criterionforum.org

But where are the before-and-after pics??? THAT'S what I want to see.

Spot the crew member!

35:54 -- lower left side of the frame

oops!

analoguezombie wrote:I think it's interesting that the majority of serious critical discussion in this thread relates to Blood of the Beasts and not Eyes Without a Face, which to me is the more profound and stellar work on this dvd.

Agreed. Blood of the Beasts was truly haunting, but I don't see how slaughterhouse footage can not provide that reaction. Not to discount Franju's talent, but he had a guarantee there.

analoguezombie also wrote:What really stood out for me though, was the care that was taken with Christiane. A truly horrifying portraly in the realism of her madness. Franju, though, will not let us simply dismiss her as a 'monster' though, for she remains the most innocent of the main characters, and eventually fulfills that promise.

After reading the McGrath essay, this post, and the general synopsis, I was expecting Christiane to be the gleam of innocence in this story. You know, the whole typical young girl whose life was torn asunder by severe facial scarring damsel in distress game. I came out thoroughly shocked. Did anyone else find Christiane to be the most frightening character in the film? A mere child, really, the disconnect between her and the events taking place for her sake was completely eerie. Even her 'redemption' at the end appeared to be on a whim, resulting in even more deaths that Christiane was fully aware of and responsible for, but that she never quite grasped.

-Toilet Dcuk

toiletduck wrote:Did anyone else find Christiane to be the most frightening character in the film? A mere child, really, the disconnect between her and the events taking place for her sake was completely eerie. Even her 'redemption' at the end appeared to be on a whim, resulting in even more deaths that Christiane was fully aware of and responsible for, but that she never quite grasped.

yes, completely. though the murderous father and his assistant are immoral, christiane seems entirely amoral, which in my opinion is a somewhat creepier, more disturbing state. christiane has, as i remember, some hints that she has compunctions about what's happening, but on the whole it seems like her accident and its aftermath have deadened her emotionally. she glides through the house in total detachment, very cold and distant, largely untouched by the deaths of innocent women on her behalf. oddly, she seems much more troubled by the fate of the captive dogs than of the murdered women. she's definitely a creepy, difficult character.

Lino wrote:I completely agree with Franju on what he says about finding the real horror in real life - it's so true. I find that I prefer watching movies, in fact, I'd rather watch movies than sit in front of the TV while the 1 o'clock news is on. It's an escape from reality as anything really and that's why I found Blood of the Beast so in-your-face while artistic at the same time. Powerful stuff indeed.

I sympathise completely with this view. I always thought it was strange that films were not shown or heavily edited such as Tetsuo II which in its one late night televsion showing in the BBCs 1997 'Forbidden' season (which really should have forewarned viewers of disturbing material in the film and have allowed it to be shown uncut) was edited down far more heavily than the available at the time 18 rated video was.

Yet at the same time there was gruesome war atrocity footage on the news and the BBC showed on their major channel programmes like Children's Hospital or Animal Hospital at 7 p.m. including graphic footage of operations. Personally I could watch the most gruesome horror film such as Nacho Cerda's Aftermath and not have it affect me too much since it is obviously fictional and created, yet I've never been able to stomach more than a couple of minutes of the Brakhage autopsy film despite it being about the same subject matter.

Gordon McMurphy wrote:I just heard a discussion on the radio about this. Remember that the transplanted 'face' is just skin and the bone-structure of the patient will mold a new appearance to the skin and the patient will not look identical to the donor. The complex movements of face mean that connecting the muscles and nerves will be very difficult.

But it is the psychological barrier that is the most worrisome aspect for doctors, surgeons and, more importantly, the patient.

I often think of Cronenberg's horror comedy Rabid as an interesting take on medical developments, and how the effects of particular procedures are of course unknown until they're tried out on willing volunteers (i.e. people with nothing to lose by submitting to an experiemental medical procedure, similar to how the First World War created the subjects and gave the opportunity for the first plastic surgeons to attempt facial reconstructions). I wonder if they'll ever be able to create 'morphogentically neutral' flesh? (!)

sevenarts wrote: yes, completely. though the murderous father and his assistant are immoral, christiane seems entirely amoral, which in my opinion is a somewhat creepier, more disturbing state. christiane has, as i remember, some hints that she has compunctions about what's happening, but on the whole it seems like her accident and its aftermath have deadened her emotionally. she glides through the house in total detachment, very cold and distant, largely untouched by the deaths of innocent women on her behalf. oddly, she seems much more troubled by the fate of the captive dogs than of the murdered women. she's definitely a creepy, difficult character.

It seemed to me that she was faced with the same dilemma that the Invisible Man and the protagonist of Paul Verhoeven's disappointing Hollow Man were interested in. How much is your sense of identity linked to the face you present the world? Her unspeaking telephone calls suggest that she no longer feels able to inhabit her previous personality and makes us wonder how much her sense of self was linked to her, now lost, beauty.

This same theme was dealt with powerfully in the 'pride' murder section of the film Seven, where the victim is a model whose face is disfigured by the killer and who is then given the choice between calling for help or suicide. She chooses suicide.

The psychological effect of not having a face for people to read reactions from and respond to (hidden behind the creepily beautiful impassive mask) has divorced her (disembodied her?) from feelings of empathy for others. Similar to the way the invisible man goes mad and becomes a killer because he does not have to look at himself in the mirror, so she does not have a visage that others will link with misdeeds (a more pertinent theme than ever when criminal mugshots and 'have you seen this man?' programmes are regularly shown on television - does looking at the face of a known murderer or criminal really reveal any trace of their pathology, or are pictures more frightening if a person has a blank gaze that people can interpret however they want?). She does not go out of her way to harm any of the girls, but at the same time she doesn't try to help either.

I think also the rather unhealthy obsession by her father plays into this as well. He is so obsessed with restoring her beauty it suggests he had a more than healthy regard for her before her accident. His desperation to get a new face for her suggests both that he is only interested in appearance (he doesn't acknowledge the psychological effects, just that she needs to be put right), and also that he is not interested in her as a person but as an object that needs to be restored, something that makes Alida Valli's character's unrequited devotion to him touching as well as disturbing in the lengths she would go to for someone who doesn't care for her in the same way and can't even properly appreciate the people in his life that he does care for! His daughter is well aware of this, hence her letting the dogs loose.

Her beautiful final walk, faceless and still masked, I think is similar to the new Hari in Solaris accepting her state of not being the Hari on Earth, but something (and someone) else. It doesn't mean she will be happy, she could just be walking off to commit suicide, but it feels like she is not troubled by trying to reclaim what she has lost anymore.

That image of her wandering in the woods in the end in that mask is probably one of the most creepiest I've ever seen on film.

This CD is a couple of years old, but I've just discovered it -- Ma Periode Francaise, a compilation of early Maurice Jarre film scores, including three Georges Franju films, the most tracks coming from Les Yeux sans Visage. Digipak with French and English liner notes, very nice!

It's an amazing film. I am still surprised how well the scene with facial surgery worked. I have seen tons of Italian gore flicks, but this was one of the most disturbing things, I have seen so far.

I recently bought both the original French posters from a European dealer. The one on the left measures 120x160cm, the one on the right 60x80cm. I love them both. All I need now is to find the money to get them framed.

Le Samouraï wrote:It's an amazing film. I am still surprised how well the scene with facial surgery worked. I have seen tons of Italian gore flicks, but this was one of the most disturbing things, I have seen so far.

I liked the comment Mark Cousins made in an introduction to the BBC screening of the film where he described how the measured, almost slow, pacing of the early scene showing the Doctor parking his car in the garage, walking through a couple of rooms, then up the stairs and into his daughter's room - which was something that could easily have been omitted in a quick cut from the car to him entering the room - was a kind of subliminal way of preparing the audience for the similarly drawn out and lingering surgery sequence!

Can somebody please explain this? The booklet can be read as listing three featurette extras, with separate copyrights, but I only found two, the Bouileau-Narcejac piece and the Franju interview by the journalist in the mad doctor costume.

Sorry if this has been discussed earlier!

Does anyone have any info on who the narrators are in the English-audio version of Blood of the Beasts? I had to watch it sans subtitles at work the other day, and I could have sworn that the male voice was John Malkovich in some parts.

I know it's weird to reply to a post written three years ago, but some of the things that Colin wrote then intrigue me, now that I re-watched the film last night (finally via the Criterion disc, which also revealed that my off-TV recording had quite some cuts in the facelifting scene; in other words: I've only now REALLY seen the film....shudder).

colinr0380 wrote:The psychological effect of not having a face for people to read reactions from and respond to (hidden behind the creepily beautiful impassive mask) has divorced her (disembodied her?) from feelings of empathy for others.[...] She does not go out of her way to harm any of the girls, but at the same time she doesn't try to help either.

