MovieChat Forums > Don't Look Now Discussion > Fans of the movie, please help me unders...

Fans of the movie, please help me understand...

posted 10 years ago by Pythe
21 replies | jump to latest

I really liked the last half hour of the movie--it was moody and atmospheric--but there were many stumbling blocks in the first hour or so that left me scratching my head. Mostly this has to do with the acting and writing.

Are we supposed to identify with Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie (their characters, I mean) as actual people? Because they behave really oddly. Their performances are quite bizarre, over the top, and frankly laughable at times, particularly Sutherland's. I can't figure out if director Roeg just didn't have a handle on the tone he wanted to strike, or if he was intentionally trying to maintain a surreal atmosphere by having Sutherland and Christie act like aliens or weird robots.

For one, I never believed for a second that they were a couple recuperating from the loss of a child. In one scene, Christie even teases Sutherland, saying something along the lines of, "You're the one who told her to go play outside" on the day of her drowning. First of all, only a sociopath would imply that her spouse was responsible for their daughter's death IN JEST. I could see a comment like that coming out in the heat of anger, as parents tend to blame one another over a child's death, but never would one joke about it. And Sutherland's reaction is little more than MILD IRRITATION when he should be shocked, disgusted, angry, and guilty. No real people on Earth would behave in this way. Was it bad screenwriting, or a deliberate attempt to establish that nothing in this movie should be taken as an illustration of any dimension of known reality, even an emotional one?

And the whole subplot about Sutherland contacting the police because he THOUGHT he saw his wife on a gondola was baffling. I suppose they'd been having a strange trip, but not so strange that he wouldn't just shrug it off and say, "That was weird. That lady looked a lot like my wife. Oh well." If it was meant to imply that Sutherland was losing his grip, it certainly didn't feel earned. It was too big a leap to make the assumption that his wife had been kidnapped en route to the airport and taken hostage by two elderly murderesses, one of them blind, who would then flaunt their potential victim throughout the entire city for no good reason.

Really didn't make a lot of sense to me. But if that was intentional, then to what purpose? I'd like to get another point of view on all this.

---------------------
"People either loved us or they hated us...or they thought we were okay."

[–] L0GAN5 10 years ago

I can't figure out if director Roeg just didn't have a handle on the tone he wanted to strike, or if he was intentionally trying to maintain a surreal atmosphere by having Sutherland and Christie act like aliens or weird robots.

Eh? I won't pretend to know what this means. They were tourists in a foreign country i.e. they were supposed to stick out. Their discomfort and odd behavior was supposed to convey a sense of alienation.

n one scene, Christie even teases Sutherland, saying something along the lines of, "You're the one who told her to go play outside" on the day of her drowning.

She wasn't cracking a joke. She was guilt-tripping him. She may have said it like a throwaway comment but it certainly wasn't a thoughtless remark.

And the whole subplot about Sutherland contacting the police because he THOUGHT he saw his wife on a gondola was baffling. I suppose they'd been having a strange trip, but not so strange that he wouldn't just shrug it off

He thought he saw his wife. He was concerned about her state of mind and was suspicious of the two sisters. To top it all, there was a serial killer on the loose. I doubt most people would "shrug it off". There are other things he might have done before contacting the police, such as contacting the airport, but mostly he goes to the police because that is how du Maurier wrote it. You might call it bad writing, she might respond that people don't always behave rationally.

[–] cinecephale 10 years ago

I really don't understand what you are talking about about the acting or the rest. I seems to ma a really intelligent and realistic film about grief and anger.

[–] nick3young 10 years ago

I watched this movie for the first time and quite enjoyed it. But I agree with everything the OP has written.

I thought the performances from the two main actors was odd and couldn't quite put my finger on what it was. It was almost like really bad acting at times. It could have been the 'vibe' the director was trying to go for - it is a bizarre movie after all and techniques such as leaving characters on screen at the end of a scene a little longer than needed was used frequently to add to the uneasiness of it all.

Joke, guilt-trip... whatever it was. No wife would say 'I hold you responsible for our daughters death' so lightly. That bit has to be bad writing.

And the wife kidnap plot. I dunno, I guess bad writing again. I'm sure that could have been done better somehow.

It isn't a classic movie in my opinion but was entertaining for all its quirks and mystery.

[–] raj07011 10 years ago

I agree. for the couple who lost a daughter; their behavior was odd. They seem to be living and enjoying life like nothing has happened !!!

Reminds me of Donald Sutherland's over the top performance in "Ordinary People" where a guilt ridden father is trying to over come the tragedy and trying to hold on to the family.

[–] orchidclub 10 years ago

Enjoying life? Were we watching the same movie? Because I saw a couple torn apart by the grief of their daughter. The trip to Venice was an attempt to salvage their marriage after the tragedy. That's why the sex scene is key: they hadn't been intimate for a long time.

[–] DaveBowman2001 (517) 7 years ago

I agree. There might have been a huge skip in time, but the film basically cuts from dead daughter to fancy lunch date with smiles. The acting was horrid and the editing was crap.

[–] rallyinthestreets 10 years ago

I second all of your points. This movie has many issues with plot, acting, and tone.

[–] T800-1 10 years ago

The scene on the gondola was Donald's character 'seeing' his wife at his own funeral. The blind lady said he had the gift. But I agree with most of the points made in the post! It's definitely one for repeat viewings.

[–] SuCue 10 years ago

I think it is mostly just Roeg's style of direction. His characters behave oddly in his other fils as well.

[–] Makkers1 10 years ago

I totally agree with the OP's observations and comments. The film was implausible and badly written. I can understand the surrealism but the reality of the couple was absurd. They were behaving as if they had just lost a toy. This film is overrated.

The couple were just very odd up to the point that they didn't deserve any children because they didn't know what to do with them or how to look after them. If my child was seriously hurt I would expect both myself and my spouse to run to his aid.

Even at the school when Julie Christie was asked to say her last goodbyes to her son whom she'd not seen for weeks she replied that doesn't want to as she has already said goodbye. Uncaring or what? And what is the rush to go back to Venice? Why not stay behind a few weeks to ensure her son is happy and well looked after? Even the school teachers were daft.

In the end (spoiler alert folks) all it was the husband saw a premonition of his own funeral. No ghost after all. What a supersonic let down.

[–] L0GAN5 10 years ago

It is pretty obvious she is rejecting both her husband and son on some level. That's why in the film the sex is a big deal for them and why she doesn't bid her son farewell. She's in a rush to return to Venice because the sisters are her only link to her daughter. Obviously the film won't make proper sense if you are not picking up on fairly basic plot details.

[–] ridge-m-1 8 years ago

This viewer doesn't understand why the brother was packed-up and sent off to boarding school just after he lost his sister. The little girl was "encouraged" to play by that rushing stream by her father as opposed to being strictly told not to go near it. The parents are the only horrific thing about this film. Y'all ask me, Sutherland gets off easy and Christie needs to be committed.

[–] beat 10 years ago

Their performances are quite bizarre, over the top, and frankly laughable at times, particularly Sutherland's.

a) roeg certainly didn't try to make a naturalistic movie
b) this movie is from 1973.

[–] Eva_Marrie 9 years ago

b) this movie is from 1973

How is this relevant? There're plenty of movies from the 50s with more realistic acting.

[–] JRodFilms 9 years ago

i guess were supposed to be forgiving of donald sutherlands cheesy delivery...shes dead! dead dead dead dead DEAD!