Man of a Thousand Faces (1957)

Cover of "Man of a Thousand Faces"

**This is my contribution to The Movie Projector’s James Cagney Blogathon.  You can visit and read the other submissions here.**

I always enjoy participating in actor/actress blogathons as they finally force me to open up those individual DVDs I purchased months ago.  My choice for the James Cagney blogathon also worked for this week’s Biopic Theater, thus why you’re seeing this post on Monday.  Man of a Thousand Faces is a meant to be a biographical dramatization of actor Lon Chaney’s life and death, but it does so by way of James Cagney.  The core flaw of the movie though is that Cagney is such an indomitable persona that you never separate Chaney from Cagney.  I never felt I was seeing Lon Chaney at all; outside of the recreations of Chaney’s famous film characters, Cagney never physically changes his appearance to look like the man he’s playing (and Lon Chaney bore little resemblance to the actor we’re honoring today).  With that being said, Man of a Thousand Faces is a well-put together film that enmesh the melodrama against a heartfelt story of a man who understood adversity, and wanted to change it without words.

Lon Chaney (Cagney) has grown up with taunts of “freak” in his head due to his parents being deaf.  As he grows up, he dreams of getting into movies and being able to tell stories for, and about, those less fortunate.  Throughout, he wants to protect his son who is at the center of a custody dispute with Chaney’s ex, Cleva (Dorothy Malone).

Man of a Thousand Faces can be compared, and widely contrasted, with Donald O’Connor in The Buster Keaton Story.  The 1950s appears to be a good decade for biopics, and both these tales focus on a well-regarded actor known for making audiences laugh and cry, with no words; relics of a silent era that the nation wishes to mythologize.  With that, both movies are also grandly fictionalized and are keen on discussing the actor’s relationship with women and family.  Where Man of a Thousand Faces diverges from The Buster Keaton Story is in the presentation of the family amongst the melodrama.  We don’t forget for a second that Chaney’s inspiration is his parents, and his fierce love for them.  As a disabled film lover, it’s hard to watch highly dramatized stories about “overcoming adversity” without finding it gimmicky and here you don’t get that.  We don’t pity Chaney or his parents, in fact we respect them for all the crap they’ve put up with.  When an ignorant man makes a comment about Chaney’s parents being “mutes,” and quickly backpedals the actor demurely says “Don’t be bothered, it doesn’t bother them.”  The writing focuses on a man whose heard it all, and fights back with nonchalance.  Him and his family have dealt with ignorance their entire lives, and they’ll keep meeting it.  I found the adversity plotline to be developed further than Chaney’s actual film presence.  Every decision Chaney makes in his film career, or personal life, is determined by his desires to portray “freaks” as real people.  I’m not sure how historically accurate that is, but I applauded it.  The movie continues to have Chaney and his family talk via sign language to emphasize it’s not a throwaway gimmick, but truly how they communicate.

The runtime is lengthy, clocking in at two-hours, and Chaney’s acting is an afterthought in the morass of plot points brought together.  I’m not sure if this is because Chaney only did so many films, or that audiences are only aware of the horror ones, but there’s not much depth given to his film performances.  As with biopics of the 1950s we get  several extended sequences of Chaney performing on-stage.  Scenes like this always act as if they’re giving the audience a free performance, as well as showcasing the actor’s talents; for me, it’s the best time to get something to drink.  Cagney, himself, proves he’s an impresario of vaudeville and physical comedy, but if you know the basics of Cagney’s upbringing then you shouldn’t be surprised.  Over an hour into the plot the audience sees Chaney made up as Quasimodo and The Phantom, two of the actors iconic roles.  Chaney says, “I got a box full of faces…A whole box full” which we see throughout the tale.  The story doesn’t necessarily resolve what Chaney’s “faces” mean to him.  The issue is, that the plot wants to make the various faces be an extension of Chaney himself which doesn’t always work, particularly once Chaney has a falling out with his son.  We’ve never seen Chaney outright hostile to those he loves, so when he turns on Creighton (aka Lon Chaney Jr.) it’s the script’s attempt to inject the movie with a father/son drama focused on the son desiring to take over the father’s role.

