The Second Face

I agree with at least one reviewer here, Ella Raines was the most beautiful and talented actress of the 40s and 50s. It seems criminal that by the early 50s she was appearing in Poverty Row films like The Second Face. The question is probably not what did she do that was wrong, but probably what did she not do that was wrong. In other words, given studio sexual harassment and whatnot in this period, she probably didn't go along. Which might explain why after such a luminous performance in films like Phantom Lady and Impact, her career took a nosedive and she turned to television. What a waste. Other actresses of this era, like Nancy Guild from Somewhere in the Night, had even shorter careers, perhaps for the same reasons.

A young woman who refuses to wear make up is treated like a Cyclops and denied employment and is insulted at every turn.

I realize the film is trying to make a point but it beats you over the head trying to make it.

It is kind of an unfunny version of The Girl Most Likely To written by Joan Rivers and made 23 years later.

If you watch this, watch for its camp value.

I love Ella Raines, and what I love especially are makeover movies - the ugly duckling turned into a swan, or even something like "Dark Passage" where a criminal has plastic surgery and turns into Humphrey Bogart.

"The Second Face," however, was a big disappointment. It's told in flashback - Phyllis Holmes (Raines) is in a car accident and hospitalized, her face covered in bandages -- apparently her face hit the windshield. We then learn what led to the accident.

Phyllis is a talented designer and a homely one. Ella's looks consisted of nose putty, hair pulled back tightly off her face, no makeup, and plain clothes. She works as an assistant to Paul Curtis (Bruce Bennett) who is in love with her, but after being hurt in a divorce, he won't admit it. He gets her a job elsewhere; ultimately she becomes design partners with a playboy (John Sutton). His rejection is painful for her. Things change after the accident and Phyllis undergoes plastic surgery, paid for by a mysterious benefactor.

Raines was a likable actress and in her younger days she resembled Gene Tierney; here, after her makeover, she does as well. For some reason she was usually relegated to B films, though several were very good noirs. She retired in 1956. AS an actress, she was a little limited -- scenes in this film where the character was overwrought weren't particularly well acted.

The cast is good, but the script is heavy-handed.

i've seen quite a few negative reviews of this film, but i thought it was refreshingly direct and honest, and very well-acted. Ella raines is truly terrific in it. Each character has multi-layered motivations in their actions, and the progress of the story in engaging throughout. it does have a Douglas sirk feel to it, so perhaps you should judge whether you see that as a good thing or a bad thing. but i also think the film has a bit of a sam fuller feel to it. a film that it thoughtful and very direct in what its about. The main characters are well-developed and intelligent. I don't know why these reviews need to be ten lines, but i'll go along. i've written what I wanted to and wanted to promote this film, as it would be interesting to anyone who finds the theme of reacting to female facial attractiveness intriguing. to me, most contemporary films and TV shows act like this factor matters a lot less than it does (.e.g, girls).

The central problem with "The Second Face"--from which all other problems stem--is the script. I really can't see how any actor could speak the lines in this film and provide a subtle portrayal. The best scripts show the audience what is happening and reveal what the characters are thinking through action, as much as possible. "The Second Face", on the other hand, has the actors spelling out everything through dialogue.

The theme of the film is supposed to be about the transformation--from plain Jane to looker--of a young woman, via plastic surgery. This is a topic that was probably very interesting to the public but not well understood. The film was released in 1950 during a time that was seminal in the development of plastic surgery, partly due to WWII injuries. The Plastic Surgery Foundation had just been created and there were important advances in cleft lip and rhinoplasty techniques. Board certification integrated plastic surgery into the medical establishment. The Flammable Fabrics Act had been introduced at the urging of plastic surgeons. And breakthrough training in microvascular techniques was starting. No doubt the topic was in the news frequently.

But the film is ambushed by scene after scene that hit the viewer over the head with dialogue about how a homely woman can expect nothing out of life that she desires, certainly not romance. It dwells on people, especially men, being cruel to the main character, Phyllis (Ella Raines), tormenting her by spelling out how dismal her prospects are.

The print I watched (on TCM) also had a muddy soundtrack that was distracting.

The post-surgery transformation of Phyllis was interesting, using makeup and styling. But it is not enough to recommend this film.