just watch it!

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Don't listen to the negative reviews

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

James Quandt's strident narration of the "video essay" that accompanies the Criterion release of THE FACE OF ANOTHER complains about the reception the film received in the United States on its initial release. He quotes the critics of the time: "extravagantly chic," "arch," "abstruse," "hermetic," "slavishly symbolic," and "more grotesque than emotionally compelling." Stop right there! These critics knew what they were talking about.The film combines several hoary and not particularly profound narrative contrivances. Here's a man attempting to seduce his wife, pretending to be another person--this was old when THE GUARDSMAN first went on stage and has been done countless times. Then there's the classic mad scientist, presented with very little nuance, delving into Things that Man Was Not Meant to Know. Related to this is that the story is only able to exist by grossly underestimating man's ability to adapt to the unknown. (An example is the 1952 science fiction story "Mother" by Alfred Coppel in which astronauts all return insane when confronted with the vastness of space.) These primitive tropes are shamelessly built on a simple narrative situation that is completely unable to carry them: a man with a disfigured face getting facial reconstruction. This happens all the time, so what's to "not meant to know"? If all this isn't enough, Teshigahara tacks on an unrelated, completely separate set of characters in their own undeveloped narrative that even Quandt thinks doesn't work. The dialogue by author/screenwriter Kobo Abe is risible, sounding like something out of a grade-B forties horror film.To disguise the paucity of the film's narrative, Teshigahara has tricked it up with what Quandt admiringly calls "its arsenal of visual innovation: freeze-frames, defamiliarizing close-ups, wild zooms, wash-away wipes, X-rayed imagery, stuttered editing, surrealist tropes, swish pans, jump cuts, rear projection, montaged stills, edge framing, and canted, fragmented, and otherwise stylized compositions." These arty-farty gimmicks (and more) are, of course, hardly "innovations." They were endemic in the early sixties. Their extensive use seems a vain attempt to disguise the film's shallow content. Quandt also sees great significance in the many repetitions in the film: I see only repetition.But even that is not the film's worst problem. Teshigahara often seems like a still photographer lost in a form that requires narrative structure. His inability to develop a sustained narrative makes the film seem far longer than its already-long two hours plus. Things happen, but the film doesn't really progress. The end result is little more than a compendium of tricks and narrative scraps borrowed from others.

I have a physiology exam tomorrow, but since I realized I'm able to write reviews and this is one of my favorite movies, I feel like ranting for a bit on this particular film. You see, I go out on a limb searching several 'Greatest Films' lists, reading film reviews, obsessing over films, etc and it all boils down to one thing: watching a good film. This... is a good film. You watch it knowing you're not wasting your time because you're having fun because the director is doing lots of fun things, for eg. two people are having a conversation and all of a sudden the camera rotates 90 degrees, or some kid getting an injection and out of no where comes this lady washing a plate on her bed while flying through town, but the best part I think is it's such a good psychological drama, probably the best in its genre (just kidding, I'm only trying to sound professional), but it does dig deep into your psych. Also, very beautifully photographed, this director is something else. OK, maybe I should study now. I hoped you enjoyed this review. Thank you for reading.

What Bergman was doing for the Sweden (and the Northern Europe) of the sixties, Teshigahara, Kobayashi and Imamura were doing for Japanese society. _The Face of Another_ is one of the finest examples of this school, now overshadowed in popularity by the work of Kurosawa, which it splendidly complements.The film is a philosophical, contemporary and surprisingly lasting reflection on an old theme: that of the double. The originality of the Abe screenplay (and novel) lies in the fact that this is a self-double, a device that adds an exotic as well as an erotic dimension to what is a personal psychological drama rooted in a Japan that was trying to put on a new face, metaphorically speaking, trying on this and that, in an attempt to be something. That the attempt looks desperate on film only reaffirms the message: a lonely crowd in a crowded place and a lonely man in a lonely crowd. Thus, the film is a cold shower, even chilling at times.A special word for Japanese starts Tatsuya Nakadai and Machiko Kyo (both still with us), accompanied by a splendid cast. The black and white photography is magnificent and the subtle soundtrack punctuates rather than underline.In summary, this film is mandatory viewing for anyone interested in Japanese film, and particularly for those interested in the sociology of postwar Japan and of the developed world generally. It is an excellent companion film to David Riesman's classic study _The Lonely Crowd_. I can think of no better introduction to master artist Teshigahara.It is a great pleasure to have this pristine DVD of a forgotten masterpiece.

This is a nice movie about a whiny faceless complaining. There is another half faceless who has her face licked by her brother before walking into the ocean to die. the whiny faceless has a nice beard which he uses to try to trick a retard girl. his wife is not impressed. i give it 7. the doctor is a sicko and wants everyone to be faceless because he says there would be no crime that way. i don't get what he meant by that. i guess he's referring to the low crime rate in china. i don't know what i meant by that. anyway, it makes u think a lot. i suggest you get your hands on a copy of this gem. It's very cerebral in that way. Sometimes when i was watching this movie, i couldn't help thinking if i had the power to change my face, who i would try to seduce. i don't think it would be my wife like this guy did, mostly because i don't have a wife. if you are going for a faceless theme, this movie makes a good double feature with Eyes Without A Face. that's a french film. This movie should not be confused with the Mel Gibson classic Man Withoug A Face.