Faces (1968)

All we have here is Cassavetes' name to draw us into this hopeless waste of someone's production money. I've never understood the Cassavetes directorial style (expression of his intense anger), nor the masochism of his film audiences. This is a typical Cassavetes product - characters are in-your-face loud, crass, and shallow (again: reflecting the director's personality). Overly theatrical "performances", abrupt, artificial mood changes, and hysterical, mindless, irritating laughter. Misogynistic, forced humor. Good camera work but poor sound and lighting. One would be seriously deluded to consider this art. Throughout the film you will feel uncomfortable, and ask yourself, "Why am I watching this?"

Fmovies: Despite the very, very positive reviews for this film, this film is NOT for everyone. I think had the film been shown to a hundred people and they reviewed and scored it, it would have been a lot lower--and with a WIDELY skewed distribution. People would either love it or hate it. However, the average person also would not just pick up a film directed by John Cassavetes. They might love him in "The Dirty Dozen" or "Rosemary's Baby"--but these are his commercial projects and ones in which he only acted. His own films are very personal and don't even attempt to be commercial but are artsy and often about topics that aren't all that marketable. The bottom line is that he did films he loved to make and didn't seem to care if the public embraced them--at least that's the perception most people 'in the know' have of his movies.

When "Faces" first begins, it's VERY obvious this is not a Hollywood film (this would also be pretty clear if you just read the IMDb summary of the film). The movie is an example of 'Cinéma vérité'--a film technique that is typified by the non-professional and provocative aspects of the film. This film appears to have been shot with a cheap non-professional camera and the print is very grainy. As far and the acting and script goes, it looks like a movie made by friends after they had a few drinks--they appear to think they are quite clever. So, from the look of it, the $275,000 budget seems to be exaggerated--especially since it was, literally, a home-made film--being made in Cassevetes' apartment! As I said, it does not appear to be yet another Hollywood type of film! Now the film does have a few professional actors in it--with Cassavetes' own wife (Gena Rowlands) and John Marley starring in the movie. Most of the rest are mostly unknowns--and I have no idea if they were professional actors or just acquaintances of Cassavetes.

While I like some French New Wave films, some absurdist films and and even some experimental and Dogma 95 films, I really did not enjoy this particular film. While I am not at all a typical viewer, I clearly don't fall into the very small but wildly enthusiastic crowd of Cassavetes fans. I just found it all to be cheap and pretentious...and dull. To each his or her own.

In John Cassavettes' "Faces," Richard Forst (John Marley), a successful L.A. businessman, asks his wife, Maria (Lynn Carlin), for a divorce. Forst leaves his house and goes to see his mistress, Jeannie Rapp (Gena Rowlands), a prostitute who is still entertaining a couple of business clients (Val Avery; Gene Darfler) when he gets there.

Meanwhile, Maria goes out with some friends to a nightclub (appropriately called "The Losers") that is filled with loud rock music. They meet Chet (Seymour Cassel), a young macho stud from Detroit, and bring him back home to Maria's house. After her friends go home sobbing over their lost youth, Maria goes to bed with Chet. The next morning, Maria attempts suicide by swallowing a bottle of sleeping pills.

Watching "Faces" is like being locked in a room for two hours with a bunch of loud, obnoxious, drunken people that you don't really like. The characters alternate between telling stupid, childish jokes and laughing hysterically, then dancing around the room while singing annoying song lyrics over and over again (i.e. "I dream of Jeannie with the light brown hair"), innately chanting nursery rhymes for no reason (i.e. "Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers"), then arguing with each other, being caustic and cruel to the point of physical violence.

Yes, I'm sure there are real people like this, but fortunately, I personally don't know any people who are like these characters. (At least, I *hope* I don't.) Much has been made of the movie's "realistic" style, with its hand-held camera and 16 mm black & white look. This style has influenced everyone from Woody Allen to Robert Altman to today's independent filmmakers. But the fact that the style is good doesn't mean the *movie* is good.

I know that some people (particularly film critics) enjoy this type of movie. Some people enjoy flagellation, but that doesn't mean you want to participate in it. This is one of those movies that you watch once, and then – if you're lucky – you forget about it.

One line from the movie did make me laugh out loud:

Maria: There's a Bergman film in the neighborhood.

Richard: I don't feel like getting depressed tonight.

Really! You could've fooled me!

Faces fmovies. I see movies hoping that they're different. I've seen so many films that were exactly the same and that's really just a waste of time. Well, Faces is certainly different. It's hard to get through. It actually took me a week. That's because there is little action and it is hard to get interested in it. The reason why it's so original is because it is practcially a documentary on social life in this time period. It's as low budget as you get. Characters just hang around houses drinking and enjoying themselves. So I guess there isn't much of a plot, but on the good side this might be the most realistic movie I've ever seen. I really felt like nothing was unrealistic, not even a single one of the conversations. That's different. Most movies try to impress, but Faces tries to be natural. That doesn't make much sense because "natural" means you're not trying to do anything, you're just existing as you always do. Maybe that was how Faces was filmed. It definately feels natural and that's a big achievment.

This was a marvelous movie to watch. It is so intelligent and informed most of the time, it is hard to believe there were improvisations by Cassevetes and company.

Although themes such as those which the movie revolves around were already then considered Bergmanesque, the movie evokes the spirit of other great non-Hollywood directors of the era: Fellini and Antoninoni. Still it retains its integrity and is rather unique. I think that it is a very impressive film even today. Puts many to shame.

NSFC did the right thing in awarding the film with Screenplay and Supporting Actor honors. Oscars on the other hands were not so generous. It did not get a nod for best picture nor did Cassevetes for best directors. What a shame! Since Stanley KUbrick's 2001 A Space Odyssey was snubbed the same year, making it a double debacle.

John Cassavetes had impressed me with Shadows, charmed me with Minnie and Moskowitz, and disturbed me with Husbands and The Killing of A Chinese Bookie, but Faces evoked all of these reactions simultaneously. The film balances the spontaneous vision and participation of the camera as it dances around the characters with the relentless exploration of awkward human contact. After watching Faces, it is difficult to return to some of the French New Wave films, with which Cassavetes' early work holds much in common. He simply embraced an akin visual style without diminishing psychological facets of his characters' abandon. Faces is truly Cassavetes' masterpiece and a work that brings to light all of his talents and contributions in the cinematic medium.