Faces starts out very fresh and promising with the movie screening scene but immediately bogs down in improvised banalities of a drunken party, too much labored laughing (remember the laughing competition between Seinfeld's Jerry and Kramer, interrupted by George, who asks, "Why are you guys pretending to be laughing?") which occurs throughout most of the film, overplayed machismo of the male characters, the actors grabbing for straws in their effort to sound unrehearsedly conversational, etc. I'm sure this feature looked terribly innovative and culturally bold for the American moviemaking of the time, but then again, I din't see anything there that European directors hadn't already done in a much more organic, innovative, and more interesting way.

First of all, thanks for writing.

Can't say I agree with your assessment of either "Faces" or John Cassavetes, but I have no qualms with people understanding/seeing films (or any other work of art) in a manner that's different than (or even opposite to) my own.

I didn't mean to be "in-your-face and over-the-top" in my review, though having reread it just now it may come across that way. Ironically, that's *exactly* the problem I had with "Faces" and with the other Cassavetes films I've seen, as I find them "in-your-face and over-the-top" in their attempt to mirror their characters' inner and outer realities. So much so, in fact, that to me their much-praised "rawness" feels thoroughly artificial.

But then again, I'm sure there are lots of people out there who would fully agree with you.

Once again, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Faces is alive like no film I've ever seen.

The psychology it evinces is profound.

Witness the scene where Richard tells Jeannie she doesnt have to be "on" (or however he says it); that she can just relax and be herself with him. She is flustered, pretends not to understand him. That happy mask she wears is a cover and a wall. She leaves the room on some pretense… paces the kitchen.. then Richard appears in the hall, singing to her, reviving an inside joke they've been sharing — essentially saying, "okay, we dont have to hurry, this is enough," and she is elated, and comes to him. It is beautiful for many reasons, not least of which is Richard's understanding. But, while reassuring, the viewer also may have a sense that this is the beginning of the end; the first sign of what will be their failure to connect on other levels. Or the scene where the women are competing for Chet's attention and the reserved younger woman is watching as the brave older woman shamelessly lives life to its fullest… At first, she thinks they are being foolish, but then, you can see, she wants to loosen up and dance with him.. after a few drinks she works up the courage and when she does, Chet practically pulls the rug out from under her by saying something like "What are we doing, we're being ridiculous." And she is mortified, she slaps him and storms out… This is a big theme in Cassavetes' work: That we should TRY, we should live, and confront our fears, put ourselves out there, even if, sometimes, we will fall flat on our "faces"… Scene after scene, nuanced psychological process are shown with a master's blend of detachment and sympathy. How could you fail to miss this?!

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is a terrific film, and another one of my favorites. But do you really need it to be so in-your-face and over-the-top? It makes me wonder if you missed a lot of the more subtle gems in that film, too.