New Year's Countdown...of Excellence: 5 - Don't Look Now (1970's selection)

5
Don't Look Now
1973, d. Nicholas Roeg- Criterion Channel

The Story (in two paragraphs or less)

After the tragic accidental drowning of their daughter Christine in England, John and Laura now reside in Venice where John is leading the restoration of a church.  While at dinner Laura meets two elderly British sisters.  One is blind, but is gifted with second sight, and she tells Laura that she sees Christine with them and that she is happy.  Laura is shaken by this, but more elated than upset, and spends more time with the sisters much to John's dismay.  Yet, for all the psychotherapy and drugs that Laura has been taking this is the first sign he's seen of her feeling comforted, normal. 

But the sisters bring a warning, that John is in danger, and also that, perhaps, John himself contains the gift of second sight though he doesn't know it.  There is, afterall, a murderer loose in Venice, so there is definitely danger.  After their son, in a boarding school, has an accident, Laura leaves for England, yet John sees her mere hours later in a boat with the sisters.  He's shaken by this, and frantically looks around town for his wife or the sisters, even enlisting the police.  He finally talks to her in England at the boarding school, where their son is okay, and she will be returning to venice that night.  But a series of miscommunications has John,Laura and the sisters roaming the quiet streets of Venice alone at night, when John thinks he spies Christine running around and gives chase.

What did I think I was in for?
I'd never heard of it until I was looking for horror movies to watch for last year's "New Year's Countdown...of Horror", where it was pegged as a classic psychological horror.  At that stage I think I thumbed over it once or twice on whatever streaming service it was on at the time but never pressed the button.  I didn't know it or its reputation.  Plus the description was off putting:  "Death of a child" stories tend to be pretty dreary, and 70's "horror" has a pretty spotty record.  So I thought I was in for a placid drama that barely doubled as a ghost story

In searching through lists of "Best 1970s films" this one does come up in most of them, and it's a British director, mostly shot in Italy so it gets me out of the American pictures which dominate those lists.

What did I get out of it?
If there was anything considered "elevated horror" in the 70's this would be it.  While it can be pegged as a psychological horror, it is almost treated like it's a gauzy romantic drama by it's score, full of softly sweeping strings.  Roeg does a lot with thematic imagery, the colour red, pictures/photos/drawings, people falling, glass breaking, water... but it seems to me it's all done with both too much and not enough intention.  A lot of the symmetry it's trying to establish is clear in some shots Roeg has captured, but more of that type of synergy is attempted in the edit and it becomes too much, feeling too forced.  I think there was a lot of thought and care put into how this film would tackle its supernatural elements, but it was over thought and over caressed in the edit.

 Roeg's penchant for slow-motion plays what should be heavily dramatic scenes as pretty cheesy instead (like Sutherland popping out of the water with his dead daughter's body).  The performances are generally pretty natural and restrained, but whenever the situation calls for anything heightened, whether it's a shock or going into a trance, it's quite overplayed by all performers to the film's detriment.  It also features the weirdest sex scene I think I've ever seen. It's intimate and awkward and very unsexy, kind of like the real thing, but some of the moves are just...like...whaaaa?

There are edits on top of edits on top of edits, a lot of it meant to help the gordian knot loop around itself in forming the whole, but some of the edits are intentionally obfuscating what's happening, misdirecting the audience to make the story just a little less coherent, harder to understand, and I can't really get behind that.

I watched a few of the extras that Criterion Channel has supporting this film, including a long conversation with the film's editor, and there's a real self-satisfied sense of accomplishment with everything done here. I could sense that hit of smugness as I was watching Don't Look Now and it annoyed me.

Do I think it's a classic?
No.  I think it tells its story in and interesting way, and it's definitely off-beat, which I think is what the cult cinema crowd has keyed into, but if it gets lost in the mix of the many cinematic accomplishments of the 70's, it's because it's trying too hard, and thinks itself too clever.

Did I like watching this?
Not really.  I was never bored but I was more frustrated than intrigued.

Would I watch it again?
No, I don't think so.

But is it horror?
Not really, no.