Coming Soon: Stolen Face

The next release in Hammer’s Limited Collector’s Edition range is Stolen Face (1952), a noirish thriller that director Terence Fisher packs with atmosphere and unforgettable scenes. The film has been newly restored in 4K and comes with a rich array of supporting material including gems from the archives and a raft of bespoke, specially created content.

We caught up with one of the people behind the ongoing range, Steve Rogers, to discover more about the movie, its stars, what it represents in terms of Hammer’s history, and of course, the release itself.

Incidentally, because of the twists that corkscrew through the film’s narrative, pretty much from the word go, the opening section of this piece will be spoiler free, and we’ll flag when that ceases to be the case. So, with that caveat out of the way…

Paul Henreid and Lizabeth Scott star in Hammer’s Stolen Face. The Radio Times Guide to Films declared, ‘… you may enjoy its wild fantasy about sexual obsession and the incredible achievements of plastic surgery.’

Hammer News: There is a lot to unpack in this film in terms of genre, which characters we should be rooting for, are the ostensible villains of the piece actually its victims, the various twists, and so much more. But we need to start with the usual question. For anyone who’s unfamiliar with Stolen Face, what’s the film about?

Steve Rogers: It’s yet another cautionary science tale – in much the same vein as Four Sided Triangle and The Curse of Frankenstein. In this instance a plastic surgeon, rejected by the love of his life, rebuilds another woman in her image. I doubt there’s anyone reading this who thinks it will end well for anyone concerned!

HN: Aside from being a noir, which we’ll come to in a moment, what genre would you say the film falls into?

SR: Science-horror, very definitely. You cannot surgically create photo-realistic doppelgangers now, let alone then, so it’s paddling in the Four Sided Triangle/Quatermass/X the Unknown end of the pool.

Even the presentation of a note under a door looks striking and noirish.

HN: And would you say that this is one of Hammer’s most obvious Brit noirs? By that I mean, it’s sometimes difficult to state categorically if a title belongs in that subgenre 100%, but this picture feels like the definition of Brit noir. Could you talk to us about the film in that regard?

SR: This film is referenced as a noir extensively throughout the new content we’ve created and I can’t argue with that label. Nestled amongst the fantastical surgery and impassioned arguments there’s hoodlums, characters-on-the-edge and decent people compelled to do indecent things so, yes, it’s a noir too. A very British romance-noir/science-horror hybrid.

HN: The basic theme of a man trying to artificially recreate a lost love is at the heart of Stolen Face. The notion was explored again in Vertigo (1956) which was itself based on (checks notes…) the French, 1954 mystery novel D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac. But before that, director Terence Fisher returned to the theme for Four Sided Triangle (1953), as you say. Both that and Stolen Face have very strong similarities with Fisher’s Frankenstein movies. I’m curious. Is that just a coincidence? Or was Fisher interested in that dynamic and moral ambiguity?

SR: I think it’s a bit of both. Terence Fisher was one of several directors working for Hammer at that time and new projects were allotted in rotation by the production team, so I would guess that Fisher got Stolen Face just because it was his turn next. Though Fisher said that he only got the gig on Frankenstein because he "owed Hammer a film", Tony Hinds went on record to refute this and state that it was a deliberate assignment. Hinds was a shrewd producer and it doesn’t take a genius to draw a line connecting Fisher’s work on Stolen Face and Four Sided Triangle, and Frankenstein.

HN: I hadn’t known Hinds had said that! I guess it means it could be argued that Stolen Face was partially responsible for Fisher getting Curse, which effectively changed everything. Within this work, what touches would you identify as typical of Fisher’s directorial style and approach?

SR: You only need to look at one shot and know this is a Terence Fisher film – the way he hides Lily’s scarred face during the initial conversation between herself and Ritter and then has her step forward into a close-up when she turns around. It prefigures the dolly shot on the Creature reveal that he would execute five years later on Frankenstein.

