Perhaps the most succinctly insightful critical response to the work of Nicolas Roeg might be Michael Clark's portrait of the British director in the National Portrait Gallery in London. Entitled "al-jebr", this Arabic word means "the bringing together of broken parts". There are certain keywords that recur in critical appraisals of Roeg's work: fractured, shattered, collapsed, labyrinthine. This is no less true of his now thankfully re-released 1973 masterpiece, Don't Look Now, which forms part of an early body of work, including 1970's astonishing Performance (co-directed with Donald Cammell), the deeply pessimistic Walkabout (also 1970), and the glacially prescient The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976). These films inspire similar "what ifs" to the contemporaneous career of Francis Ford Coppola. After his under-appreciated 1980 film, Bad Timing, Roeg seemed unable to reach the intense complexity his earlier work had shown, and has since managed to succeed where even Coppola has failed, by earning the epithet "largely forgotten".
This denial cuts to the heart of Roeg, his treatment of time in particular; that we preserve our illusions of control over time, that we structure and order them to give our lives structure and order, and that when encountering alien conceptions of life and time, some of us can make the leap and others won't. John, professionally engaged in making the present look like the past, will not admit the possibility that he can see the future in the present, despite all signs to the contrary. Roeg's camerawork increasingly jars sightlines and angles, giving the impression that John is being watched. Venice's legendary ability for confusion - between east and west, sea and land, decay and splendour - begin to make their presence felt, as John, separated from Laura, is led through the city's labyrinth by a false Ariadne, to his death.
There is something insistently ecstatic - rapturous, yet distanced - about the rapid montage of John's demise, a change, and his acceptance of that change, in his consciousness. There is a sense in which only by the "bloody silly way to die" (as the ending of Du Maurier's original short story has it) can John's sense of guilt be reconciled. Even at the last, his reconciliation with his apparent "gift" is fudged and distancing. In contrast, Laura's acceptance of the supernatural leads to growth and survival.
Sacrifice, experience by example, collective progress, all of these, along with his professed belief in a collective unconscious, place Roeg firmly within a Jungian framework. This positioning is emphasised in the fascination with reflective surfaces, and in the sound design, especially in the sequence where John is chasing Roeg's fairy-tale ogre, accompanied not by Hermann-esque music, but by deep Jungian churnings. Within the canals of Venice, Roeg's mise-en-abyme of the auditory canals also manages to suggest a mosaic or even fractal structure - of structures within structures. Chris Marker's observations, in Sans Soleil (1983), on Hitchcock's Vertigo (1958), about the spiral nature of time, elicit another strand of Hitchcockian imagery in Don't Look Now - the spiral. First seen on a slide in the opening sequence, then in the flight of pigeons, in a stairwell, in a bishop's crook, in the misty wake of the dwarf and John - all contributing to, Farber's words, Roeg's "cubistically spiralling style".
At a time when visual, narrative and emotional complexity seem inaccessible and inconceivable to British film financiers and distributors, film makers, and perhaps even the audiences, an opportunity to revisit one of this country's most glittering, underrated and serious talents is welcome and necessary. It remains to be seen whether it will influence any of the above constituencies one iota.
Reader comments about Don't Look Now
Matthew Walters (zyx_matt@hotmail) writes:
I always wonder if that lady playing the dwarf murder ever got another acting job.
also both Donald Sutherland and the blind lady can see into the future they also both have terrible taste in clothes. Him Royal blue overcoat with tartan scarves. Her Flowered shirt with tarttan trousers and other clothing including balaclavas she is blind but that's no excuse.
bob carroll (pozzi@postmaster.co.uk) writes:
I'm pretty sure she was in the early party scene in Russ Meyer's Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. Although she's not listed in the credits and if you blink you'll miss her.
Laura melhuish (lauramelhuish@hotmail.com) writes:
The final revelation never fails to affect me. Disturbing photography combined with an elusive narrative, provides an intense experience.
Derek Baldwin (DJBNJB@aol.com) writes:
I agree with Laura M above, DLN is intensely moving regardless of how often one has seen it, dozens of times in my case. Just hearing the theme music makes me go all soggy. It is sad that so little of Roeg's other work can really match it. The spiral motif mentioned in your review is also echoed in the appearances and reappearances (e.g. as coat buttons) of the design glimpsed on Christine's rubber ball. DLN is a great humanistic drama and also a great piece of cinema so it appeals to romantics and cinephiles alike; I guess I'm both.
Me (notail@ven1ce96.fsnet.co.uk) writes:
Can anyone please explain to me who - or what - the dwarf is at the end?
Is she real? A transference of John's grief? What? It's drivimg me crazy! And no-one seems to have an answer!
Erik (Email address withheld) writes:
I can't stop watching it!!!
I really really love this film.
I looked up the actress who plays the dwarf and it seems that she has not been in any other films, strange!
I think that the dwarf at the end of the film is some sort of troll or something. You always hear in story's about trolls that they live near rivers or under bridges.
I've also wondered if it was the Dwarf that actually killed Christine at the beginng of the film. It's possible.
but why? I just don't know?
Also...could anyone tell me why at the very end, just before John is killed, Laura who is leaning up against the gates shouts 'Darlings!' ?
There's another question to think about.
pat (Email address withheld) writes:
the dwarf is a serial killer stalking venice - we see her victims earlier. she can use her childlike appearance to lure others (eg: john). she is real, but is john's misreading of his psychic gift, and his guilt that lead him to her.
apparently the actress who played her had been quite a performer in her day. mark sanderson has written a very good book on the film as part of the bfi books on films series.
Aurélien Porteron (Email address withheld) writes:
I guess that the dwarf is the only cast Adelina has ever played in her whole life.
One interesting thing : David Lynch has called "dwarfland" one of the places of Mulholland Drive... a place where Diane/Betty is found dead...Is the dwarf a sign of death ?
Lauren (webmistress@lucretia.cjb.net) writes:
A wonderful film, haunting and beautiful.. and giving me nightmares of that dwarf-lady afterwards ^_~
But it does leave hundreds of questions.. most of which have been asked here already, ie, WHO is the dwarf?? why the darlings?
Colin Jenkinson (c.jenkinson@uea.ac.uk) writes:
Have just got Don't Look Now on DVD and it is a wonderful film, but the sound is appalling! It looks as though the sound and pictures are very slightly out of sync, enough to make it look as though it's badly dubbed. Does anyone know if there's a problem with my DVD or if this is general with the reissue of this movie? Many thanks.
Marcus (Marcus.dyer1@virgin.net) writes:
Colin:
Yeah, the sound is abysmal. I'm taking my copy back to the shop and writing a letter to Studio Canal. I love this film, but it should not have been released in this state.
Owen Duff (owen.duff@ntlworld.com) writes:
Julie Christie shouts darlings at the end meaning her husband and her daughter because she believes in the after-life and that Christine is with John... I love this film in many ways but am as confused about the dwarf as everyone else seems to be. I thought the documentary on the DVD would explain it all, but it only reduced my faith that there IS an explanation - Roeg doesn't actually come across very well at all, he sounds sort of self-aggrandising (e.g going on about how he told Julie Christie to smile on the funeral gondola because she's happy John and Christine are together - so what!) like he doesn't know what he's talking about. He just waffles on about recurring visual themes and repeats really obvious stuff, which has actually lowered my opinion of the film (and him as a director). I know the whole thing is open to interpretation, but for crying out loud, NO-ONE can give a possible reason why it would be a dwarf that is stalking Venice! The DuMaurier story (which is a lot briefer and quite different from the film) strikes me as a kind of throw-away, and the extra layers the film has added seem only to muddy rather shallow waters... Having said that it is wonderfully atmospheric, and it thoroughly added to my enjoyment of a trip to Venice this year - my friend and I even got lost (John & Laura style) one night in the city's backstreets!
p.s apparently the sound is better on the warner U.S DVD, dont ask me why
jayne (svaha@wildmail.com) writes:
I don't see why a dwarf SHOULDN'T be stalking through the streets of venice killing people! People kill each other every day, sadly, regardless of how tall or short they are...but dwarves are supposed to be guardians of the underworld and thus, of death. DLN, on one level, could be seen as the character John's refusal to accept his psychic gift or perhaps the vision of his impending death. Loved the sex scene, loved the scenery, and yes, the quality of the DVD is rubbish!