Speaking of, let’s look at the melodrama, and make no mistake this is a soapy melodrama.  It’s not a criticism against the movie, per se.  The script and acting are so fantastic that the story never completely crumbles into the typical “I love you, I hate you” of 1950s melodrama; it’s just that this becomes a kitchen sink tale with every complication thrown in; and not all of it actually came to fruition in Chaney’s biography.  We first meet Chaney with his wife Cleva, nee Frances Chaney.  Malone is right at home in this, and does play an overall nicer character than she did in Written on the Wind, which was the last thing I saw her in.  In the few scenes where the Chaney’s are happy, we understand their dynamic; they’re not compatible for each other, but they’re crazy for each other in spite of it.  That all changes once Cleva meets Lon’s family.  Now, according to what I read on Chaney prior to this review, Frances was aware Lon’s parents were deaf and had met them several times.  Portrayed here, Cleva is incredibly uncomfortable (I guess because she assumes deafness is contagious) and doesn’t want to have Lon’s baby because she’s afraid she’ll be mother to a “dumb thing.”  She went from sweet character to Devil’s wife in thirty seconds, and the movie never really explains her logic for this personality shift.  Yes, she’s afraid of the baby being deaf, but Lon tells her that he and his three siblings are all fine.  The script doesn’t imbue Cleva with enough personality to make this anything more than forcing her on us as the villain.  I will say that Dorothy Malone is great in these overwrought moments, and Cagney meets her measure for measure.  Later on, the movie doesn’t seem to like the tactic of Cleva disliking deaf people – especially once it’s discovered that little Creighton isn’t deaf – so the Chaney’s separate over Cleva wanting a career as well as a family.  Being 1957, we can’t have that, and with all that’s happened before, we’re supposed to see it as a smokescreen.  When Chaney, dressed as Quasimodo, confronts Cleva after several years, it’s almost comical in the way we see a makeshift Quasi confronting his Esmeralda

The other female in Chaney’s life is his second wife Hazel (Jane Greer).  Geer gets to be the second banana playing the sympathetic and compassionate wife.  She’s the mother figure, and the role doesn’t do anything to stretch Greer.  We get a moment where Chaney punches out her rough-handed beau, only to discover the man has no legs.  It feels like an apocryphal story, especially since we’ve seen Chaney’s drive to highlight adversity.  Hazel’s moment in the spotlight comes when she proposes to Lon, and while the audience understands her love for him, she posits it under the guise of getting Creighton back (who has been in foster homes since his parents divorce).  The entire Creighton storyline is the weepy element that becomes laughably ridiculous.  According to sources, Lon Chaney Jr. grew up in various boarding schools, and I never found anything about his time spent in an orphanage as the narrative claims.  Second of all, the court would consider a “suitable home” one that has a mother?  It must be true because once Lon and Hazel get married, little Creighton is back at home.  So remember all, if you lose custody of your children, and you’re single, just get married and all is right!  Again, this makes Hazel a character too willing to grovel, and Greer spends far too much time sitting in corners looking concerned.  It’s not the best role for her.

Of course, the biggest flaw is Cagney’s own limited ability to transform.  He’s fantastic in the role, but he’s fantastic in the role of James Cagney, not Lon Chaney.  Outside of the makeup from Chaney’s role, we never see Cagney play anything beyond that.  He’s a tough presence, works well with the material and the other actors, but he’s James Cagney.  I would never consider this a perfect Lon Chaney biopic, but I’d recommend it to fans who want to see Cagney at his best.  Keep in mind, Cagney’s persona is so profound, I had to reread this and change several sentences where I meant to say “Chaney” and typed “Cagney,” that’s how pervasive his persona is.

Overall, I’d recommend Man of a Thousand Faces to fans who want to see James Cagney take on a man whose face was just as famous as his.  The movie is a soapy melodrama that gets in over its head, but the performances from Cagney and Dorothy Malone are spellbinding.

