THE FACE OF LOVE – The Review

In recent years we have seen a number of films that are clearly inspired by the works of the legendary director Alfred Hitchcock. Just last year, not one but two films were released that carried visual and narrative traits that were all too common in the work of the master of suspense. Both SIDE EFFECTS and STOKER transformed the idea of a Hitchcock thriller for modern audiences while still clearly letting their respected director’s voices be heard.

This certainly isn’t the case with Matthew McDuffie and Arie Posin’s story of a mournful widow. As the film opens, we see Nikki (Annette Bening) coping with the death of her husband Garrett (Ed Harris). Flashbacks to happier times still haunt her as she attempts to move on five years after his death. When visiting an art museum one afternoon she sees what appears to be her husband sitting in front of her. She at first is afraid but proceeds to find out more about this strange man who looks identical to Garrett. Her detective skills lead her to find out he’s an art instructor at a nearby college named Tom (also played by Ed Harris). A simple friendship soon blossoms into a budding romance as Nikki becomes infatuated with the idea of being reunited with her late husband.

How are you supposed to enjoy a film that has no meaning? THE FACE OF LOVE seems to exist without a purpose. The film obviously knows that it’s one long homage to Hitchcock’s classic movie VERTIGO, but it never proves to be anything more than that. There’s no point to blatantly repeat the same idea and even scenes from a well-known work if for no other reason than just that. At least when Gus Van Zant remade PSYCHO in 1998 there was a reason behind it all since he was challenging himself to replicate it shot for shot. His approach seems to raise the question as to why someone would even attempt to remake an existing film in the first place if not then to make a carbon copy of the original. I would dare say it’s a clever experiment if it weren’t for an already much discussed shot that Van Sant unnecessarily inserts in the middle of the film; of course that’s a discussion though for another day. That being said, director Arie Posin also chooses to replicate almost exactly the same scenes from VERTIGO. Annette Bening makes the “Tom” Ed Harris try on the same clothes as her deceased husband, just like Jimmy Stewart did with Kim Novak. Earlier we even see her run past cream-colored pillars similar to the Spanish Cathedral architecture that was seen in VERTIGO. It’s clear Posin knows what he’s doing if only for the obvious visual of the poster for the 1958 film hanging on a wall in one quick scene. All of these nods don’t come across as funny or clever or … really much of anything. And that’s the main issue with the film – when you strip away all these nods to that other famous film, there isn’t a whole lot of redeeming qualities to make the film notable. We’re given a basic story of two middle-aged singles falling in love, and the performances alone can only do so much for the familiar story. Bening and Harris attempt to ignite some sparks on the screen for a good chunk of the film as they try to connect with one another through art (cue eye roll). An opportunity is there for Robin Williams to develop into a potentially interesting character if the script didn’t treat him like one of Harris’ static paintings. His role in the film is so meaningless that he disappears almost altogether in the last third of the film.

For the first fifteen minutes I actually enjoyed the visual push and pull Posin does with his direction to confuse the viewer as to whether we are seeing the character of Nikki in the present day or in a flashback. The effect creates an eerie, dream-like state that sadly isn’t maintained after the first act. Why this ambiguity in the narrative isn’t carried into the scenes once Tom comes into play makes no sense. Having the audience attempt to decipher if we are watching Nikki with the late Garret or currently with Tom could have made for a much more dynamic aspect to an otherwise straightforward tale of obsession. Actually . . . the word obsession might be too intense of a word since THE FACE OF LOVE is neither powerful nor passionate. Like Jimmy Stewart’s fear in the already mentioned classic, it seems like we have a case of a film afraid to reach great heights.

2 out of 5