Owen (owen.duff@ntlworld.com) writes:
Fair enough, a dwarf could be stalking Venice. But on a purely practical level, I find it difficult to believe that a tiny woman could overpower two people (murdered previous to John himself) over twice the size of her. I would be more satisfied if I found out that the dwarf was conjured up by John himself, a manifestation of the guilt he feels at having let his daughter play unattended at the pond where she drowned. I would like to read some of Daphne Dumaurier's comments on the original story.
bob carroll (pozzi@postmaster.co.uk) writes:
re:how the dwarf overpowered people twice her size?
John bent down thinking it was a small,lost child crying.
Surely the little-red-mac'ed misfit had played on her other victim's similair maternal instincts before giving them the chop.
Hand's up if you love seventies' primary red blood.
LS (Email address withheld) writes:
I haven't seen a dvd or video of this film as I think I pay enough on my licence. It's a creepy confusing film. I don't think I am thick-witted but it never occured to me that the dwarf-killer had killed the other people. I thought they were part of the gloomy, dark atmosphere of the place. I missed entirely the fact that John is supposed to be 'gifted'. I think my brain fell asleep in confusion. Grudgingly agree it's well made but it doesn't quite knit.
baz dewick (Email address withheld) writes:
great soundtrack by donnagio i spoke to hilary mason shortly after seeing dln and she told me that julie christie was disturbed by the dwarf adelina poerio even when she was not acting . she appeared in a fellini film the clowns and she was pretty disturbing then. why a serial killing dwarf in venice. why does laura call out darlings before her husbands death. prehaps the answer may be that demaurier had a macarbe sense of humour and nothing is what it seems innocent child turned into maniacal dwarf two love birds in the birds turning birds into rampant killers. after all the film that turned christie into a star was darling
(owen.duff@ntlworld.com) writes:
I love the soundtrack too, I have it on CD. It was used on a series of monologues with Joanna Lumley on BBC2 recently called 'Up In Town'. Also, I had always thought that Donaggio's score for 'Carrie' was disappointingly similar, and that Pino Donaggio must be a repetitious composer. I later discovered however that Brian DePalma had asked Donaggio to 'emulate' the theme to DLN. Not that DePalma isn't capable of original film-making or anything(!).
Very impressed at your conversation with Hilary Mason, Baz, and I'm hardly surprised that Julie Christie didn't like the dwarf - she scares me every time I see her (and that's only on the television screen). I think my frustration with the ending stems from my inherent need for logic and understandability(?)! I know that when I write anything it all needs to 'click', I don't like there to be any loose ends or aspects of the story that I can't explain. I'm all for individual interpration but I need to know that there is at least one logical explanation. 'Cos I'm anal ("that's a polite word for what I am!")
LC (carlitacostello@hotmail.com) writes:
The dwarf? I have only seen this film once and that was last night. It really had quite an impact on me, so l decided to have a quick browse on the internet to find out some more about the film in general.
I think the dwarf was meant to be symbolic and not taken literally. Towards the end, I kept thinking that Julie Christies character was going to run into the serial killer stalking Venice, but it was Donald's character instead? Perhaps the dwarf was John's realization of both his demise, 'gift', and a renunion with his daughter, Christine.
On the other hand the presence of the archbishop, the strange occurrences in the byzantine church and the sightings of Christine fragment a possible conclusion further. I have heard that delving into the spiritual world is not encouraged in the catholic church. Even the psychic sister mentions that it is not meant for amusement.
Initially l interpreted the dwarf as a kind of trick or test and John was decieved or made vunerable by his guilt and inability to truly come to terms with his daughter's death. The dwarf was not only a symbol of death but the reverse side of the coin for John's 'gift'. The couple were allowed to make contact with Christine, but negative spirits, demonds etc... constitute the darker side of the spiritual world. John may have come into contact with what the church would understand as the devil or possibly negative energy/spirits in clairvoyancy terms.
Everyone has forgotten the man at the gates with Julie- he cries 'diavlo' or devil. At this point the archbishop wakes suddenly, we see a montage of what appear to be shattered images but they are actually very cohesive. The dwarf is juxtaposed with images of John putting up a gargoil head and we see the dwarf sitting in the photo of the chapel. At this moment l thought something darker had been at work than just an average day serial killer (if you could call a serial killer average!). If you read about dracular or any eastern European mythology, there is always some beast or spirit that claims the lives of the local village people etc.. (think of the gargoil) These themes run consistently through European folklaw and superstitions.
The images and themes serve as a means of highlighting the relationships between the church and the spiritual world,the dead and living.
This is only my opinion, l am definitely going to find the book and give it a read. I think l will have to watch the film again, as so much is still not clear. T
here is a lot of symbolism connected with the catholic church, however, and l think this is married well with the alternative practise of clairvoyancy. Despite two very different sides of the spiritual world (psychic and the catholic church), both attempt to aid and warn the couple of their fragile situation. The dwarf is like some kind of a mediator.
andy (Email address withheld) writes:
Just before and then during the attack by the dwarf, John seems to say two words. the dwarf shakes her head in response, or seems to me to be doing so. I've rewound the tape many times, but cannot decipher what John is saying... can anyone help?
Owen (owen.duff@ntlworld.com) writes:
Andy, I think John just says "wait" twice, and the dwarf shakes her head to say "no".
andy (wandasmith31@hotmail.com) writes:
re john's final words... thanks Owen, I see it now. I had been wondering if John was saying something in latin or Italian! It looks to me now that he was just in a panic after he realised that the psychic images (?) had led him up the 'wrong path'.
Anybody got any ideas re the image of the dagger smashing into the church, then later blood dripping from the hole? (one of the flashes john has while in his death throes).
Ash (Email address withheld) writes:
A masterpiece ......
Best viewed alone, late at night, slightly stoned .......
It scared the bejesus out of me.
I have a question though - well lots actually- but the most pressing one is about the two sisters.
After they have invited Laura to their house for tea and a seance there is a shot of them both laughing hysterically. Why is this ?
What are they laughing at ?
Are they ridiculing the fate of the recently bereaved couple? Are they complicit in some sort of demonic plot with the dwarf to ensnare and kill John?
Are they merely sharing a good joke?
A very disturbing detail I thought.....
Big Bill Boozy (Email address withheld) writes:
I re-watched it last night and noticed that little cuttaway to the laughing sisters for the first time! I've seen DLN about a dozen times but have never considered that sequence till now. I think it's merely a casual joke in a film that's underappreciated for its quiet humour. It fosters doubt about the sisters' credibiliy and contributes to the film's mysterious spell. I'm surprised that so many people are hooked on finding literal meaning in the dwarf's presence. The film makes it clear that there's a killer yet the denoument is as curious as the supernatural implications that govern the whole story. It has poetic impact and should be left at that. This is a movie that thrives on questions, not answers.
Catherine Kerr (cfkerr100@hotmail.com) writes:
Yes, yes to all previous comments but doesn't anyone remeber this movie as having the best sex scene of the seventies?
Jeff (Email address withheld) writes:
I originally saw this movie in 1973 at the cinema. It was by far the most disturbing movie that I have ever seen. So much so that I occasionaly think of it almost 30 years later.
ash (Email address withheld) writes:
The sex scene is certainly very convincing - lots of awkward camera angles and plenty of undulating flesh.
Quintessential seventies love making....
Glad you picked up on the laughing sisters shot Bill - I think you're probably right about that scene raising doubts and questions over the sister's motives/credibility.
Still petrified me though.....
Matt Langdon (langdon66@hotmail.com) writes:
I've only seen DNL once but it's seems the whole concept is about how vulnerable we become when we believe really far-out things. Sutherland's character is fine until he begins to pursue something he thinks may be his daughter. His skepticism keeps him alive but his wanting to believe in some supernatural element leads to his death.
Magda (Email address withheld) writes:
The dwarf shakes her head at the end because John has ignored all the clues. Also i found dln desturbing because the dwarf used the image of his dead daughter to lure him to his death.The dwarf is an evil spirit belonging to the Byzantine church that John is working on. Bad things happen to every one acociated with the church. John was working on the church when his daughter died. Also when the priest sees John's highly delectable wife for the first time he leers at her which makes her feel uneasy. The priest is played by the very handsome Marcello Mastrione and i always thought that he might try to seduce her. Also near the end when John talks to Laura and she tells him that she is at porton the priest is signing papers and looks up at a women who is sitting in front of his desk and she looks down with shame. Divorce papers?
elwyn phillips (Email address withheld) writes:
I think that Laura Baxter's enigmatic smile at the end of the film is because things can't get any worse or because John's death was inevitable. Also i agree with Magda; when i first saw the film i feared that Laura would be seduced by the priest especially since her relationship with her husband was under strain. Also i thought that the policeman might fancy her.
Arc (Email address withheld) writes:
DLN was one very scary film... it was the recurring images (the ugly dwarf, the spirals, the colour red) that reall freaked me out. I was watcing it with a group of freinds and when the dwarf turned round at the end we all jumped right out of out seats, to save our dignity all the guys laughed nervously... but we were all scared.
Hehe... the vision of the funeral boat was *very* clever.
The only thing that really confused me was the pictures of the children that the two women had... when I was watching the film I thought that they were children that the women had killed or had seen in visions... or something. I was dissapointed when it seemed that they had no purpose in the film what so ever.
Hehe... that blood was really fake... but it was the same colour red as was through the whole film... so it was effective.
ioga (Email address withheld) writes:
some random thoughts
i saw the film as an essay on perception. in this regard the film seems extrememly self-reflexsive; i.e. donald sutherlands character can percieve the very elements that compromise film.
i also like the idea someone mentioned earlier about the dwarf containing a devil representation for donald sutherland's character. roeg does portray venice as an interior to sutherlands psyche.
i recomend the quasi-tri-director trilogy of antonioni's BLOW UP de palma's BLOW OUT & Coppola's THE CONVERSATION
if you dug the ideas and mood of don;t look now.
Nicolo (Email address withheld) writes:
I too saw dln at the cinema on its release, with friends. We were all spooked and the film still terrifies me today. I wanted to visit the church in Venice but ran out of time, has anyone seen it? Is there a guide to locations used in the city
chris (Email address withheld) writes:
i have never been in a more disturbed state after watching a film; the disjointed realism of sutherland's characters death and the lynchian nightmare creature who deals it upset me far more than any work of art i have ever been exposed to. honestly i was pissed off at the depth of mental discomfort i experienced for days after. i watched the film in the dark, late at night, alone in a reffer induced intensity of mind and as sutherland was walking through the fog towards his demise i couldn't stop looking behind me. an outstanding production with some of the most entertainingly interesting moments i have ever witnessed in cinema (i.e. the incredably realistic hanging/rescue, the drowning/film smear and the perverse darkly humorous 'where is my wife' scene) the pinnacle of seventies realism and my personal vote for most frightening film in human history, as well as one of the most beautiful. a bit long winded, i know, but i had to get this out. p.s. i don't believe roge wanted his viewers to have any real sense of reason concerning the dwarf murder; this is a film that revels in the creation of mystery. and the 'love' scene is the most healthy example of sexuality i have ever scene in film. thanks for the venting space.
John Roberts (harvay@earthlink.net) writes:
I saw DLN in a theater when I was 8 years of age. & believe me, the ending tweaked me out for the next ten years. LOL I have yet to see the film again. Hard to find on video in the U.S. So I see it vicariously through others. I also loved "The man who fell to earth". (Which I have seen numerous times, & was on the same bill & same night as DLN.) I am sort of a fan of Adelina Poerio & her twin sister.
Dave (high_voltage_monkey@hotmail.com) writes:
the Dwarf....
i just found this site to see if there's an adequate explanation for what it is, and even if it is a simple murder (simple - ?) why?. Anyway, 'yes' to the comments on the blood. Check out the beginning of the French Connection and any film by Sam Peckinpah for the same.
Sweden (Email address withheld) writes:
Excuse my bad english here
Very interesting to read all the comments but know I'm more confused than ever. When I saw the movie for the first time (which was yesterday) I got the impression that the movie's main plot was that it was John Baxters fate to be killed by a serialkiller in Venice. Hence the dwarf in the picture and all the warnings which I believed came from Christine (or the other side anyway) Christine wanted him out of the city, and gave him all these warnings. But he did not go. So when he finally meets his destiny, being killed by a serialkiller, there's where the big chock is, because he could have avoided it so easily (a bloody silly way to die) But like I say, it was his fate. And that's scary to think about. I've always dreamt about being killed in an airplanecrash. Maybe that is my destiny, and when the day comes I'm on the plane on my way down to the ground and a safe death I will be thinking "Why did I ignore the signs and fly anyway? Bloody silly way to die!"
God gave John Baxter a sign. To look out and be cautious when someone is wearing a red raincoat for example. (And he wasn't, hence his and his daughters deaths)
Ray (Email address withheld) writes:
Ok, now I'm really confused. I just watched this one time so this is probably way off. I thought the dwarf at the end was another sister of the two? There was that painting in their house of 3 women and one baby and they mentioned how awful it was to lose a child. Also, I only rented the movie after reading some great reviews of it, but I must say, I was quite let down. I found some scenes incredibly creepy, but I thought the movie went way too long between these great scenes. Maybe I didn't see all the images of the dwarf in the background that I've read about here. Anyways, for a great 70s horror movie, check out Dario Argento's Suspiria. This one freaked me out. Another great one to watch by yourself late at night.
Raymond Challis (raychallis@tiscali.co.uk) writes:
This film is to show you what a romantic weekend in Venice with Julie Christie would be like. Of course they had to give it a bit of plot but it really works on two or is it three levels. This film communicates romance like nothing else, and like all romance it comes to a tragic end. Julie Christie's character of a young woman suffering from bereavement anxiety is accurate beyond belief, and has enormous sexual energy behind it, and I should know because I am a psychotherapist. I believe that this film is the best ever made, or perhaps second to Casablanca.
Lauren (-) writes:
DWARF QUESTIONS ANSWERED:
The killer is a dwarf because this leaves the (perceptive) viewer open to the question, was it Christine the blind sister saw, or was she actually fore seeing the killer? The question would be answered if the killer had been a six foot man. Note the sister says 'I can see her and shes laughing' - she would be - shes an insane dwarf, not a dead child!
L.J (Email address withheld) writes:
Totally love this film. Agree with Ash, best watched slightly stoned. The first time my friend Charlie saw it, in above state, he screamed like a girl at the ending. V funny.
I liked the part in the film, when John replaces the receiver of the phone, and it covers face of his deceased child in the photo beside the bed.
Jule Christie was way too skinny, I'm surprised she didn't take Donald's eyes out. Cool scene, tho.
Hey, whats with all the dwarf prejudice? Just cos he's (everyone but me seems to think it's a lady) short, doesn't mean he's not strong. Maybe he has supernatural powers...
Kidding...got to be John's guilt coming back on him. It just makes sense.
Jim Bob (Email address withheld) writes:
General comment to the people at Kamera. Being a big fan of Lord of the Rings(the film obviously), I started looking through the director, Peter Jackson's, backlog of films. I watched Heavenly Creatures and was blown away by it. I looked through your reviews and couldn't understand why it wasn't there? Any answers?
[This is off topic and will be deleted from the server in a couple of days - but the answer is simple: Heavenly Creatures was made in 1994, well before kamera.co.uk came into existence. Besides, we can't review everything]
jimbo slim (Email address withheld) writes:
the dwarf wears a duffel coat unlike the rainmac worn by christine. Surley this detail is a conscious effort on the part of roeg to emphasize coincidence above the supernatural
jimbo slim (dan@wood902.fslife.co.uk) writes:
oh! by the way i saw dnl when i was 6 years old and was so terrified by it that i slept in my parents bed for two years, had literally hundreds of nightmares and couldnt even bring myself to tell anyone or say the name of the film till i was 15 and saw it again. I have now watched it about 4 times but have still not been able to watch the last scene through to you know what. I am actually a reasonably stable person in every other respect...