Ronnie Rating:

3HalfRonnies

Interested in purchasing today’s film?  If you use the handy link below a small portion will be donated to this site!  Thanks!

Man of a Thousand Faces

Advertisements

31 thoughts on “Man of a Thousand Faces (1957)

  1. I wrote about this movie for your Universal Backlot Blogathon, and I’mn glad you watched it, too. I think this is much better than The Buster Keaton Story, because who watches Keaton’s biopic will never know his real life through it. Yet highly fictionalized, Man of a Thousand Faces made me look for more of Lon Chaney.
    Cagney is fantastic, specially reproducing the scene when he is healed by a miracle man. And, if Lon had 1000 faces, one of them could be Cagney’s face, right? 😉
    My contribution will be up un Thursday!
    Kisses!

    • Haha, that right you did! I like what you say about Cagney’s face being one of Chaney’s, if anything that could be the entire point of casting Cagney: using him a sign of the future influence of a man like Chaney. Can’t wait to read your contribution!

  2. I enjoyed your review, Kristen — I’ve heard of this movie, of course, but I’ve never seen it. To be honest, I never had much of an interest. I’m not sure if I want to see it after reading your insights, but I sure appreciated what you had to say!

    • I was lucky to have found this cheap in a DVD bin, and I recommend it if you find it somewhere or on Netflix. It’s definitely one I wasn’t expecting to like this much, and I wish I liked it a tad more, but it’s well-done considering the state of biopics in the 1950s. Thanks for reading!

  3. Kristen, you picked a good movie to write on because the character Cagney plays is so different from the types most viewers associate him with. As always, he throws himself into the role with absolute conviction, and I think you’re right to assert that it’s his commitment to the role that puts this movie over. I don’t know much at all about the real Lon Chaney’s life. But I’m not surprised to hear that the film fictionalizes many of the biographical details, because that was standard in the biopics of the time, as it usually is in the biopics of today. I agree that Chaney’s early life is the most compelling part of the film on the emotional level. I’d also agree that although it’s a wonderful showcase for Cagney, the film doesn’t make good use of Dorothy Malone and Jane Greer, two actresses I like a lot. As you observed, Greer’s role is pretty two-dimensional, and Malone’s is hampered by what I found an incomprehensible attitude toward Chaney’s parents, even for the time. Maybe the writers overdid it in their efforts to make the two women contrasting types. But to see Cagney working so hard and apparently having such a good time at it is a great recommendation for the film. And even though you’re always aware you’re watching Cagney, the fact that Lon Chaney’s real face is so unfamiliar gives Cagney an advantage he wouldn’t have if he were playing someone whose face is well known.

    • True on all points. I’m definitely happy to have participated in this because Cagney has always been an iconic presence in film, and yet I’ve never watched his work. Hopefully this blogathon will open up a whole new world in helping me finally understand this fantastic actor.

  4. Have not seen this one and though it is not completely satisfying, most biopics aren’t, I will give it a look. It sounds so different from anything else he has ever done.

    • Yeah, having spent over a year reviewing biopics, I’ve had to stop mentioning the differences unless they really bother me. Thanks for reading!

  5. I’ve seen this one a few times and at least it gave Cagney a meaty later role. It is kind of bleak, but I love Jimmy, so I’ll take him any way i can get him. Excellent post and review.

    • The film is bleak, but I think it has a deep message that offers a little hope, not to mention it makes overcoming adversity a personal obstacle and not one seen through the “it takes a village” mentality.

  6. Loved your comments about Mrs. Chaney the First: “She went from sweet character to Devil’s wife in thirty seconds, and the movie never really explains her logic for this personality shift.” As for your comments about this being more a film about Cagney than Chaney, I can see your point. It is often difficult for bigger-than-life film personalities like Cagney to play other famous stars. I think his role in Yankee Doodle Dandy is tempered by the fact that George Cohan wasn’t on the same scale as Chaney. As always, an interesting read.

