Don't Look Now
1973
* * *
Happily married couple John (Donald Sutherland) and Lara Baxter (Julie Christie) are devastated when their young daughter accidently drowns. Some time later, while with John in Venice, Lara still hasn't gotten over the tragedy... until a blind woman claiming to be a psychic tells she has seen their daughter, and she's quite alright in the afterlife. Lara finds this immensly satisfying, but John is skeptical, in spite of the fact that he may be a psychic himself. Then, he begins to believe that he's seen their daughter running around Venice. The original psychic warns them to get out of Venice, because their daughter says their lives are in danger. This is played out as the police search for a serial killer, adding an aura of menace to all these procedings.
Throughout this story, director Nicholas Roeg creates absolutely stunning images, making this a highly artistic thriller. Before directing, he was a cinematographer, and knows how to frame everything in ways both beautiful and frightening. The entire film is filled with very subtle suspense through his mix of images, editing, and sound; and when the tension is ratcheted up, it's almost unbearable. The story itself is very emtional, and you feel it. It's a painful, powerful, moving experience. This is one of those films you could study frame by frame, showing how each image creates tears or terror or menace or relief.
However, Roeg's editing and images aren't totally successful. There are times when it all gets too arty and distracting. The film never sustains its involvment because Roeg keeps getting sidetracked. Scenes go on too long, some scenes are left in that have nothing to do with anything, and while there are times that the flash-forward and back editing are effective, there's just too much of it, and it gets really heavy-handed. Consequently, the movie is slow due to the mixture of overlong scenes, unnecessary scenes (like the sex scene), and the distractions Roeg tosses in. It lasts an hour fifty minutes, but feels like two-and-a-half hours. I can normally sit through long, slow films, but I had to stop the movie twice to take a break.
It could be argued that this overlength has a little to do with the source material. Although Daphne Du Maurier's tale is actually a fast-paced short story (it's about 60 pages that I believe I read in about 15 minutes), there is a little too much running around. This is, in fact, one of the most faithful book-to-film adaptations I've seen, which is fortunate in some places (the ending, for example), but a failure in others. However, the writers should have whittled that down a bit, and Roeg should have backed off at times. The film never develops consistent pacing or momentum.
And yet, parts of it are brilliant. It has a strong emotional punch, some eerie sequences, a few pulse-pounding scenes, and images that are unforgettably beautiful. The climax is superbly handled except for one inexplicable act of stupidity on a certain character's part, and otherwise it works provided you're willing to accept the conclusion. (Since I'd already read the story some time before watching the film, I was ready for it; a lot of people don't accept it, though.) Sutherland and Christie give excellent performances, and do a wonderfully convincing job of being a happy married couple.
On the whole, in spite of Roeg's artiness and lack of pacing, this is a good film that's worthwhile provided you're prepared for it. By the end, the journey feels worthwhile.
The film's reputation is interesting among those familier with it. Many, including Roger Ebert, find it to be a classic thriller. A smaller number think it's a boring, ludicrous mess. In reality, it's somewhere in between, a movie flirting with greatness, but missing it due to its occassional dullness. The emotional punch and incredible tension are well worth the effort, however.
bravenet.com