& one last thing ... blair witch ending has borrowed heavily I think - even down to the strange "hot pipes" sound which you hear throughout that scene.
Andrew (fishintheperculator@yahoo.co.uk) writes:
I find it strange everyone seems to be so fixated about the dwarf at the end. It never even occured to me for the ending to make realistic sense, for the serial killer sub-plot to even be resolved. It just made perfect "mood" sense. Of course there had to be some resolutino for Sutherland's faith and refusal to believe in anything other than his own constantly disintergrating reality, but his death doesn't even have to make realistic sense. For me, the overwhelming mood of off-season Venice, the utter brilliance of Roeg's ability to create a physical subconcious and the gloriously real sex scene, were far more memorable than the need to place his death in a logical setting. Such a glorious film and so good to see that it creates so much discussion 30 years on.
Joey C (theanarchyangel@hotmail.com) writes:
Andy- You asked about the part of the final montage sequence where the glass breaks and blood flows from the church wall. It is John's foot that breaks the glass whilst he is fitting before he dies and his blood that flows from the hole. You can see a shot of this wall in tact whilst John is chasing the Dwarf after he has gone through the gates.
Paul (Australia) (Email address withheld) writes:
Recently suffering from the loss of a close friend, it took me a while to watch DLN. I had purchased the film a few weeks before my friend's sudden death and i have to say that it had a profound effect on me.
No film i have seen has conveyed the process of bereavement more powerfully.
Roeg was a master at the top of his game. The love scene is the most erotic and powerful i have ever seen in cinema, and the dwarf at the end... well i think it that scene was just the culmination of everything that had happened in the film- love, faith, the occult and the shattering illusion of life- that not all things are what they seem- not even love.
blig (Email address withheld) writes:
Good Film, But when i saw it, as has been mentioned before the sound was awful. This let it down and i couldn't help but come away feeling that it is overrated, i think because the i was so frustrated about either blowing my ears off or not hearing it.
Ollie (ollie@cheeseoo.fsnet.co.uk) writes:
having recently seen dln i must say the end sequence did seriously chill and jar me-and that was with prior knowledge of what would actually happen. i think that for ultimate shock-horror effect you need to not know the harrowing conclusion.
so many twists and turns and missable symbols-surely you need to see this at least twice. anyway there's not a lot more i can add to this thoroughly interesting debate but i do think we can question the death in the beginning of the couple's beautiful daughter.
oh yeah and the actual short story this came from is like a bare skeleton. Roeg has made a masterpiece.
albapheeny (Email address withheld) writes:
I totally agree with magda in that i felt that the preist might seduce Laura. So it seemed that virtually every one in the film was after the georgeous Laura Baxter in some way. Also i thought that the police inspector may have wanted to kill or have sex with Laura due to the way in which near the end of the film when he gives her screwed up picture back to her, as she walks away from him he stares down towards her legs and then back to the photo that he is holding.
Mes (Email address withheld) writes:
I saw the film 25 years ago. Scaring the shit out of me at age 11.
Just 2 days ago I saw it again.
Still had the creeps as Donald approached the dwarf from behind.
Just like the end of Blair Witch Project.
(monique_van_der_knaap@hotmail.com) writes:
I am very happy I found this site, because finally I can read comments of other people about this movie. I saw this movie 26 years ago and after seeing it for the third time (which was last night) I still think it is great. Where can I get the book and the dvd? And is there anyone who knows if there is a guide with the locations used in the film, as mentioned before in one of the messages?
bob (Email address withheld) writes:
I just saw this movie last night for the first time.....i noticed signs and stuff throughout the movie....
ok...so if the dwarf is real...then why did she want john baxter to chase her throughout venice and why did she choose john in the first place? um..also when julie's character was at the sisters for the first time, the blind woman asked her to uncross her legs or something...and then the movie shows her uncrossing her legs...what's the point? the movie was scary...but it was freaky.....like the dwarf looked freaky....and so did the blind woman....anyway...i just don't get this movie...and it was really boring because it was slow.....but it was like a csi case trying to put the pieces together....so that was fun
anyway...if anyone could answer those two questions...or three.....please do..cause i have no clue
Mes (Email address withheld) writes:
Remember the movie was shot 25 years ago!
So back then it all had a different pace. If this was the first time I would see it, it wouldn't scare me either. But back then as a little kid...
I think the things you point out were just meant to put some tension to it all.
I mean, saying to uncross her legs without beeing able to see it is rather spooky.
George (Email address withheld) writes:
I've just booked up a 2 night stay in Venice as a surprise for my wife and, on a friend's recommendation, have recently purchased the dvd. I'm pondering whether to show her the movie before or after the trip - I think you understand the dilemma!! Any advice will be gratefully received.
René (Email address withheld) writes:
DLN is indeed a masterpiece and probably the most frightening film I've ever seen.
Regarding the dwarf:
I've read somewhere that the real serial killer is never shown. The dwarf thinks John is the this killer cause he's stalking her. So she acts out of self-defense.
Mes (Email address withheld) writes:
Great point of view René! But if you'd be stalked as a little person, don't you think you would at least scream for help?
George, just show it! And stay in your hotel at night!!
Gemma (gemma.herbert@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk) writes:
has anyone any idea what the man in the toilets is alkl about?
When Julie goes into the toilets to help the old ladies (something in one of thyeir eyes) there is an odd looking, what seems a little man who is in the background of the camera shots and at one point has dissappeared only to return again in the next shot- could this be anything to do with the dwarf?
Any ideas? - anyone else noticed?
Bobby (Email address withheld) writes:
Having seen Don't Look Now several times over the years, to me it only gets better and better.I love the sex scene and the music playing in the back ground was perfect, the mood while dark and suspenseful was also one of profound loss and grief.Powerful stuff and worth watching again.
Mark (mstevens113@hotmail.com) writes:
Saw this film years ago & thought it was great. Atmosphere was tremendous.
The thing that I remember most is how Venice can be made to look so creepy. Its meant to be one of the most romantic places on earth but looked damn creepy in every shot!
rick arden (bmovie_15@hotmail.com) writes:
I watched the movie some 20 years ago and i was impressed by it (i was but 10 years old) though i didnt grasp its whole net of meanings, and im still a little at odds cos i havent been able to get a dvd copy (dont ask how) or anything, so ill work from memory and from the very clever opinion ive read here.
In memory, dln stands out as a very dark and imprecise piece of psychic paraphernalia and religious themes, but in fact what astonished me most was the movies atmosphere and the fact that water abounds in every frame: the first minutes are devoted to the baxters daughter demise by drowning, and the rest of the movie goes on in the very realm of water.
The great theme in the movie is clairvoyancy, theres no doubt about that, but theres also an earnest remark on the passage of time. I think this is a film that dwells strongly on the senses, and since we perceive time as change, time gets fractured by images that juxtapose and interplay beautifully.
I never took care of the dwarf lady, it can be anything in the world, and you may say im pretty comfortable with being a halfwit, but i think venice has been used in movies mostly for the sake of creepiness, as in paul schraders the comfort of strangers. And hell it works.
Thanks a lot
neil, australia (nfharvey@yahoo.com.au) writes:
i just saw this film today in a film studies unit and was totally blown away by it.
as the review from kamera mentions above, there is definately an influence of the great psychologist Carl Jung.
i read up about Jung and found that he too had a thing about dwarves! you see, Jung was a bit of a tweak (though a very intellegent one) and had this theory that there existed a collective unconscious - which is a realm where all of the dead occupy. what is interesting is that when Jung would dream, he would find a dwarf guarding the gates to the collective unconscious. now, we must remember that when Donald Sutherland is pursuing the ghost through the Venice canals, the dwarf goes through a gate. Sutherland makes a strong point of closing this gate, then continues his pursuit. Could he now be entering into this collective unconscious?
Jung also thought that this dwarf represented 'the shadow' of our ego. that is, the dark side of our personality. i think this reading holds true when we consider that Sutherland's character is coming to terms with his dark-side - his guilt - which could be represented by the dwarf.
i am an arts student - not a psychologist - but i think a Jungian reading of this film makes is very worthwhile and reveals a lot about the mystery.
that said, i think the film - like the human psyche itself - is meant to be mystical, multi-layered, and open to much intepretation. so i would say that pretty much all of the readings above about the dwarf are true - as there is no fixed meaning ascribed to it.
thats my two cents anyway.
ps. this is a film that makes me think about renewing an interest in recreational drugs. i can't imagine the effect of taking a tab of acid and viewing this at a film at a cinema would be. the horror!
Gerree (starmekitten@yahoo.com) writes:
This was the main theme I grabbed from the movie:
It seemed to me that despite the diversions (Christie's supposed decent into madness, the questionable nature of the two sisters, etc.) this movie was really about Sutherland's grief coming forward after a long fought attempt to stifle it.
I took the dwarf/troll as being related to the gargoyle he was hanging outside the church. I think the inclusion of that image at the end sequence is a big clue...in fact, when you watch the gargoyle scene knowing he's probably in imminent danger, it is rather jarring. I think the dwarf/troll/evil presence was the murderer, and if you asked me, Father Such-and-Such seemed to know something about it. He seems rattled throughout most of the movie and acts as if he has information that we don't.
The irony of the piece is that when Sutherland is finally confronting his guilt and grief over his daughter, he himself, not Christie, is misled.
Determinism seems to be present throughout the film, along with themes of past, present, and future.
I thought I saw two images similar to the blood spot on the slide...once in the mosaic he trying to piece together before the fall, and another time...I can't quite remember but I think it was the image of a joker or something. Did anyone else notice this?
Cyrille (Email address withheld) writes:
I saw this movie about twenty years ago and since, I keep a vivid souvenir of the dwarf-child threading her way through Venice. Does Steven Speilberg had also this fugitive vision in mind when he put the strong image of the little girl in red in Shindler's List?
Both images are some of my strongest cinematrographic recollections...
Acer (arsell@online.no) writes:
Okay I just saw this movie now (first time), and I have read through all of the comments and gotten pretty confused.
I don't think there are any correct answers. Just like a Lynch movie, the director wants us to think ourselves and get our own opinion of what's going on. Just like we see here in the comments, there are way different opinions and analyzes (sorry I'm not english).
I was also most certainly freaked out by the dwarf character, but what disturbed me more what; What is this place Mr. Baxter is in ? Beyond those gates and a prehistorical building rather misty and stuff.
I can understand this movie pretty well from my own impressions. There is, however, ONE thing bugging me:
Sutherland (will call him that) gets freaked out and is determined to leave the sisters. By this time, the blind sister is really losing it and is trying to warn him and keep him from leaving. The other sister keeps her from doing so, looks like she's physically shutting her up. She says repeatedly "Don't let him go" or whatever it was, yet her sister resists from going after him stopping him. Obviously, both of them know what is going to happen! Why would they want him to die? And why does the sister decide to try stop him after all in that case (when it's too late and he's miles away).
Also, how could his wife know exactly which path her husband had taken ? She had no psychic abilities; we all know that (no sign of it).
Please gimme some help or thoughts here...might have missed something aswell, only seen it one time (tonight).
RACHEL WATT (Email address withheld) writes:
This is a great film, when I watched it the first time the ending freaked me out and I have to say I couldn't quite work out the significance of the dwarf, so I just came to the conclusion that some things are not clear cut and are not meant to be understood. Unfortunately the sound on the dvd is all over the place but it doesn't spoil the enjoyment of the film too much. Changing the subject Donald Sutherland's son Kieffer starred with Julia Roberts in a film called Flatliners, where Kieffer's character encounters a child who attacks him, the child, a boy, is wearing a red duffle coat identical to the dwarf's in DLN. I wonder if that was sheer coincidence!!
robin northcott (robin@student.unsw.edu.au) writes:
undoubtley the best sex scene I have ever seen in a movie.
That said this is the most confusing piece of drivel I have ever sat through. After much discussion and watching the documentary I have come to the conclusion that LARGE quantitys of port where consumed by Roeg throughout the filming and into the editing process.
my wife says that Julie Christie has great tits, our advice is watch the sex scene then turn it off and have sex. Then take it back to the video shop
Leo (Email address withheld) writes:
It's strange that throughout DLN John Baxter is associated with the murder scenes: first as he & Laura are in a water taxi going under a bridge where the police inspector is investigating a killing she says something like `Isn't this the place you came to?' which he denies. The next murder occurs when the couple are lost in the dark & come to the edge of a canal: while Laura runs off afraid of some rats John goes into a kind of trance while another murder/appearance of the red figure (inside/outside his mind?) occurs. Then all of a sudden, without having moved, he's no longer lost but does actually know the way back and hurries Laura away. Again, when Laura is at the seance he starts wandering around in a faraway, tense, slightly drunk state & the murder scenario occurs again. There is a suggestion that we are seeing the depths of what he is capable of, the turmoil repressed beneath his controlled exterior, culminating in his own death at the end, with the grotesque dwarf a kind of symbol of the darkness, despair & instinct to lash out within him.... But this is always just hinted at. There are so many suggestions in this movie & nothing can be read too literally, no inference could ever pass for a definitive explanation.
Titania (Email address withheld) writes:
Urgh! Dwarves! *shudders*
Intricate interlacing of synthesis and symbol marginalised by creepy dwarf chic.
Could be improved by the absense of dwarves.
Michael E Moran (mike@fixhomepc.com) writes:
Up until the very end I had thought D. Sutherlands character was going to be exposed as the murderer. Everyones actions seemed to be one of suspicion towards him. Also, what was up with the angry Bishop?
Why the crushing of the ceramics?, why the statement "I wish I didnt have to believe in prophecy" (Because he knew)!
Why was sister #1 so concerned about Mr. Baster seeing the childrens pictures just before leaving to meet his doom?. Why did the # of pictures always change?........
Just a damn good movie. If it causes you to read, and post here, it did its job.
alexmilner-smith (alexander.milnersmith@bnc.ox.ac.uk) writes:
The dwarf is in fact a Goblin. If you think of her/it like that it all makes sense. from my perspective at least.
Titania (Email address withheld) writes:
Goblin?!
How have you come to this conclusion? Surely Dwarf is Dwarf *shudders at thought*
"It all makes sense", your dreams!
Please extrapolate.
(It just matters ok!!!)
Dave Lucas (Email address withheld) writes:
Presumably it's a dwarf at the end because it was written as a short story.
Seriously, a great film, though the transfer to DVD is lamentable. Someone like Criterion should restore and remaster. To address some of the general points above about why the characters seem to recognize areas / canals in Venice, try walking around there on a winter night - it's incredibly easy to get hopelessly lost and then find a busy major "street" just around the corner...
Anyone else spot the "homage" in the Spiderman movie? It's there!
Aurélien Porteron (cedricmoullier@yahoo.fr) writes:
This is the best film I've ever seen. The soundtrack is delightfull, even if it's absolutely impossible to buy anywhere ( maybe in Italy ? )
O brother Where are you ? Still thinking about the holidays we spent upon the Isle of Man. Still thinking about you, still thinking about Emilie.
heatherec (Email address withheld) writes:
Ok some questions:
1. Why does the blind woman start furiously rubbing her breasts halfway through whilst moaning??? Oddest frenzy I've ever witnessed especially considering the complete asexuality of her
2. If she is so asexual, who owns the kids in the photographs?
3. Why can't I hear a word DS and JC are saying? Why is half of it in Italian?
4. And so...why does the new DVD not have subtitles??
5. Were there no nice pizzerias around to lend a morsel to poor old Julie Christie?
6. Is Donald Sutherland, in fact, Postman Pat?
7. WHY?????!!!!
I thought this film sucked, big time. I'm a huge DuMaurier fan and though this artsy crap tarnished her memory completely. The end was stupid and incredibly unprecedented. The maniacal dwarf belonged in a film like South Park or something. comments?
Laika (Email address withheld) writes:
So true, so true!
1. Did I imagine a chainsaw?
2. What's with the Chesterfields?
3. The film lacks continuity, is this
intentional?
One thing I am sure of, the film put me off visiting Venice, ever!
voisovrezin (Email address withheld) writes:
To the potential Venice visitor above. Don't show the film to you wife before your visit; it will spook her.
julesky (julian.kelly@dartmouth.edu) writes:
you know, if you think this movie's not good, then you're probably pretty shallow, or at least, you're too caught up in the silly hedonism that TV and film have, for the most part, become.
this film is incredible -- just saw it for the first time last night. I had to watch it for my college thesis, and I really wasn't expecting as much as I got.
some other parts to think about: the part at the beginning where sutherland gets to that walkway edge where the rats are swimming near his feet. He seems to acknowledge a prophecy by saying, "wait, I've been here before..." (not sure if that quote's totally accurate). then his wife turns back and runs away, almost suggesting that she cannot be part of his fate, which seems to be thickening in the air during this scene.
also: the italian police department official claims that old men all look different, but that "old women seem to converge into one." the dwarf's face could almost be read as the point of horrible convergence for old women, the terrifying mathematical limit for their physical decline. I realize this doesn't do much to explain the central questions raised by the appearance of the dwarf.
I feel like the Italian is in there and is not translated in order to enhance a climate of exoticism within the movie. it's like you hear these fragments of a foreign tongue, and they have a similar effect to the way venice appears to the eye: mysterious, unknown, foreign, etc
if you read the book "don't look now" and are looking for more literary sources that may supplement or modify your understanding of this book (and the film), I recommend thomas mann's "death in venice" and/or ian mcewan's "the comfort of strangers". I don't want to give it away, but the similarities among these works almost create a genre of their own: mystery in venice
Ade (perroface@hotmail.com) writes:
In answer to everybody who's asked a question or doesn't understand any part of the film, just read the superior original short story by Daphne Du Maurier. By the way, the dwarf is simply the serial killer at large. If you don't believe me, read it.
Love from Ade.
Jodie (Email address withheld) writes:
LOVED the film and found it had one of the best,most convincing sex scenes *ever*.
I also found it interesting that, at the beginning of the film while DS is looking at slides of the church, he notices someone in a red cloak sitting in a pew. He then spills a drink on it and the "spiral" begins.
I believe it *was* DS's destiny to die in Venice and he, in fact, contributed to his death by ignoring all the warning signs his "second sight" provided (out of guilt?-going willingly to his executioner?)
If you'll notice in his death scene, several scenes cut back and forth with images from the beginning of the film: ie: his foot kicks out a piece of glass/the glass mirror that his son ran over breaks, etc. Watch this scene again and you'll see what I mean.
Another thing I noticed was that after DS gave the police drawings of the sisters to the detective, and as he was explaining his wife's "disappearance", the inspector was sketching rather severe eyebrows/wrinkles on one of the photos so it closely resembled the dwarf at the end.
Chrisx (Email address withheld) writes:
My wife and I saw DNL when it first came out in 1973. We have just come back from an Easter break in Venice (2004). Got some great shots of kids in red hoods and raincoats, plus saw an Adelina Poeri lookalike! Had dinner a stone's throw from the Palazzo Grimani (Baxter's death scene) without realising it... Thank you Mr Roeg for making a city break much more fun.
Carlos (Email address withheld) writes:
Does anybody knows the real Venice locations for the film? I´m going for a weekend in Venice and would like to lodge at the same hotel as Sutherland and Christie.
Grazie (grazieitfc@yahoo.co.uk) writes:
As far as locations go, the only place I have identified is the church: San Nicolo dei Mendicoli which is at Campo San Nicolo. It's a bit of a trek from the city centre and certainly off the beaten track. However, you'll pass a few cheap local bars as it is well out of the tourist area. You can also take the vaporetto (San Basilio/Santa Marta) which will no doubt be quicker.
I sat inside, quietly contemplating the film, when my phone went bleep and flashed my football team's result. They lost.
No, I didn't read anything into it!
kid (Email address withheld) writes:
this film was crazy. had to watch it for a high school english paper and couldn't believe it. i do believe that there is no actual meaning to the dwarf at the end. I dont think that there was meant to be a meaning to it. this movie was only made to confuse people and give them many sleepless nights. everybody else reads too far into it.
Melora (Email address withheld) writes:
People have commented about how bad the sound is on the Studio Canal DVD. I rented Paramount DVD, and the sound is fine on that. Try returning your Studio Canal DVD and getting a Paramont one instead. It should be refundable if the sound is that bad.
David Foglietta (cyclops@adelphia.net) writes:
Fascinating, spellbinding. As a psychologist, I always thought that the ideas of Carl Jung were overshadowed by the work of Freud. Western culture has not even began to skim the surface of the profound depths of Jung. Roeg has made an excellent beginning.
Fred (Email address withheld) writes:
I picked up a few scenes in this film which had been, ahem, "paid homage" to in other films. Wondered if anyone else agrees with me - or saw other moments that had been appropriated. First off, Dwarf facing the wall at the end. Blair Witch Project. Similarly, The Others has a scene where you think it's a child playing and the sudden reveal is that it's a monster (League of Gentlemen parody this scene in "How The Elephant Got It's Trunk") Then the red coat - was Speilberg attempting a more ham-fisted use of the same symbolism in "Schindler's List"? I don't pretend to know the first thing about reading a film but I thought someone smarter and more skilled in this area might have picked up on Spielberg's little trick (that just seemed too reminiscent of this film).
Mustang Sally (Email address withheld) writes:
Frederich, regarding symbols, "when you love someone you see yourself reflected in their eyes", say know more!. "Echoes" in film making are a cheap trick as they appeal to the inner pig dog in every man and can be associated with a lack of imagination and religious or racial intolerance. Don't Look Now shows the horror not the beauty of symbolism. I often wonder whether I am alone with this opinion.
Dan UK (Email address withheld) writes:
The DVD sound quality isn't that bad. It certainly doesn't spoil the movie.
One thing that puzzles me - why does everyone rave about this sex scene? I mean who the hell wants to watch that ugly stick insect Sutherland doing the nasty? I couldn't wait for that particular scene to end . The rest of the film is great though.
Aryiadne (Email address withheld) writes:
Hell, the guy is a minger and the sex scene is terrible, horrific even! Essentially a good film though a little dated, would like to see a remake.
Etchie (chieet@yahoo.com) writes:
Nice film, though, not at all great.
Roeg captured Venice as a sinister and atmospheric backdrop for a psychic chiller. However, the film's lowdown is being overlong, sometimes dragging the complexity of the plot into a overblown bore. The climax is somehow suspenseful, albeit it lacked a certain degree of suspense.
Ms Crepe Suzette (Email address withheld) writes:
The film could be improved by a tighter plot. Its composition could have included areas of space and suspense which could have complimented more fastly paced drama.
The red cape is an interesting observation which left me with questions that I found too difficult to put into words.
Will (Email address withheld) writes:
Saw this film the other night, taped it actually cos it was on too late and I have a couple of questions.
1: What the hell was with the short ugly man/woman in the ladies toilets when Laura Baxter first meets the creepy sisters? First you see it in the mirror, then it's gone. What's with that?
2: How did a knife that big fit into that dwarfs pocket?
Anyway, really creepy ending and a very good film. I'd like a remake though.
Steven Inglese (Email address withheld) writes:
Yes, it would be dated as it was made in the 70s.
Ellie (Email address withheld) writes:
I feel that not all the strangeness (such as the person in the toilet) had relevance. Perhaps it's purpose is to create suspicion to heighten suspense.
I do feel there was something about the priest, though not sure what. He seemed strangely unsurprised when John almost fell. Can anyone work that out?
