subscribe to this page
Von der Lippe, George B. “Death in Venice in Literature and Film: Six 20th-Century Versions.” Mosaic: A Journal for the Interdisciplinary Study of Literature 32(1) (1999): 35-54.
Von der Lippe places Don’t Look Now into a genre specific to Venice. He compares Don’t Look Now to Thomas Mann’s Death in Venice, Ian McEwan’s Comfort of Strangers, etc. and finds common threads in them which he weaves into a genre. Much in the same way that film critics found similar styles in American crime films and called them “film noir,” Von der Lippe sees these works as Venice-specific works (a term which he does not actually use). In these works, Venice is defined by its labyrinthine design. Venice is also described as a place of escape; as Von der Lippe writes, “All of the travelers have left their northern homes in search of that which has been lost.” Venice is where their search takes them, but, unfortunately, they will never find what they are looking for in Venice. Von der Lippe sets up Venice as the only logical place where Don’t Look Now could be set. Venice is a disorienting place and a place of escape, and Don’t Look Now is about a couple escaping their troubles, searching for answers, and getting lost in their search (although it is only John who gets lost). Von der Lippe shows that it is not just Laura who is impervious to the trappings of Venice, but all of the women in these Venice-specific works. He writes, “Most often it is the women of these tales who are strong - who traverse the labyrinth with relative ease and confidence.” He does not go into detail as to why it is the women who are able to “traverse the labyrinth,” but he describes in depth how the women do this in each work.
Von der Lippe focuses most of his essay on the recurring theme of the labyrinth in the various works. He argues that, “central to the continuing fascination with Venice and the dominant metaphor in this archetypal tale is the “labyrinth.”” As we have seen in other essays concerning Don’t Look Now, the twisting, confusing geography of Venice is central to Roeg’s film...
Von der Lippe places Don’t Look Now into a genre specific to Venice. He compares Don’t Look Now to Thomas Mann’s Death in Venice, Ian McEwan’s Comfort of Strangers, etc. and finds common threads in them which he weaves into a genre. Much in the same way that film critics found similar styles in American crime films and called them “film noir,” Von der Lippe sees these works as Venice-specific works (a term which he does not actually use). In these works, Venice is defined by its labyrinthine design. Venice is also described as a place of escape; as Von der Lippe writes, “All of the travelers have left their northern homes in search of that which has been lost.” Venice is where their search takes them, but, unfortunately, they will never find what they are looking for in Venice. Von der Lippe sets up Venice as the only logical place where Don’t Look Now could be set. Venice is a disorienting place and a place of escape, and Don’t Look Now is about a couple escaping their troubles, searching for answers, and getting lost in their search (although it is only John who gets lost). Von der Lippe shows that it is not just Laura who is impervious to the trappings of Venice, but all of the women in these Venice-specific works. He writes, “Most often it is the women of these tales who are strong - who traverse the labyrinth with relative ease and confidence.” He does not go into detail as to why it is the women who are able to “traverse the labyrinth,” but he describes in depth how the women do this in each work.
Von der Lippe focuses most of his essay on the recurring theme of the labyrinth in the various works. He argues that, “central to the continuing fascination with Venice and the dominant metaphor in this archetypal tale is the “labyrinth.”” As we have seen in other essays concerning Don’t Look Now, the twisting, confusing geography of Venice is central to Roeg’s film...
belongs to Don't Look Now (1973) project
tagged Daphne_du_Maurier Death_in_Venice Don't_Look_Now Nicolas_Roeg Thomas_Mann Venice achetypal_tale death escape labyrinth by dhm ...on 06-APR-06
tagged Daphne_du_Maurier Death_in_Venice Don't_Look_Now Nicolas_Roeg Thomas_Mann Venice achetypal_tale death escape labyrinth by dhm ...on 06-APR-06
Wisker, Gina. “Don’t Look Now! The Compulsions and Revelations of Daphne du Maurier’s Horror Writing.” Journal of Gender Studies 8(1) (1999): 19-33.
Wisker analyzes a few of Du Maurier’s short stories, including Don’t Look Now. Instead of solely focusing on the short story, Wisker explores themes and images in the film adaptation as well. The most important aspect of her analysis of Don’t Look Now is her explanation as to why John Baxter follows the murderer (to his demise). No other criticism or analysis of the film or short story, that I have read, offers a reasonable explanation as to John’s actions. Wisker explains that it is John’s “protective paternalism” (28) that causes him to try to help what he thinks is a young girl, because she reminds him of the daughter that he could not help. The film better illuminates this theme by making a visual connection between Christine’s red raincoat and the murderer’s red jacket. Wisker explains that, “John’s own suppressed torment at the loss of his daughter transfers into a desire to see this child safe” (28). John has no illusions that the hooded stranger he is following is the ghost of Christine, but he does think it is a little girl. John’s actions are explained as the actions of a man trying to redeem himself in his own eyes, by saving someone who reminds him of his daughter.
Wisker’s connection between the two sisters and the Fates, figures of Ancient Greek mythology, is another insightful analysis. The Fates were three sisters who controlled the lives of mortals by cutting their ‘life threads.’ Wisker writes, “We can read the twins as the fates with the thread cutting sister missing, appearing at the end in the pixie-hooded murderous dwarf” (28). Roeg expounds this theme in the film. First of all, he makes the dwarf a woman, whereas the gender of the dwarf is never explicitly mentioned in the short story. Secondly, the woman he gets to play the dwarf resembles the two sisters; she is stocky like Wendy and has a vulture-like visage like Heather. She could very well be their long-lost sister (who happens to be a dwarf). Finally, the way in which she kills John...
Wisker analyzes a few of Du Maurier’s short stories, including Don’t Look Now. Instead of solely focusing on the short story, Wisker explores themes and images in the film adaptation as well. The most important aspect of her analysis of Don’t Look Now is her explanation as to why John Baxter follows the murderer (to his demise). No other criticism or analysis of the film or short story, that I have read, offers a reasonable explanation as to John’s actions. Wisker explains that it is John’s “protective paternalism” (28) that causes him to try to help what he thinks is a young girl, because she reminds him of the daughter that he could not help. The film better illuminates this theme by making a visual connection between Christine’s red raincoat and the murderer’s red jacket. Wisker explains that, “John’s own suppressed torment at the loss of his daughter transfers into a desire to see this child safe” (28). John has no illusions that the hooded stranger he is following is the ghost of Christine, but he does think it is a little girl. John’s actions are explained as the actions of a man trying to redeem himself in his own eyes, by saving someone who reminds him of his daughter.
Wisker’s connection between the two sisters and the Fates, figures of Ancient Greek mythology, is another insightful analysis. The Fates were three sisters who controlled the lives of mortals by cutting their ‘life threads.’ Wisker writes, “We can read the twins as the fates with the thread cutting sister missing, appearing at the end in the pixie-hooded murderous dwarf” (28). Roeg expounds this theme in the film. First of all, he makes the dwarf a woman, whereas the gender of the dwarf is never explicitly mentioned in the short story. Secondly, the woman he gets to play the dwarf resembles the two sisters; she is stocky like Wendy and has a vulture-like visage like Heather. She could very well be their long-lost sister (who happens to be a dwarf). Finally, the way in which she kills John...
belongs to Don't Look Now (1973) project
tagged Daphne_du_Maurier Don't_Look_Now Fates Little_Red_Riding_Hood Nicholas_Roeg adaptation film guilt paternalism by dhm ...on 06-APR-06
tagged Daphne_du_Maurier Don't_Look_Now Fates Little_Red_Riding_Hood Nicholas_Roeg adaptation film guilt paternalism by dhm ...on 06-APR-06
Du Maurier, Daphne. Don’t Look Now. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1971: 1-57.
Daphne du Maurier’s short story deeply influences not only the events in Nicolas Roeg’s film of the same name, but also the themes Roeg explores in the film. The plots of the story and the film are basically the same, although (obviously) there are scenes in the film, which do not come from du Maurier’s story. The opening sequence of the film (which shows Christine’s death), for instance, is an invention of the director, Nicolas Roeg. Du Maurier’s story begins at the café, relegating Christine’s death to the memories of John and Laura. Surprisingly, the film stays very true to the short story and the added scenes do not deviate from the overall direction of the plot. The sisters, in the story, are identical twins (although the ‘seeing’ sister is grayer than the other) and remain mysterious characters throughout. In the film, their paths cross many times with the Baxters (John and Laura) and Laura has many conversations with them. The female characters, Laura and the sisters, have a much larger role in the film than the short story, which focuses almost entirely on John and his struggles.
The main differences between the film and the short story are the addition of a character, Bishop Barbarrigo, and John’s job restoring the church. In du Maurier’s story, John and Laura are on vacation in Venice and John’s job is never discussed. A tertiary result of this is that there is no need for the Bishop character, whose job is to oversee John’s renovation of the church (in the film). The central role of churches and church figures in the film bring a religious element to the film that is absent in the short story. The theme of faith (and lack of faith) is therefore also absent. The film creates a sense of dread using ever-present murders and strange coincidences (such as John’s near death experience on the church scaffolding). The short story explores the themes of prophecy and ‘second sight,’ but there is not the same eerie sense of uneasiness. The fact that the film leaves Johnnie’s illness ambiguous (instead of saying it is appendicitis as the short story does) plays into the theme of the supernatural and the occult...
Daphne du Maurier’s short story deeply influences not only the events in Nicolas Roeg’s film of the same name, but also the themes Roeg explores in the film. The plots of the story and the film are basically the same, although (obviously) there are scenes in the film, which do not come from du Maurier’s story. The opening sequence of the film (which shows Christine’s death), for instance, is an invention of the director, Nicolas Roeg. Du Maurier’s story begins at the café, relegating Christine’s death to the memories of John and Laura. Surprisingly, the film stays very true to the short story and the added scenes do not deviate from the overall direction of the plot. The sisters, in the story, are identical twins (although the ‘seeing’ sister is grayer than the other) and remain mysterious characters throughout. In the film, their paths cross many times with the Baxters (John and Laura) and Laura has many conversations with them. The female characters, Laura and the sisters, have a much larger role in the film than the short story, which focuses almost entirely on John and his struggles.
The main differences between the film and the short story are the addition of a character, Bishop Barbarrigo, and John’s job restoring the church. In du Maurier’s story, John and Laura are on vacation in Venice and John’s job is never discussed. A tertiary result of this is that there is no need for the Bishop character, whose job is to oversee John’s renovation of the church (in the film). The central role of churches and church figures in the film bring a religious element to the film that is absent in the short story. The theme of faith (and lack of faith) is therefore also absent. The film creates a sense of dread using ever-present murders and strange coincidences (such as John’s near death experience on the church scaffolding). The short story explores the themes of prophecy and ‘second sight,’ but there is not the same eerie sense of uneasiness. The fact that the film leaves Johnnie’s illness ambiguous (instead of saying it is appendicitis as the short story does) plays into the theme of the supernatural and the occult...
belongs to Don't Look Now (1973) project
tagged Daphne_du_Maurier Don't_Look_Now Venice collection coping_with_death death dwarf ghost ghost_stories killer murder omens prophecy psychic short_story by dhm ...on 05-APR-06
tagged Daphne_du_Maurier Don't_Look_Now Venice collection coping_with_death death dwarf ghost ghost_stories killer murder omens prophecy psychic short_story by dhm ...on 05-APR-06
Dempsey, Michael. “Review of Don’t Look Now.” Film Quarterly 27(3) (1974).
