avocets
Avocets
rss 2.0 subscribe to this page
search


view all
•  projects
•  owners
•  tags
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...
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...

Wilson, Kristi. “Time, Space, and Vision: Nicolas Roeg’s Don’t Look Now.” Screen 40(3) (1999): 277-94.

Wilson is a feminist film critic (she lets the reader know from the start), so her analysis of Don’t Look Now comes from a completely different perspective than other available analyses. She argues that the film represents “failed masculinity” (294), embodied by John Baxter and his failure to prevent his death. John’s failure comes from his inability to interpret space. The first hard evidence of this that Wilson brings up is the book John has written, Fragile Geometry (Laura is reading it in the opening sequence). Wilson argues that the title of the book reflects John’s own failure at understand the “fragile geometry” of time and space. Roeg’s montage, with its questionable linearity, visually represents this “fragile geometry.” Roeg blurs the lines between the real and the unreal and the past, present, and future. Wilson refers to the effect of Roeg’s montage as “slippage,” because Roeg moves between real and unreal, for example, so fluidly, that the audience rarely picks up on it. She articulates the effect of this “slippage” on the audience, when she explains:

All that seems solid where the film is concerned, whether we are referring to Roeg’s visually unconventional presentation of the narrative, or his character’s sense of architectural/geographical control, proves to be illusory. (294)

She argues that the sequence, in which blood appears on John’s slide, “provides a literal example of physical slippage between background and foreground” (290). Wilson sees John as a synecdoche for all men, in his inability to recognize “slippage” (i.e. recognize omens and portents), because all of the women in the film are attuned to the “slippage” and recognize when the unreal world (e.g. the spirit world) enters the real world. I disagree with this assumption, because I don’t see all the women as recognizing the “slippage.” Heather does, because she has the gift of ‘second sight;’ the other women merely believe that she can see the “slippage”...

Based on the short story by Daphne du Maurier, Directed by Nicolas Roeg, Screenplay by Chris Bryant and Allan Scott, Music by Pino Donnagio, Starring Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie