Man of a Thousand Faces

Contrary to some, I feel that Lon Chaney would be dancing in the aisles with this movie. A tribute to him and his great works. Who cares if it may or may not closely resemble "real life!" What celluloid project is ever an absolute depiction? Personally, I thought it to be a movie film industry's fond and deep appreciation for an excellent multifaceted actor and I viewed it as such. Cagney may not resemble Chaney Sr. but he definitely captured Chaney's drive and dedication.

It was a great movie with great actors. I loved the first time I saw it and I love it just as much now, many years later. It's a grand piece and I highly recommend it to everyone.

"Loosely based....". When I hear this about a bio-pic, it is a complete turnoff to me. I think some it was because I was a history teacher--and to me, history is sacred--you tell it exactly like it was. Yet, in so many Hollywood films, the truth isn't deemed interesting enough and they heavily embellish the picture. Thus is the story of Lon Chaney in "The Man of a Thousand Faces". While the main points are correct, Chaney's interesting life just wasn't interesting enough for the folks at Universal and they played fast and loose with some of the facts. I didn't like this--but must acknowledge that it was an entertaining story.

However, there is one other issue about the film about which I have a unique perspective. Like Chaney, I have a deaf family member--in my case, my daughter. And because of this, I can talk about a few things the average viewer wouldn't notice. When the people are using sign language in the film, they really are using sign language--though they do it a bit poorly. As a result, you can see that the parents of Chaney in the film are not natural signers--but I appreciate that they tried. One thing I did not appreciate, however, is that the film seemed to exploit Chaney's parents--creating problems that did not exist in real life. For example, when Chaney's first wife meets them, she has no idea they are deaf--but this was NOT the case in real life and it just felt cheap--like they were capitalizing on their deafness for the sake of a plot gimmick. That was pretty sad.

Aside from my complaints and observations, I still think this is a very good film. Just understand it all is heavily dramatized and you can take some of it with a grain of salt. Also, it was nice to see the silent comic Snub Pollard in a bit scene midway through the film.

An excellent story, well told in the manner of the era the film was made. This means the story telling was paramount - thank heavens no tedious digital effects.

So what the story was loosely based on Chaney's life. In the 2 hours or so the film ran it was not possible to tell the whole story. So they use shortcuts and invention - so what. I bet more than one person started to research Chaney and other stories from the silent era. Interest stimulated...... job done.

Rather like the Glenn Miller and Benny Goodman stories, same applies. How many started to appreciate the music, they knew nothing of the inaccuracies. They saw a good story and heard some interesting music, helped me to start listening to jazz and I am grateful.

You will never satisfy the 'expert'.

1957 bio-pic on the life of silent film legend Lon Chaney,this overlong and poorly written film has only the central performance of James Cagney as the title character to recommend it. Nearing the end of his long and distinguished career, Cagney was already 10 years older than Chaney was when he died when filming began and is hardly convincing as a young and struggling vaudevillian and new father. Things improve when Chaney goes to Hollywood where the screenplay deals with his success as a character actor and his near miraculous ability to transform his face and body as necessary to play what became an amazing range of exotic and tortured characters.

Unfortunately the writers choose to concentrate the bulk of the film on Chaney's family problems. Chaney's parents were deaf mutes, which apparently accounted for their son's out-sized gift for pantomime. But the screenplay treats deafness as if it were the plague, something so embarrassing that Lon cannot bring himself to tell his pregnant wife (played by Dorothy Malone) that his parents are deaf. When she discovers the truth, she reacts in an absurdly hysterical tantrum, even threatening (in a veiled sense, of course, after all this is 1957) to have an abortion rather than risk the possibility of giving birth to a deaf child.

The Malone character is scapegoated throughout the film, becoming the screenplay's surrogate for society's prejudice towards the deaf, and later being punished for wanting her own career. Even though she eventually becomes a sympathetic character, the script comes down strongly in favor of Chaney's second wife, who dutifully gives up her own show business career to become the stay-at-home wife and step-mother to Chaney's young son.

Jim Backus does his best in the role of Chaney's friend/press agent to keep from being a walking cliché while forced to utter lines like " 'Mystery' did you say? That's it! We'll call him 'Lon Chaney, Man of Mystery!' " and " How many faces did you say? That's it! We'll call him 'Lon Chaney, Man of a Thousand Faces!' " Jane Greer gives up her usual femme fatale persona to play Lon's devoted second wife, and a very young Roger Smith plays son Creighton (later to become Lon Chaney, Jr.), hoping to follow in his father's footsteps. The sodden direction by Joseph Pevney precludes any mystery as to how this story will resolve itself.

Only the performance of James Cagney makes this film worth watching, even as the script wallows in Hollywood kitsch and repellent 50s attitudes towards women and the handicapped. John Bills

This picture distinguishes itself from the all-too-familiar reverential and sentimental quasi-biographies of show business legends by emphasizing the complex relationship between Lon Chaney and his first wife, Cleva Creighton, and by treating their problems in an even-handed manner. She emerges as flawed and difficult to deal with - but so does he. Their child is caught in the middle.

The story would be of interest even if it did not concern a famous person. Chaney's career provides a colorful background to an essentially human drama, one which may present its characters too often as one-dimensional prototypes lacking depth or subtlety, but is nevertheless a drama which (except for the maudlin deathbed scene) effectively develops the genuine emotional conflicts at its core. In a solid cast, Dorothy Malone, as Cleva, is most notable.