DON'T LOOK NOW

UK, 1973, 110 minutes, Colour.
Donald Sutherland, Julie Christie.
Directed by Nicolas Roeg.

Don't Look Now was a strong critical success of 1973. Director Nicolas Roeg (who had achieved a great reputation as a director of photography and had then gone on to direct Performance (1970) and Walkabout (1971)), has been able to create a strange atmosphere of fear and premonition in this film of the preternatural.

The plot comes from a story by Daphne Du Maurier and, unlike so many of the films of the early 70's, is very restrained in its presentation of violence and bloodshed. The finale, rather gory, death is the more alarming because of the previous reticence. The film relies on air of menace and uncertainty for its major effects. In this it is helped by its wintry Venetian setting and work being done on old, somewhat decaying Church to restore its art work.

Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie are very good indeed under Roeg's direction and engage audience sympathy. Two mysterious sisters, one of whom has 'inner sight', make the proceedings more eerie.

The film is really only a mysterious thriller, but the care with which it has been made makes it a superior piece of cinema.

1. How successful a suspense thriller was this film? What were the main reason; for its success? What were its principal weaknesses?

2. How did the film rely on its atmosphere? How did it build atmosphere - in England with the opening sequences? In Venice with the frequent photography of the city itself, in winter? With the Churches and the almost decaying nature of Venice? The need for restoration in Venice?

3. How mysterious was the atmosphere of the film? Why? What effect did this mysteriousness have on you? Mere you puzzled? Frightened? Uneasy? Why?

4. How did the film present the nature of premonitions and their effect on people's psyche? The initial death and the red stain on the slide? John's premonition of the funeral? His seeing of the little girl in the red mackintosh? The psychic ladies? How plausible and possible were the proceedings? Did they seem credible in themselves and to the audience?

5. John - what kind of a man was he in himself? Sympathetic and interesting? The interest in his work? His response to his daughter's death, his sorrow, the mysteriousness of the slide? His dedication and interest in his work in Venice? His relationship to the Bishop? His relationship with Laura? The explicit nature of this? His fears? His response to the two sisters? The effect of the accident on the scaffolding for him? His inability to recognise his psychic powers? The premonition of his death? His relationship with the police? His apprehension about Laura? The sequence of his death? What impact did this have? It was the main piece of violence in the film -how violent was it compared with the rest of the film? Did it bring the film to a forceful conclusion?

6. Laura - in herself, at home in England, her sorrow at her daughter's death and her breakdown, her anxiety about her son? Her relationship with John? The impact of the sequences in the Hotel, especially the love-making between husband and wife? The effect of Venice on her? Her eager response to the two sisters? Her willingness to participate in the seance? Her fears at Johns approaching accident? The response of her not being able to save John? The funeral? Was there a trace of a smile on Laura's face?

7. The two sisters - their role in the film, the symbolism of blindness and seeing? The warnings? Did you think they were frauds? Did you believe that the sister was psychic? The fact that they moved hotels? The seance? The impact of the seance and the disturbance on the blind woman? The warnings to John? Their power over Laura? The funeral? Was it conceivable that they influenced the events at all?

8. The Bishop - as an ecclesiastical man, the presentation of him as a bureaucrat, as not interested in the work? Did he add anything more to the film?

9. How symbolic was the film - the photos, the slides, Churches, Venice, restoring dead paintings etc? Was the symbolism successfully integrated into the narrative of the film?

10. Was the purpose of the film merely to be a thriller? Anything more? Did it successfully fulfil its aims?