And here is where I have a totally different reading of Scob's character, at least as far as we see it in the film. It is at least implied that she tries to help the first victim (the student, not the girl reported missing of the very first sequence). She is gently caressing her face, trying - it seems to me - to waken her up. But when the student awakes and screams in horror at Scob's face (or what is left thereof), she then realizes that she won't be accepted in the state she is in now, and that she has to resort to the last straw that her father seems to offer. But that changes with the second victim, and your comparison to Hari in "Solaris" seems most to the point to me. "Eyes without a face" is no more a horror film than the Tarkovsky is a Science Fiction film; both films use certain genre modes to express quite different ideas. More than anything else the film is about self-realization, about setting one's soul free from the constraints of 'beauty' and others' opinions. The end is not only about overcoming the doctor's schemes, but about being set free in many different ways and involving different people and things: the second victim, the dogs, the doves but most of all Christiane herself.

colinr0380 wrote:Her beautiful final walk, faceless and still masked, I think is similar to the new Hari in Solaris accepting her state of not being the Hari on Earth, but something (and someone) else. It doesn't mean she will be happy, she could just be walking off to commit suicide, but it feels like she is not troubled by trying to reclaim what she has lost anymore.

Yes, very true. And that is why she is so utterly beautiful and moving despite of the mask, or because of it. There is an exuberant radiance shining from what is behind that mask, and it's these final moments that will stay with you and might haunt your dreams, not the operation table. In some respects, this is one of the most beautiful films ever made. It's also strangely uplifting, if I may say so. Again, like "Solaris".

Blu-ray available October 2013.

Very happy to see that Blood of the Beasts will be a new HD transfer, plus we get a brand new interview. Almost makes up for IMaW and The Uninvited.

This is probably my most wanted upgrade to BD from Criterion.

However, I've yet to watch BLOOD as I already have a hard time eating meat and was a vegetarian for about five years as a teen.

The French BD missed a scene that was on the Criterion DVD. Will this cut be the same as the French BD or like the previous CC DVD? The French cut with the extra scene as a bonus could also be a possibility.

martin wrote:The French BD missed a scene that was on the Criterion DVD

Which scene ?

A scene where a man brings dogs to the professor. It lasts for 81 seconds and isn't too important in terms of narrative, but I was surprised it wasn't on the French BD because I was used to the Criterion DVD version.

My CC disc is at storage because I have the French BD on my shelf. But I will post a screenshot and exact timings of the deleted scene once I get hold of the CC disc again (unless someone beats me to it). The scene takes place mainly in the basement at the professor's (where the dogs are kept).

the Criterion web site doesn't say if the high-res transfer is connected to Gaumont.
Since the DVD has the scene, Criterion are probably aware of the problem of the Gaumont Blu-Ray (I sincerely hope).

there's a great thread on this great French web site dedicated to SF-fantastic-horror, etc... movies :

http://www.devildead.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

you'll see some screenshots about the missing scene here (so far J.Soulet from Gaumont never replied about this; on devildead forum or on dvdclassik - he was asked too about this missing scene - which is IMHO very important to this movie) :
http://www.western.devildead.com/forum/ ... c&start=75" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


credits to fantomas 2 for these screenshots (from the Criterion DVD)...

Rupert Pupkin wrote:the Criterion web site doesn't say if the high-res transfer is connected to Gaumont.
Since the DVD has the scene, Criterion are probably aware of the problem of the Gaumont Blu-Ray (I sincerely hope).

One of my most basic tasks when QCing new releases is to check the running time against older releases and thoroughly investigate discrepancies, so I'd be amazed if Criterion hadn't done that too.

Despite the fact that this is a horror film (graphic surgery, bodies dumped and discovered, mauling by dogs) might there not be some censor board restriction (similar to the recently much discussed BBFC animal cruelty statues) regarding the subject of animals used in medical research. If memory serves (and like Mr. Hare's mine serves less each day!) the dogs are delivered for just such an express purpose.

Props55 wrote:Despite the fact that this is a horror film (graphic surgery, bodies dumped and discovered, mauling by dogs) might there not be some censor board restriction (similar to the recently much discussed BBFC animal cruelty statues) regarding the subject of animals used in medical research. If memory serves (and like Mr. Hare's mine serves less each day!) the dogs are delivered for just such an express purpose.

I doubt it, unless the dogs were actually tortured for real on camera, which is the only thing likely to exercise either British law or American animal-rights activists.

For the record, the most recent British release versions ran 90m12s (BFI theatrical) and 86m27s (Second Sight DVD) - the latter translating to 90m03s after PAL speedup has been factored in, with no cuts requested in either case. I assume the discrepancy is down to something along the lines of a ten-second BFI logo, since the Second Sight ident comes right at the start of the loading of the disc, not immediately prior to the main feature.

I agree with MichaelB. When I wrote my mini-review a couple of years ago, I really couldn't find any reason for Gaumont to cut this scene - certainly not based on censoring issues. I actually reasoned (without knowing for sure) that perhaps this scene had somehow made it's way onto the Criterion DVD because the US theatrical cut has always been an entirely different cut (and mostly a heavily truncated cut, which somehow defies my reasoning) compared to the European releases. But I really doubt that now. Perhaps Gaumont messed it up?