I forgot about these debates on Don't Look Now, and I thank Osprey and Pink Mist for finding my pair of extended responses which would have taken me half a century to do so. I wouldn't change either of my responses very much to be honest--I think they represent an accurate reflection on my thoughts about the movie. However, I would like to generalize a bit on some of the criticisms, hopefully not giving offense in the process because that is not my intent.
If one doesn't buy into the believability of the characters, then, I can see why the movie would be a far from ideal viewing experience. I mean that would be the ultimate deal breaker. The main contention seems to me that John and Laura do not behave believably as grief stricken parents who have recently lost a child. I never had a problem with their behaviour; in fact, I never gave it a thought. In the first place, I don't think grieving people always look like they are grieving. I also felt that sufficient time must had passed so that the characters were at a different stage of grief--the stage where they have to start concentrating on the fact that life goes on. Thus, Venice is a working holiday, but it is also an escape from the status quo, a chance to try to achieve a new balance, a new normal possibly. But clearly Laura is still very much in the grieving process which is one of the reasons she is so susceptible to the woman with "second sight." She wants to believe her child is in some way still with her. I thought Julie Christie communicated her continued torment beautifully.
Clearly John is dealing with grief, too, but at a different stage. He realizes the need to continue with their lives, to try to heal themselves as a means to survive their terrible loss. Plus, he is a thoroughly rational, secular man. His loss in not assuaged by thoughts that their child is somehow still "there," One of the ironies of the film is that it is he, not Laura, who himself might possess "second sight" but he is too much the rational skeptic to realize it. John and Laura's love making scene made great sense to me--why would they immediately take seriously the old woman's assertion, certainly John never buys it? The love making is a sign of hope of a reawakening of the importance of each other, and indication that the relationship may possibly survive. But it is a false hope, a false new dawn. At the same time the sequence is a foreshadowing that something bad may be about to happen, something that can't be escaped. To me, the emotions created in me in these sequences were both intense, erotic, alarming, and subtly disquieting. So, in short. their grief and their way of behaving at this point in their relationship seemed thoroughly believable and sympathetic to me.
But if you can't by the believability of the characters than the technical aspects of the film, the editing and generation of the foreboding atmosphere that it creates probably aren't going to carry much impact. To me it is the "atmosphere" that makes the movie. I can remember only one film in which I felt the same sense of dread for characters I cared about, that film being McCabe and Mrs. Miller. To me Don't Look Now was a near perfect marriage of script, actors and director.
Don't Look Now is a 9B on my scorecard. I see the film as a subtle movie but not that difficult. To me, the premise is clear and well establilshed, the characters are psychologically well defined, the dilemmas that they face are a logical outgrowth of who they are, and their different reactions to the events that take place all occur in a believable context. Why not a 10? Don't Look Now is a good enough to survive its ending, but a red dwarf denouement has always seemed a little too on the nose to me.
I respect all of your opinions greatly. I am just laying out the way I saw some of the shortcomings that were mentioned.
If one doesn't buy into the believability of the characters, then, I can see why the movie would be a far from ideal viewing experience. I mean that would be the ultimate deal breaker. The main contention seems to me that John and Laura do not behave believably as grief stricken parents who have recently lost a child. I never had a problem with their behaviour; in fact, I never gave it a thought. In the first place, I don't think grieving people always look like they are grieving. I also felt that sufficient time must had passed so that the characters were at a different stage of grief--the stage where they have to start concentrating on the fact that life goes on. Thus, Venice is a working holiday, but it is also an escape from the status quo, a chance to try to achieve a new balance, a new normal possibly. But clearly Laura is still very much in the grieving process which is one of the reasons she is so susceptible to the woman with "second sight." She wants to believe her child is in some way still with her. I thought Julie Christie communicated her continued torment beautifully.
Clearly John is dealing with grief, too, but at a different stage. He realizes the need to continue with their lives, to try to heal themselves as a means to survive their terrible loss. Plus, he is a thoroughly rational, secular man. His loss in not assuaged by thoughts that their child is somehow still "there," One of the ironies of the film is that it is he, not Laura, who himself might possess "second sight" but he is too much the rational skeptic to realize it. John and Laura's love making scene made great sense to me--why would they immediately take seriously the old woman's assertion, certainly John never buys it? The love making is a sign of hope of a reawakening of the importance of each other, and indication that the relationship may possibly survive. But it is a false hope, a false new dawn. At the same time the sequence is a foreshadowing that something bad may be about to happen, something that can't be escaped. To me, the emotions created in me in these sequences were both intense, erotic, alarming, and subtly disquieting. So, in short. their grief and their way of behaving at this point in their relationship seemed thoroughly believable and sympathetic to me.
But if you can't by the believability of the characters than the technical aspects of the film, the editing and generation of the foreboding atmosphere that it creates probably aren't going to carry much impact. To me it is the "atmosphere" that makes the movie. I can remember only one film in which I felt the same sense of dread for characters I cared about, that film being McCabe and Mrs. Miller. To me Don't Look Now was a near perfect marriage of script, actors and director.
Don't Look Now is a 9B on my scorecard. I see the film as a subtle movie but not that difficult. To me, the premise is clear and well establilshed, the characters are psychologically well defined, the dilemmas that they face are a logical outgrowth of who they are, and their different reactions to the events that take place all occur in a believable context. Why not a 10? Don't Look Now is a good enough to survive its ending, but a red dwarf denouement has always seemed a little too on the nose to me.
I respect all of your opinions greatly. I am just laying out the way I saw some of the shortcomings that were mentioned.
Last edited:
