subscribe to this page
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...
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
Palmer, James, “Seeing, Believing, and “Knowing” in Narrative Film: Don’t Look Now Revisited.” Literature Film Quarterly 23(1) (1995): 14-25.
Palmer makes sense of Don’t Look Now using in-depth shot analysis, explication of themes, and interpretation of the film through the work of psychologist and scientist Carl Jung. The main thrust of his argument is that the film is about vision and interpreting what we see, which makes it a self-reflexive film. The problem that occurs in Don’t Look Now is that one’s vision cannot be trusted.
Palmer argues that Roeg’s film makes us question how we ‘read’ (i.e. understand) films in the same way that John questions his understanding of reality. Palmer writes that, “in Roeg’s film one may wonder if anything is what it seems” (14). We are shown events that may or may not occur and images that could not possibly exist in real life, which have the effect of undermining our sense of reality. Palmer puts forth that, “Don’t Look Now suggests that the physical world can mislead and, by extension, that the encoding of ways of seeing and interpreting a world presented in narrative film can also be called into question” (16). He interprets the dust that blows into Wendy’s eye (and obstructs her vision) as a metaphor for the calling into question of one’s method of “seeing and interpreting.” The film is self-reflexive, because it is about questioning one’s vision; one’s modus of interpretation, and the viewer is forced to question these things as s/he watches the film. The sequence where we finally see Heather’s blind eyes highlights this self-reflexive quality to the film, because we are only able to understand after we have seen after a later scene in the film. The proximity of the shot of Heather’s eyes and the shot of John and Laura leaving their home in the rain confuses the viewer as to who is seeing what, John or Laura (19). Only after we learn that John is psychic are we able to go back to this scene and reinterpret it, understanding that perhaps it is John who sees Heather’s blindness with his ‘second sight.’ Palmer also analyzes the opening credit sequence to show the self-reflexive quality of the film, that only by seeing the only thing are we able to go back and understand it...
Palmer argues that Roeg’s film makes us question how we ‘read’ (i.e. understand) films in the same way that John questions his understanding of reality. Palmer writes that, “in Roeg’s film one may wonder if anything is what it seems” (14). We are shown events that may or may not occur and images that could not possibly exist in real life, which have the effect of undermining our sense of reality. Palmer puts forth that, “Don’t Look Now suggests that the physical world can mislead and, by extension, that the encoding of ways of seeing and interpreting a world presented in narrative film can also be called into question” (16). He interprets the dust that blows into Wendy’s eye (and obstructs her vision) as a metaphor for the calling into question of one’s method of “seeing and interpreting.” The film is self-reflexive, because it is about questioning one’s vision; one’s modus of interpretation, and the viewer is forced to question these things as s/he watches the film. The sequence where we finally see Heather’s blind eyes highlights this self-reflexive quality to the film, because we are only able to understand after we have seen after a later scene in the film. The proximity of the shot of Heather’s eyes and the shot of John and Laura leaving their home in the rain confuses the viewer as to who is seeing what, John or Laura (19). Only after we learn that John is psychic are we able to go back to this scene and reinterpret it, understanding that perhaps it is John who sees Heather’s blindness with his ‘second sight.’ Palmer also analyzes the opening credit sequence to show the self-reflexive quality of the film, that only by seeing the only thing are we able to go back and understand it...
tagged Carl_Jung Don't_Look_Now Nicolas_Roeg Oedipus_in_film analyzing_film faith_in_film mystery psychic self-reflexive_film suspense vision_in_film
by dhm
...on 05-APR-06