Don't Look Now (1973)
 

Just watched this...

An architect moves to Venice with his wife while he undertakes a job rennovating a dilapidated church. Their daughter drowned sometime earlier, and a series of strange events ensue.

Possibly the most Aickmanesque movie I have ever seen. Haven't felt real chills since Session 9, but this really gave me the absolute creeps. The atmosphere seems so masterfully crafted, much in the same way Aickman built his 'strange stories' - sinister details emerge that sometimes seem to lead nowhere, while strangely synchronistic events engage our closest attention. The setting is soaked in Old World atmosphere - a very selectively decayed Venice, filled with flaking buildings, grinning grotesques and a strange priest who seems to constantly allude to his waning faith.

All in all, a very effective thriller with an ending that I can say probably frightened me more than any other - this is a movie that really plays on your preconceptions. I believe it is classed as 'surreal horror' - but like a story by Aickman (or Lovecraft, for that matter) the greater part of the film is firmly rooted in the world we are familiar with.

I highly recommend this to anyone interested in Aickman and/or psychological horror.

-Simon

Re: Don't Look Now (1973)
 

According to Ramsey Campbell's introduction of the Tartarus collected Aickman, Aickman actually hated Don't Look Now, which is perhaps rather puzzling. Personally I think it's a great film, from one of my favourite directors.

Re: Don't Look Now (1973)
 

Yes. It is a great film! One of my favourites. I also adore Aickman.

Re: Don't Look Now (1973)
 

Fascinating! The thought of Aickman watching this film and not liking it doesn't actually surprise me too much. It invokes my pet theory that artists have an aversion to other material which too closely resembles their own. The theory behind it is most plausibly explained by individuals competing for the same niche, in the same way that we might expect two 'funny guys' meeting eachother in a group environment to get along, but it turns out they immediately despise eachother. Also recall TL's dislike of Aickman's fiction - a phenomenon which is otherwise baffling, since there are so many parallels in their work.

Anyway, enough of this sheer speculation. If anyone could please recommend any other films in the same vein, I would be ever so grateful.

-Simon

Re: Don't Look Now (1973)
 

As much as I like the film, and at the risk of sounding like an old prude, I must confess that I find the incredibly long sex scene between Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland to be amazingly gratuitous. This is a criticism I have of several of Roeg's films, in fact (I think virtually every actor in The Man Who Fell to Earth appears nude at some point in that film, and I fail to see what was achieved by such measures (in either film)). Still, the atmosphere of dread and the overall ambience throughout Don't Look Now are remarkably effective.
It appears as though Aickman didn't think very highly of the sex scene either (probably due, in part, to his having been a fan of Daphne du Maurier's - and the sex scene is one sentence long and not at all graphic in the story).
Aickman apparently liked the film Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975), which I think makes a lot of sense. That's a good one too.

As for other Aickman-esque films, I have to very highly recommend the French film, Innocence (2004). It is very creepy and very subtle in its telling. I loved this film and it reminded me more of Robert Aickman than anything else I've seen. In particular, it brings to mind his novel The Model (though the film is based on a short novel by Frank Wedekind, which I still have yet to find in English).

Re: Don't Look Now (1973)
 

Nic Roeg has been my favourite director for most of my life and I think his sex scenes are usually as multi-layered as the rest of his imagery. The Man Who Fell To Earth is a good example. Each sex scene has a different mood and style depending on its function in the film. For example:

1) Nathan Bryce screwing his student. This scene is harsh, almost violent, and is intercut with Newton watching a simulated sword fight. This is sex as a loveless power game. The teacher satisfies his lust and his pupil gets a good grade.

2) Newton's first sex scene with Mary Lou. This is beautiful, exploratory, almost innocent and is intercut with scenes of Mary Lou looking at micro-organisms through a microscope and celestial objects through the telescope that Newton has bought her. This is sex as a tender exploration of love and is seen as being connected to the natural forces of the universe.

3) The sex scene years later between a still-youthful but broken Newton and an old Mary Lou. Here the editing is brutal and involves some sado-masochistic play with a gun loaded with blanks. This represents the sad state of their affair. Most of the original love is gone, Newton has been corrupted and destroyed by human social forces and Mary Lou is just a sad old woman who he regards with contempt.

As for the sex scene in Don't Look Now I think the scene would justify its existence solely by its beauty. The photography, acting and editing (plus Pino Donaggio's exquisite score) are wonderful. But it also adds emotional depth to the characters. Roeg wanted to convery the sense that this was the first time they had recovered their libido after the tragic loss of their daughter and they were trying for another child. I'm not sure of the significance of the curious editing where scenes of the couple getting dressed are intercut with the love-making but this could represent the difference between people's public image and their private, intimate selves. Also, Laura seems to be happy in a post-coital glow whereas John looks slightly grim as if his unacknowledged psychic sense is telling him that this is the last time he will make love to his wife.

Roeg apparently tried watching the film without the sex scene but felt that John and Laura seemed too grumpy and you got less sense of the love between them.

Re: Don't Look Now (1973)
 

By "in the same vein" do you mean Roegish or Aickmanesque?
For my money Roeg's first six films are all masterpieces - Performance (co-directed with Donald Cammell), Walkabout, Don't Look Now, The Man Who Fell To Earth, Bad Timing and Eureka. After that I found his films declined in power.

Aickman's work is so peculiar that I find it hard to think of any films that have that distinctive mood and style. I must admit I haven't thought of Don't Look Now in that way. The most Aickmanesque drama I've ever seen is actually a TV programme - the 1978 BBC Christmas ghost story The Ice House. Though not directly based on any Aickman story it nevertheless feels strongly reminiscent of his work (particularly The Hospice and Into The Wood) with its milieu of middle class characters caught up in inexplicable events, and its elegant, subtly menacing dialogue. Because it wasn't as conventional as the other films in the series it has been criticised by some fans of traditional ghost stories but I think it would be much appreciated by Aickman aficionados if it was better known. A repeat screening is long overdue.

Re: Don't Look Now (1973)
 

Looks interesting. Trailer:



BTW, does anyone know the name of another horror movie that (I think) also starred Donald Sutherland and involved mirrors that had mystical properties? (definitely 1960s or 1970s era)

Re: Don't Look Now (1973)
 

I guess I'll play the devil and say that I didn't really care for this film. I had high expectations for it coming in. High expectations are rarely ever a good thing to bring to a viewing. It ran too long and there were a couple instances of good strong imagery, but not enough for me to enjoy it. However, Walkabout is one of my all-time favorite films. So I guess Roeg is hit and miss with me.

Re: Don't Look Now (1973)
 

Roeg's first six films are all masterpieces to my taste, though Walkabout is probably my favourite movie of all time.
I'm going to see it tomorrow at the National Film Theatre in London where it's showing as part of a Nicolas Roeg season. Jenny Agutter, Luc Roeg (the little boy in the film) and Nicolas Roeg will be there to talk about it afterwards.