La disparition

Ostensibly, it should be hard to understand why certain movies slip into obscurity despite being loaded with talent, but then you come across a case like this one and the possibility suddenly becomes not just plausible but inevitable. On paper, this Anglo-Canadian "existentialist" thriller certainly had potential: an impressive cast – Donald Sutherland, David Hemmings, John Hurt, David Warner, Christopher Plummer and Virginia McKenna – was mouthing the words of screenwriter Paul Mayersberg under the guidance of director Stuart Cooper (the man behind recent Criterion DVD release, OVERLORD [1975]) and being lit by the late great cinematographer (and frequent Stanley Kubrick collaborator) John Alcott; besides, the whole thing was being overseen by producer Hemmings himself. So, where did the film go wrong?

Well, for starters, the central mystery itself is not very interesting: the neglected wife of brooding Donald Sutherland – the No. 1 hit-man for an enigmatic espionage organization – is forever threatening to leave him and does exactly that at the very start of the film; unfortunately, while Sutherland is very good in his role and literally the best thing in it, the actress playing his wife (Francine Racette) is as stiff and unappealing as one of her husband's handiwork. This fact renders the knowledge that Racette is none other than Sutherland's own wife in real life as well almost impossible to believe, since this is hardly borne by their interaction here – least of all during a fragmentary sex scene that ludicrously apes Nicolas Roeg's DON'T LOOK NOW (1973) which, of course, also starred Sutherland! Actually, I had seen Racette act previously in two notable films – Dario Argento's FOUR FLIES ON GREY VELVET (1971) and Joseph Losey's MR. KLEIN (1976) – but I can't really say if her efforts were any better there. For the record, THE DISAPPEARANCE proved to be Racette's penultimate film before retiring to raise her three children with Sutherland. Thankfully, although most of them are practically extended cameos, the supporting cast – of whom, I thought, John Hurt comes off best – does keep one watching…but, again, the utterly predictable double surprise ending closes the film with a whimper instead of a bang.

Equally to blame for the film's ultimate failure is Stuart Cooper whose direction is pretentious to a fault and, unsurprisingly, he too faded exclusively into TV-movie limbo soon after; for what it's worth, many years ago I did get to watch two of his TV ventures – A.D. (1985) and THE FORTUNATE PILGRIM (1988) – both of which were large-scale productions. Having said that, screenwriter Mayersberg is himself well-known for his non-linear scripts but the would-be audacious time-jumping techniques abused here merely attempt to imbue an obscure and thin plot with some elusive sense of significance; incidentally, even if the 88-minute version I watched was 12 minutes short of the original, I doubt that the missing footage would made things any clearer! Unfortunately for the viewer, Stuart Cooper is no visual stylist like Nicolas Roeg, much less a master film-maker in the league of Alain Resnais! Besides, given the structure and themes of the film, at times I couldn't help but unfavorably compare it to John Boorman's vastly superior POINT BLANK (1967)...

Director Stuart Cooper, about whom I know nothing, gets his cinematography and editing teams to produce a sweeping visual job of Canadian snow-laden landscapes, Montreal buildings and river, lush English forests, and luscious Francine Racette, Sutherland's real life wife, that keeps you watching in earnest. Very good support cast includes John Hurt, David Hemmings, Peter Bowles, the ever beautiful and classy Virginia McKenna and, of course, Sutherland's fellow Canadian-born actor, Christopher Plummer.

Sutherland's tall, slender figure, is emphasized throughout in stylish photography and lit background shots, and his chemistry with gorgeous Racette is palpable, adding believability to his situation as the husband missing his beloved wife, who has disappeared. Has she left him out of boredom? Has she found another love interest - after all, she leaves then hubby Hemmings at the party for sex with Sutherland? Or are there darker forces involved and she has been abducted? Or worse?

Flashbacks explain it. For a tad patient viewer it can make for rewarding cinema and storytelling, even if why Sutherland became a hitman in the first place is not disclosed (I did get the impression, though, that he needed Francine in his life to keep the right mental attitude to killing, as signs of burnout and wanting to leave the profession begin to emerge).

Such questionable moral and professional values aside, THE DISAPPEARANCE deserves attentive watching. 8/10.

The Disappearance, to me, is a Hitchcock wannabe that simply isn't. It's a slowly paced, talky thriller that just doesn't cut it. Donald Sutherland and the cast are great, but there are so many British actors in the cast that the term "Canadian-Made" sounds like a cheat. If this is a Canadian movie, wouldn't it have been better if they had put all Canadian actors in the cast? Also, if the movie takes place in Montreal (a mostly French-speaking city), wouldn't it have made more sense to have Sutherland's character do his foreign assignment in somewhere like Paris, France, instead of in England? After all, this is not a British movie, it's Canadian.

It surprised me that Sutherland and Francine Racette were married and had 3 children.

I recommend this only for fans of deep psychological thrillers. As for me, I think I will be putting a "Previously Viewed" label on this one and dropping it in the drop-off slot at my local video store.

Rating: **

The good: excellent cast of actors. I mean these actors were the creme de la creme during the seventies and eighties and even beyond. And we get to see some excellent acting performances. This is an ACTOR'S movie!

The photography is of high quality as well, with many still shots without any words, that reveal the hand of a master at work.

Any bad? Unfortunately this movie is bogged down by ENDLESS flashbacks, that got on my nerves after half an hour. I get it, this story is like a puzzle and what better way of slowly revealing the plot than by using flashbacks. BUT there is a limit on how many flashbacks I can see, before I get annoyed by them.

Still worth a watch for the Donald Sutherland fans, because he gives one of his best performances.

It is also a typical seventies thriller, very downbeat, slow, strange, where Donald Sutherland shines, as usual. And, as strange as it seems to be, in this offbeat thriller, I thought of KLUTE character, though not the same story and atmosphere either. But.... The mainly flaw is the pace, and romantic element, which is somewhat annoying in such a plot. But some supporting characters such as David Hemmings, Christopher Plummer, John Hurt, David Warner, enhance this interesting overall movie. Yes, I recommend this Canadian thriller, very in the mood of the seventies. But it will remain underrated. Excellent ending.