Dempsey begins his review by comparing Roeg’s film to the source material, Daphne du Maurier’s short story. He blames the film’s “creaky plot” on Du Maurier, who (he claims), “specializes in romantic sludge” (39). Dempsey understands that the film’s weak plot is not the fault of Roeg, so he is not too harsh in his criticism of Roeg’s handling of the plot. He states that, “too often the gears grind when Roeg tries to shift from this old-hat storyline to the subtext of fear and uncertainty that he has built into it” (39). Dempsey actually compliments Roeg for creating a fascinating film from a plot, which he is admittedly not fond of. The saving grace of the film, according to Dempsey, is Roeg, more explicitly, his style. Dempsey writes that, “Roeg’s style pitches us headlong into [John and Laura’s] disorientation” (40). Dempsey allocates most of his review to explaining of Roeg’s style, which Roeg achieves through editing. Dempsey goes so far as to compare Roeg to the famous Russian montage filmmaker Sergei Eisenstein, because Roeg too “lean[s] heavily on editing for his effects” (40). The effect that Roeg produces with montage is the same effect described by James Palmer in his essay, “Seeing, Believing, and “Knowing” in Narrative Film: Don’t Look Now Revisited.” Using montage, Roeg “undercut[s] our total allegiance to reason” (41); in effect, making us mistrust out vision the same way that John mistrusts his. Roeg’s use of montage has the opposite effect of Eisenstein’s, undermining the action, instead of reinforcing it. Dempsey describes, “Roeg’s montage does not say that two shots are connected; it says that they might be” (41). The idea of not knowing, of being forced to puzzle it out, is the essence of Don’t Look Now and is the same theme discussed in Palmer’s essay.
Dempsey’s review, unlike any other analyses of Don’t Look Now that I discovered, features an in-depth analysis of the love-making scene, which is probably the most well-known scene in Don’t Look Now. He argues that, the intercutting of sex shots with shots of the couple getting dressed, “makes the sense doubly erotic-yet also melancholy” (41). We get the sense, from the intercutting, that, “no matter how intense their love or how satisfying their sex may be, John and Laura still cannot save themselves” (41)...
Dempsey begins his review by comparing Roeg’s film to the source material, Daphne du Maurier’s short story. He blames the film’s “creaky plot” on Du Maurier, who (he claims), “specializes in romantic sludge” (39). Dempsey understands that the film’s weak plot is not the fault of Roeg, so he is not too harsh in his criticism of Roeg’s handling of the plot. He states that, “too often the gears grind when Roeg tries to shift from this old-hat storyline to the subtext of fear and uncertainty that he has built into it” (39). Dempsey actually compliments Roeg for creating a fascinating film from a plot, which he is admittedly not fond of. The saving grace of the film, according to Dempsey, is Roeg, more explicitly, his style. Dempsey writes that, “Roeg’s style pitches us headlong into [John and Laura’s] disorientation” (40). Dempsey allocates most of his review to explaining of Roeg’s style, which Roeg achieves through editing. Dempsey goes so far as to compare Roeg to the famous Russian montage filmmaker Sergei Eisenstein, because Roeg too “lean[s] heavily on editing for his effects” (40). The effect that Roeg produces with montage is the same effect described by James Palmer in his essay, “Seeing, Believing, and “Knowing” in Narrative Film: Don’t Look Now Revisited.” Using montage, Roeg “undercut[s] our total allegiance to reason” (41); in effect, making us mistrust out vision the same way that John mistrusts his. Roeg’s use of montage has the opposite effect of Eisenstein’s, undermining the action, instead of reinforcing it. Dempsey describes, “Roeg’s montage does not say that two shots are connected; it says that they might be” (41). The idea of not knowing, of being forced to puzzle it out, is the essence of Don’t Look Now and is the same theme discussed in Palmer’s essay.
Dempsey’s review, unlike any other analyses of Don’t Look Now that I discovered, features an in-depth analysis of the love-making scene, which is probably the most well-known scene in Don’t Look Now. He argues that, the intercutting of sex shots with shots of the couple getting dressed, “makes the sense doubly erotic-yet also melancholy” (41). We get the sense, from the intercutting, that, “no matter how intense their love or how satisfying their sex may be, John and Laura still cannot save themselves” (41)...
belongs to Don't Look Now (1973) project
tagged Daphne_du_Maurier Don't_Look_Now Nicolas_Roeg editing film_review filmmaking_style horror montage sex_in_film time_in_film by dhm ...and 1 other person ...on 05-APR-06
tagged Daphne_du_Maurier Don't_Look_Now Nicolas_Roeg editing film_review filmmaking_style horror montage sex_in_film time_in_film by dhm ...and 1 other person ...on 05-APR-06