumps. I didn't think the end of Fast Food Nation was that horrific but something about black and white and slaughterhouses that is more nightmarish.