‘I loved making films. There was something about that lens that I adored, and it adored me back. So we were a great combination.’ – Lizabeth Scott.

HN: The superb Lizabeth Scott stars as concert pianist, Alice Brent. Can you describe what she brings to the film?

SR: Lizabeth Scott, veteran of numerous pureblood US films noirs, brings her A-game here and gives alternately sensitive and powerful performances as both the slightly wet, highbrow concert pianist Alice and the defiantly lowbrow criminal Lily.

HN: I thought she looked amazing in the movie, checked the credits and found her wardrobe was by Edith Head. I literally double-checked to confirm it was the Edith Head. What? How? Could you remind us of who she is, and more importantly, what was she doing working on an early 50s Hammer picture?

SR: Edith Head is the gold standard of film costume designers from the golden age of film – eight Oscars and 35 nominations. No slouch, obviously. It’s unlikely Hammer could have afforded her so she would have come as a package with Lizabeth and the cost would have been covered by Robert Lippert, Hammer’s morally dubious American co-production partner.

Henreid later found success as a director, but with tongue firmly in cheek he noted, ‘I hate to think of the day when nobody remembers me as an actor and I can’t get good tables in restaurants…’

HN: Morally dubious? We really must circle back to that at some point! But returning to the cast, Paul Henreid stars as Doctor Philip Ritter. Everyone will know him from two 1942 classics, Casablanca (‘Play La Marseillaise... Play it!’) and Now, Voyager (‘Our child.’) What brought him to Stolen Face, and later, Hammer’s Mantrap (1953), also directed by Fisher?

SR: By this point in time Henreid had become victim to the HUAC witch-hunts and had been unofficially blacklisted in Hollywood. He was not a Communist but, coming from pre-war Austria, he knew bullies when he saw them and he called the HUAC variety out on it publicly. This meant he was effectively unemployable in the US and so had to look for work further afield – which is how he ended up in the UK in the winter of 1951, filming for Hammer.

HN: Okay – I like him even more, now! A couple of reviews suggest he underplays the part, but I rated his performance. We don’t see any burgeoning insanity through facial tics or wild gestures; rather, it’s revealed through his actions and calm, unshakeable belief that he’s doing the right thing, even though he’s clearly embarked on a plan that’s totally potty. Do you think Henreid was a shrewd piece of acting, and did you enjoy the way he plays Ritter?

SR: I think he absolutely nails it. No-one thinks they’re the villain in their own story (unless they’re Dr Evil) and so he plays it straight down the line. He’s a moral character who is completely incapable of seeing that he is doing an immoral thing – until it eventually bites him. Henreid understands this and internalises it all – no histrionics, no grand gestures, just a dawning realisation that he’s made a big mistake. It’s a very British performance, very stiff upper lip.

André Morell later starred in several Hammer favourites, including Terence Fisher’s The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959) in which he memorably played Doctor John Watson.

HN: Oh! It was the first Hammer to feature André Morell. It’s a small but significant role, and he returned to the studio many times playing weightier parts. What made him so well-loved at Hammer?

SR: He’s just one of those superb British actors who are mesmerising to watch, even at the back of a scene – like Cushing and Alan Wheatley. He’s really given very little to do here, unfortunately, but if you watch him in Shadow of the Cat or Plague of the Zombies ("Zombie..!") he’s unforgettable. And he’s also, obviously, Quatermass – which guarantees him coolness and posterity by any yardstick.

HN: Hammer’s Limited Collector’s Edition range is fast becoming (or is already!) synonymous with high quality support material that appeals to both general film fans and Hammer aficionados. So, no pressure then. What can we expect to enjoy alongside the main feature with this release?

SR: Lots of new content in this one: the usual chunky booklet and brace of highly entertaining commentaries alongside new deep-dive programmes on Lizabeth Scott, the HUAC witch-hunts, Hammer’s make-up effects maestro Phil Leakey, Oscar-winner Edith Head and more.

Spoilers Ahead!