The dwarf was certainly the mass murderer, she had been at all the murder scenes. She had no fear when she turned around. John didn't run because he was too stunned by what he saw.
It's classic stuff, the physically deformed to be evil. Was I the only one to feel after she turned, shock then shame at such a reaction to a physical malformation? Or perhaps at the time it was more acceptable to view the deformed as 'Freaks'?
cartwheel (Email address withheld) writes:
second time round for me and utterly mesmerising. i don't like to decompose films but i have come looking for answers on this one, and found this wonderful collection of contributions!
thanks folks.
i thought the priest was particularly sinister in that way only people of the clothe can be!
my take on his appearance in the visions of Baxter's death throes, is his awakening is somehow a diabolical acknowledgement/confirmation of the fulfilment of his design for Baxter, the inevitable culmination of B's tragic association with the church.
i look forward to watching the film again in the future at a point determined by terrestrial TV scheduling.
ps. timestamp 12th July 2004
Pauline (Email address withheld) writes:
Traditionally speaking "good design does not date". Although, to take a more contemporary stance "it is not a crime to be a product of your time" Both quotes could be seen to be applicable to the film Don't Look Now. If it was the film maker's intent to document the feel of an age why has this not been made clear? It is possible that what is dated about the film shows its potential for change.
Why are men of the cloth particularly sinister, I wonder?
Charlotte (Email address withheld) writes:
I had a completely different idea about this film than all of you. I believe essentially its about child abuse. Look at the beginning scene, when John pulls Christine out of the water.. wasn't there something disturbingly sexual about it? Moving on, when Laura talks about Christine wanting to give them a message, he is VERY reluctant for his wife to "speak" to Christine. The blind sister's trance when she's in touch with Christine is very disturbing. She rubs her breasts and shouts "John! No!" over and over again. Again sexual and disturbing. When John and Laura are talking about the sisters having a seance and he says "Thanks for the memories Laura" what do we hear in the background? A child screaming and crying... And then at the end when he's creeping up behind the figure in the red coat he saying "Sssh, don't be afraid, I'm not going to hurt you..ssshh" I think that John abused Christine and she wants revenge. I believe Christine's vengeful spirit led him to his death and killed him.
Bob Carroll (recarroll@postmaster.co.uk) writes:
Oh dear! What a pity that you can take various emotionally charged moments presented from within a grieving family during this classic film and automatically prescribe them to today's bogeyman de rigueur "Child Abuse!"
Despite its inherent strangeness and its focus on death, Don't Look Now is that rare film that honestly portrays family life (married couples do have unaesthetically pleasing but enjoyable sex, couples can react to the death of a loved one in different ways yet have to be synchronise these anomalous emotions for the sake of the surviving relationships.)
On the evidence you suggest all grieving families are unhappy, uncertain in their action and tight-lipped about their emotions because they are kiddie fiddlers.
Please!
Ellie (Email address withheld) writes:
If the dwarf was out to get John specifically why did she kill the others?
Jocelyn (Email address withheld) writes:
I don't think the dwarf should be thought of in realistic terms. I don't think it's a serial killer or a supernatural being.
As the review points out, the story is very Jungian. Everything is a reflection of abysmal subconscious material. The dwarf is a hommuncule, int Jung's alchemical sense. It is an archetypal mechanism, it serves as a link between the outer world and the psyche. In this film, the realization of that, when John seeks to elevate the subconscious materia to the consciousness, the result can only be death.
Lizzy (Email address withheld) writes:
I love this film. First saw it years and years ago and have watched it countless times since. But there is one thing I'm still not sure about - what is the significance of the brooch that Wendy, one of the sisters, is wearing? When she bumps into Laura at the table John stares at the brooch and does so again when he takes Heather, the blind sister, back to her hotel room. Have I completely missed something all these years?
juliana philippi (juliana_philippi@hotmail.com) writes:
i saw this movie under the pretense that it would be a suspensful, thrilling movie. well, the only thing that freaked me out was the midget at the end and the fact that sutherland locked the gate after going into the bug, empty, dark building!!!!
Mula (Email address withheld) writes:
Don't Look Now
Warning!!! movie may disappoint please dismiss if easily dissipated.
Can't see it catching on as a marketing strategy.
Holly (golightly368@yahoo.com) writes:
I had never heard of Don't Look Now until last night when I saw Unconditional Love. DLN is referenced in that film by a dwarf playing the part of Maud. She wears a red raincoat while wandering around an underground parking garage in Chicago. At any rate, after reading all these comments, I am very intrigued and would love to see DLN. Has anyone found a distributor of a DVD that is watchable.
Thank you.
Benjy (nicholson2000@yahoo.com) writes:
Re: ASH - why are the two sisters shown laughing hysterically?
This is an example of Daphne Du Maurier's classic technique used to destablise the viewer's perspective. Having been led to formulate one firm viewpoint (i.e. that the two sisters are genuinely sympathetic to the plight of John and Laura and that one sister truly is psychic) the film quickly goes on to force the viewer to question that viewpoint.
This has the overall effect of denying the viewer any safe refuge in the reliability of their perceptions, thus undermining their faith in the rational - conscious - mind. The result of this undermining is a piecemeal withdrawal of the conscious mind, replaced by a dreamlike perception stemming from the subconscious. This dreamy/trance state is exactly what the writer/director seeks because it allows the film to make greatest impact on the subconscious, and also bring out the strongest emotional reactions.
Other ways can be used to achieve the same effect of prompting the conscious mind to withdraw. E.g. shock or horror scenes. However, the cleverest and most demanding of these (for the writer/director) is the approach described above - of which Daphne Du Maurier was a supreme master.
Philip Chandler (philipchandler@earthlink.net) writes:
Has everybody forgotten what happened to the two sisters immediately before John left them and was lured to his death? The psychic sister convulsed and starting begging -- no, SCREAMING -- "Let him not go! Let him not go!" (or very similar words). By then, it was too late; the other sister ran out of the building but John had already disappeared, en route to his death. This makes me believe that, although the manner in which John met his death can be explained through recourse to symbolism and the supernatural, he was, at bottom, the victim of the serial killer that had slashed other victims to death. The psychic sister saw what was about to happen to him and tried to save him at the last minute, but failed......
brian (Email address withheld) writes:
Jung saw a dwarf ptotecting the gates to the collecting conciousness- hmmm,im just about to not off with that no my mind.
A colletive subconcious...does anyone else pondor some unreachable truth in that?
John (Email address withheld) writes:
I am writing to suggest to you that John was the serial killer, but he was so strongly mentally divided by guilt and fear of insanity, that he dis-associated himself from his murders. However, he says at one point when they are lost in the alley, "I remember this place...", and then quickly leaves the area, as if he is fleeing from a crime scene. Love the film, and I find I interpret it differently each time I watch.
roz (Email address withheld) writes:
I just saw it tonight. Amazing movie. The only movie I can think of that makes me feel terrified and also incredibly sad and weepy at the same time. Also, I recently reread Death in Venice and wondered whether maybe there's an homage to Thomas Mann here in the use of red as a motif. If anyone's read DIV lately, remember the red-haired man who keeps reappearing? I recall a teacher telling us that the red-haired man was a symbol of the devil.
Li (Email address withheld) writes:
i personally this film was terrible! it was very out dated and at the ends there are too many loose ends to tie up. i am studying this film as part of my 1st year degree at university and im finding it very difficult as i do not enjoy nor understand the film. i feel the dwarf is somehow linked to both christines and johns death as she is the red figure in the slide john is looking at before christien dies!!!
i must admit the ending was shocking as when the 'red figure' tured round i did not expect to see a dwarf let alone see her kill him.
C. Harris (Email address withheld) writes:
The discussion about who the hell the dwarf lady (I use that term loosely, last time I checked, it wasn'd deemed ladylike to chop into the necks of hairy men) is interests me. Does anyone see connections between her and Laura? For example, during the sex scene, Laura shakes her head as she climaxes, just as the dwarf does as she kills John. Perhaps this is Laura's revenge for John's failure to save their daughter. Am I going to far by linking this to the smile Laura has on her face on the funeral boat? I get the impression that the dwarf is not the serial killer, but a representation of Christine, and the reason that John has to die.
Do people find that this film 'challenges and disturbs'. Is it difficult to watch, and what makes this so? (You'd be helping with film studies essay!)
Bob (Email address withheld) writes:
I saw DLN last night for the first time. I wanted to see it because I was in Venice for the first time just last year. It's a good film, but not, I think, as great as some believe it to be. I think it is basically reflections on death and sexuality. DS persues death (the young child) at the beginning of the film, and at the end, he again persues death (the old dwarf). The beginning and end are death, with sexuality (JC and the psychic)thrown in. Bemused sexuality survives death... Images of loss, or death, and of survival (sexuality, the church), populate the film.
The child and the dwarf are the same thing: death.
A film I thought of after seeing DLN was "Masque of the Red Death."
Tamara (Email address withheld) writes:
What in the hell did I just watch?
At least now I understand the comical reference to the 'Red Dwarf' in the movie Unconditional Love, starring Kathy Bates and Rupert Everett, which originally motivated me to watch Don't Look Now out of sheer curiosity.
David (Email address withheld) writes:
I watched thsi film the other day and it has to be one of the most weirdest films of all time. During the flashback before the dwarf turns around and kills him he sees the red hoof sitting at a church steeple, what does this symbolize, could it mean that the roman church had sent the dwarf to kill him??? I also don't understand how he travelled Venice and never was once concerned about the murders that were being commited there and yet he is roaming venice by himself looking for his daughter at night??? Very confusing but that dwarf is about one of the creepiest things in movie history!!!!
Jonathan (Email address withheld) writes:
Wouldnt a freaky looking dwarf lady wearing a bright red mac be slightly conspicuous. Therefore wouldnt the police investigating the serial killings have repeatedly come across descriptions of this character when interviewing the public at the crime scene.
Thought it was mean to dwarfs anyway.
Suzy (Email address withheld) writes:
I think this is a very atmospheric, higly watchable film. I would like to know if the blind lady is seeing the dwarf figure in her visions and assumes it is a child or if it is a total coincidence and she sees both the child and later the dwarf. Also why does the police guy with the sketches have such a strange look on his face and what was the telephone call he made in italian straight after seeing Donald Sutherland? Well it is late!
Marion (Email address withheld) writes:
I saw the movie, Don't Look Now, when it was first release in 1973. It remains one of my favorites.
Rather than finding the movie frightening I found it curiously reassuring. There were beautiful examples of love shown, physical love making and love by parents for a child and a sense that death doesn't mean the end to everything.
I found Laura's intuitive nature and faith in the two sisters, as weird as they were, and her smile at the end the movie moving.
Donald Sutherland's character had the gift for insight yet he couldn't accept it. At the end of his life all the images that he had denied came together as a whole. He seemed to die with some sense of peace after the initial horror of the moment.
I thought it was a wonderful film and with exceptional editing.
nervousviking (Email address withheld) writes:
Can't imagine why everyone seems so hung up on the ending of DLN. I've seen it once - and that was enough to disturb me! - and after 30 years the images remain vivid. Which is the whole point, at least as I see it. Roeg is a visual director, this is a highly visual film. The ending - in fact, any part of it - can mean whatever you want it to mean, more or less. For me this is as much about John's unresolved guilt at his daughter's death as anything else. He feels responsible and it is this which leads him, ultimately, to see what he wants to see. The dwarf at the end is simply a deranged serial killer who leads him astray by, inadvertently, convincing him that he is seeing his daughter. Of course, you may wish to ascribe supernatural malice to the dwarf's character but I would rather enjoy the film for what it is - a stunningly realised depiction of one man's view of Life, the Universe and Everything... Try to 'see' it in the same way that you would listen to, for example, Barber's Adagio for Strings or a Beethoven symphony!
baal (Email address withheld) writes:
Something I think no one has noted... the strange attitude of the chief of police. He acts as if Shuterland's words give him some hint, but next thing you know he seems not to be listening. Also, he is concerned with a pair of elderly women in the street. And what do the sister's portraits have to do with all this? The policeman ends up tearing it, and Donald's wife states something like the portrait is not very good, and the police man says something like 'it doesn't matter. Why?. I reckon the portraits are not quite good, in fact one of them resembles the dwarf. Just the one the policeman retouches, as if he knew the face.
In the end, there are so many loose points in this script that i prefer not to analyze them piece by piece. Instead, I'd rather, as someone pointed out before, enjoy the sad horror and ill-fated atmosphere which you almost can breathe in that ghostly Venice and in that crumbling marriage.
Having said this, I think that at least this film has more merits that the rewarding, but more futile, feelings aroused with those 'now-everything-fits' films as "The 6th sense" or "The Others". Which exploit not so erotically the gothic side of the aesthetics, and ultimately have not the same modern life-like distress.
Jeff /Cleveland Ohio (Email address withheld) writes:
I think all these comments prove Roeg's intent: a film made to be discussed. I don't think there is implied child abuse but the image of John pulling the girl from the water is eroticised. I couldn't help thinking what would have gone through Laura's mind had she seen the two rolling around on the ground. The corpse being pulled from the canal is similarly eroticised - the dark side of the loving and above all marital sex the dwarf would never know. The sisters laughing is quite shocking. And I haven't been able to work out what is troubling the priest. Perhaps he is psychic as well as per his comment about prophesy and the blind psychic's ambivalence about her "gift". I believe Roeg is totally under the influence of Jung here but the dwarf in the end simply represents the idea of the novella: it is a silly way to die. Life, after all, is a shaggy dog story with no happy ending. Reminded me a lot of Peter Weir's "Picnic at Hanging Rock" which must have been influenced by Roeg's "Walkabout". Also, the cubism of "Psycho".
David H (Email address withheld) writes:
I watched DLN for the first time last night. A wonderfully atmospheric film and it reminded me of Roeg's Walkabout in its style but also reminded me of when my wife & I went to Venice in winter (December 2003). I thought I recognised some parts but just as when you are actually there, you get disoriented, everything looks the same, the old buildings, the stone walls, the alleyways and canals. We got lost in Venice in winter but I am glad I waited before seeing this film!!!
Winfried de Haer (winfriedtineke@msn.com) writes:
Why is this story called "Don't Look Now"?
Does anyone know?
Fern (fernbowkett@aol.com) writes:
Dont look know is a great film although its very confusing i would never have guessed a dwarf could be the killer. Did the dwarf kill Christine? It totaly slipped my mind that John had a physic gift i was to wrapped up in the film. another question thats bugging me how did a dwarf over power the victims? The victims must have been 3 times bigger than her. I agree with everyone else the sound was dreadful!
mark (Email address withheld) writes:
I first saw it when I was young and carried many of the images for a long time without knowing to what film they related-so it freaked me out when i saw it again-surely a great film.
I think John was killed by the serial killer who was not a dwarf/ child but only perceived as such by John- the serial killer being the tool of some malevolent spirit disturbed by the work at the church.
Toby Hill (Email address withheld) writes:
I thought the whole film did come together very well, except possibly the question of how the dwarf knew John would follow her; picking from a selection of these comments, though, does give a perfectly palatable explanation of this I'd think: the dwarf was most certainly the serial killer who haunted Venice, and as others point out probably would have lured others in with her size, before slashing them with her huge bloody axe, enough to overpower most unsuspecting people you would think. True, perhaps not a completely watertight explanation, but then the film wasn't so much about th dwarf. much more about John and his guilt, as others point out very perspicaciously above, and his latent, unacknowledge psychic abilities. The real enigma, therefore, is seen at the start when he pre-empts his daughter's death, and it this mystery primarily the rest of the film explains, culminating in the fact he forsees his own funeral. A very good film, the last 15 minutes of which invoked some of the most tension I have felt from a film, as we quiver utterly perplexed by what to make of this mysterious red-cloaked figure ...
Add your comments about Don't Look Now [About]