  7. I like this one better than I used too: I mean Cagney as Chaney, initial expectations were very high! But I do think it’s a bit long and agree with you about Cagney’s characterization–If I had never heard of Lon Chaney I’d probably think he was little more than a James Cagney character. I enjoyed Dorothy Malone quite a bit and wish there had been more of her … though then I suppose it would have had to have been even longer! Excellent coverage of a tough selection.

  8. Kristen, a fascinating posting and I like the way you discuss the changes from Chaney’s real life – it sounds as if it is heavily fictionalised, like so many biopics. I was a bit surprised that you didn’t like this film more, since I remember thinking it was a masterpiece and one of Cagney’s greatest later roles. But it is quite a long time since I saw it and I hadn’t at that time seen much of Chaney’s work (I’ve seen a lot more since), so, in retrospect, I suspect I didn’t really watch it as a biopic but just as a showcase for Cagney – I especially loved the sequences with him on stage where you get a glimpse of what he might have been like as a silent film actor. I think you are spot on about the strange change of personality by Chaney’s first wife! Must watch this again before too long and then reread your review.

    • I did like it, but more as a Cagney movie and not a biopic. Thankfully, it’s one of the better biopics I’ve seen (and if you’re followed my biopic reviews, I’ve seen some doozies!).

  9. Although this is a film I’ve never seen and probably one I’ll pass over, I can’t tell you how much i enjoyed reading about its narrative strengths and weaknesses. Thorough and thoughtful, it was a marvelous read. I’m starting to gather that Cagney is pretty amazing in everything, but it’s nice to know that the quality of the material he appears in still factors. Even when pitted against all that Cagney charisma.

  10. A well made movie that, if nothing else, whetted my appetite to learn more about the real Lon Chaney and his fascinating story. Hollywood biopics are fun to watch, but I don’t think audiences were expected to swallow everything. I imagine Cagney must have had a great appreciation for Chaney’s art.

  11. I really enjoyed your perceptive post on this film’s flaws and strengths. I had the same experience watching it, of always seeing Cagney in spite of the film being about Chaney. And I agree with your analysis of the actresses, who are oversimplified in their characterizations, though that’s probably due to the script. Overall, it’s a sympathetic movie about its subject, and Cagney is sincere in his recreations of Chaney’s performances (although no one can match the power of the original actor in what he did).

    • With such a larger-than-life personality, I guess I can’t be too surprised to see the women marginalized; Chaney and Cagney take up a lot of room lol. Thanks for visiting!

  12. I really want to see this one, and I appreciate your honest review.

    Also, I COMPLETELY know what you mean about this: “…they finally force me to open up those individual DVDs I purchased months ago.”

    • Haha, I’m glad someone does. I’m hoping to get through a whole gaggle of DVDs I’ve purchased during the summer. Someone might start to think I’m a hoarder.

  13. Engaging essay on one of Cagney’s most interesting portrayals, and one that pairs him off with an actor who shares the spotlight in greatness and iconic stature. I completely understand what you are saying when you assert that Cagney never really transformed into Chaney, even with the remarkable energy he puts into the performance.

  14. I’ve always enjoyed this one, so thank you for selecting it. Even though Cagney and Chaney didn’t look anything alike, that never bothered me here, especially since Chaney was able to change his appearance so readily and so often for each performance. Cagney is terrific, and while the film has its flaws, overall it’s superior to many film biographies. Thanks for reviewing!

  15. I’ve always had a soft spot for “Man of a Thousand Faces” and admire Cagney in it even though the film is, as you indicate, basically a melodrama. It’s always refreshing to see Cagney in a role that break type. He may not have resembled Chaney (who I am most familiar with in heavy makeup) but I will say that I think he resembled him at least as much as Lon Chaney, Jr. did!

  16. Pingback: The Month in Film: April 2013 |

  17. Pingback: Too Much, Too Soon (1958) |

Question, Comment? Leave It Here

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s