Production on Stolen Face began on October 29, 1951, and the movie received its West End premiere just over six months later, on May 2, 1952.

HN: Stolen Face has got an intriguing story that embraces moral ambiguity and holds it tight till the very end. Let’s start with Henreid’s Philip Ritter. The early scenes establish him as a good man, more interested in ethics than financial reward. But ultimately, he’s Baron Frankenstein and Henry Higgins rolled into one, isn’t he? With all the horror that suggests!

SR: I think there’s some truth in that. Both Frankenstein and Higgins believe their work brings benefits without questioning whether it’s either wise or necessary. Ritter’s decisions are very obviously unwise and unnecessary – but not to him. He’s a man in pain who has the skillset, he believes, to alleviate it. Would anyone else do any different under those circumstances?

Location filming on Stolen Face included shoots in Surbiton, London’s Belgrave Square, and, as seen here, on Wood Street in Kingston upon Thames.

HN: And I’m assuming we’re supposed to sympathise with Alice. But I struggle to think of a moment when her motivations aren’t entirely selfish and, on at least one level, they have a devastating effect on an innocent party. She routinely lies and deceives but do we excuse it because of her bearing, her voice and the pain in her eyes?

SR: It’s all to do with class. Back in the 1950s we were very definitely meant – and told this explicitly in the press material – to see Alice and Ritter as fine, upstanding virtuous characters. Seventy years later we most certainly do not.

HN: So I’m not alone in feeling desperately sorry for Lily? Good! The other two main characters, both richer and more successful, seem to lead contented lives punctuated by unhappiness. Lily endures a tough, troubled life that’s punctuated by a few brief moments of happiness. Can we blame her for falling back on her old ways as she acclimatises to her new life? Talk to me about poor Lil!

SR: While Alice and Ritter were explicitly described as upstanding members of the community, Lily was tarred as a fun-loving boozer who deserved to burn in hellfire. From seventy years remove we see Lily as the victim and the other two as the low-lifes. Same film, same characters, different perspective.

Who do you think you are kidding, Doctor Ritter? Dr. Russell (left) was played by Arnold Ridley who later achieved fame as the brave Private Godfrey in Dad’s Army.

HN: Without being too explicit, how does the ending to Stolen Face fit in with the demands of a Brit noir?

SR: Well, the requirements of Brit Noir do allow the wrong people to get away with doing dastardly things – as long as there’s a hint that it will either make them miserable or they’ll get caught out in the end. This film certainly ticks that box.

HN: Do you think the movie would have been different if this had been scripted as an American noir?

SR: In terms of character, yes (these aren’t British actors but they’re very much British archetypes). Were this an American noir directed by Aldrich or Siodmak or Dassin then both Ritter and Alice would know they were doing something illicit and just not care. Similarly, when Ritter decides to use his skills for selfish and immoral reasons he would have got drunk and agonised about it first. And, obviously, lots of guns. Other than that I think the essence of the plot would have worked for a pure noir – it was scripted by two Americans, after all.

Dangers on a train? Marketing material for Stolen Face, which Classic Film Noir called ‘a gem’ whilst praising ‘the slick and maniacal direction from Terence Fisher’.

HN: We’ve talked about things like genre, cast, the story’s morality and its direction. Perhaps my questions have missed one crucial point – this is a very entertaining, engrossing film that you can go back to, time and again, and spot something new to discover. What did you find most enjoyable about Stolen Face?

SR: The fact that it is so defiantly 1951 and that its ending vexed and enraged everyone who saw it afresh. As one contributor to this new release put it: "Oh, the Fifties!". And that’s what makes this such a great viewing experience – if it were made today with the same ending it would be lauded as defying convention, while back then it was following it.

We’ll soon be chatting to Steve about what we can expect in the new year and beyond, but for the moment, big thanks to him for giving us the full SP on this latest addition to the Limited Collector’s Edition range.

Finally, to pre-order Stolen Face or to check out titles currently available, plus an ever-expanding selection of merch, just visit Hammer’s online shop.