Un architetto americano, stabilitosi a Venezia con la moglie dopo la morte accidentale della loro bambina, inizia a dubitare della propria sanità mentale quando inizia ad avere inquietanti e... Leggi tuttoUn architetto americano, stabilitosi a Venezia con la moglie dopo la morte accidentale della loro bambina, inizia a dubitare della propria sanità mentale quando inizia ad avere inquietanti e frammentarie premonizioni, che coincidono con una serie di delitti in città.Un architetto americano, stabilitosi a Venezia con la moglie dopo la morte accidentale della loro bambina, inizia a dubitare della propria sanità mentale quando inizia ad avere inquietanti e frammentarie premonizioni, che coincidono con una serie di delitti in città.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Ha vinto 1 BAFTA Award
- 2 vittorie e 9 candidature totali
Recensioni in evidenza
Here is a movie that's both resolved and unresolved, ultimately growing more ambiguous as it progresses and becomes more complex. After it is over and has become a complete(d) work to the eye of the viewer, the lasting impression is that of mystery. Too many films in this genre bark up the wrong tree, working to explain all of the events that unfold. By explaining nothing, by being almost abstract, questions and images will haunt the viewer indefinitely. It is what it is, and while this movie can be watched over and over, and the events that occur can be anticipated, they will forever remain an enigma. This is true cinema, purely visual and aural, without the helpful but ultimately self-defeating aid of a proxy observer; the viewer is the direct observer, and there's no filter through which the events and images develop any sort of tidy rationality.
Donald Sutherland's performance here is sober, adult, the grief of his character palpable. And in the face of this grief is a force that runs through the movie like a dark current, evoking the eternal and spookily ethereal and subterranean; less an eternity of the heavens than the eternity of a crypt. Venice is not merely the ideal location for this story, but the necessary location; it could not take place anywhere else. The unquestionable, and indeed imposing, Gothic majesty of the churches, whose interior height dwarfs their human occupants with the spiritual dread of the ancient, overlooks the canals of Venice like the wicked-faced stone gargoyles Sutherland finds himself physically embracing, while the canals that run through the city are literally the ghost of this couple's personal tragedy. Living in Venice, in light of the details surrounding their loss, seems almost a perverse choice, perhaps a masochistic one; they could be punishing themselves for their daughter's drowning by living in a flooded city.
It's not that Sutherland's character is a rational man in an irrational environment, but rather a rational man in an environment whose own secret code, which one may trust makes perfect sense to itself (like a tree in the forest that will only fall if no one is around to hear), is inaccessible and inexplicable to him, baring itself only in fragments in a way he chooses to ignore, just as you might ignore a spectral voice in the dead of night, dismissing it as a product of your imagination.
The movie's notorious love scene is jarringly explicit, yet rather than erotic, it is profoundly sad, and takes on a deeper (even creepy) resonance after the film ends. That the scene is intercut with scenes of Sutherland and Julie Christie dressing prevents the two from ever being completely naked and united; this editing choice changes the dimensions of the love scene in a way that I've never seen attempted elsewhere. At other points, Roeg inserts moments and images that carry sinister implications, none of which are ever concretely substantiated and only leave the viewer with more questions.
The film drifts along at a wandering pace. The final twenty minutes are among the most atmospheric and suspenseful twenty minutes in any film, culminating in a montage that is absolutely chilling.
'The Blair Witch Project,' made over two decades later and probably influenced by this, has similar aspirations, but finally has only a fraction of the emotional gravity.
Nicolas Roeg does an excellent job in filming scenes of creepy and eerie impact. Donald Sutherland gives a extraordinary performance as the clairvoyant but disbeliever, John Baxter. The film's most controversial sequence is the shocking sex scene with Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie. What's shocking about this one scene is the realistic feel of the act. There are some who believe to this day that the sex scene was not acted but real. The Sutherland-Christie sex scene is done with the same editing technique as The Man Who Fell to Earth(1976).
Don't Look Now(1973) was The Sixth Sense(1999) of its era. One film that sports the same idea about fate is David Croenberg's The Dead Zone(1983). Julie Christie is just brilliant as Laura Baxter. Shares the same gloomy landscape as the director's later film, The Man Who Fell to Earth(1976). The climax of Don't Look Now(1973) was a gloomy and shocking sequence to watch. Don't Look Now(1973) is in the tradition of films such as Last Year at Marienbad(1960).
By consistently maintaining "Don't Look Now" as a character-driven script with recurring themes and motifs the writers of this film, Allan Scott and Chris Bryant who adapted their screenplay from the short story by Daphne DuMaurier (Rebecca), ensure that the 'jump moments' are never hollow or empty. Really, there are many moments here where you see a fleeting glimpse of creepy imagery that so frequently come off as desperate and stupid, but in "Don't Look Now" the same moments are so tied to the mythology the film develops and the thematic content of the film that they are actually meaningful and essential.
Of course, no comment on or discussion of "Don't Look Now" is complete without commentary on the famous love scene. Yes, it's surprisingly explicit, but people who dwell on the weirdness and explicitness of the scene are largely, hugely missing the point. Roeg initially included the scene as a last minute addition to balance out the scenes of the couple arguing, but through masterful editing from Graeme Clifford (under the creative supervision of Roeg, obviously) the scene is turned into an essential part of the film, not only bizarrely erotic and tender, but also creepy, unsettling, and sad. Roeg intercuts the scene with images of the two dressing, preventing a moment of pure togetherness in the scene, changing the dimensions of and artistic motivation behind the sex scene drastically and definitely for the better.
Anthony B. Richmond, a once great cinema photographer (gone from working on "The Kids are Alright" to "Dumb and Dumber: When Harry Met Lloyd" these days) photographs this film beautifully with the strong creative involvement of director Nicolas Roeg. The score by Pino Donaggio is creepy, evocative, interesting, and sometimes even unpredictable. The unusual and innovative editing of the film is a crucial part of its resounding success, creating creepy moments out of nothing. Some of the acting is (deliberately) exaggerated for effect and mostly excellent.
With its creepy atmosphere, innovative editing, strong characters, good writing, and brilliant, unsettling final montage, "Don't Look Now" is director Nicolas Roeg's finest accomplishment and is deservedly regarded as one of the finest British films of all time, but I'd go a bit further and say it is likely a strong contender for the title of best British film, period.
10/10
Lo sapevi?
- QuizThe scene set in the church where Laura lights a candle for Christine was mostly improvised. Originally intended to show the gulf between John's and Laura's mental states-John's denial and Laura's inability to let go-the script included two pages of dialogue to illustrate John's unease at Laura's marked display of grief. After a break in filming to allow the crew to set up the equipment, Donald Sutherland returned to the set and commented that he did not like the church, to which Julie Christie retorted that he was being "silly," and the church was "beautiful." Nicolas Roeg felt that the exchange was more true to life in terms of what the characters would actually say to each other, and that the scripted version was "overwritten," so opted to ditch the scripted dialogue and included the real-life exchange instead.
- BlooperWhen Laura leaves the hotel near the end to pursue John, she is wearing boots but is barelegged. Later in the chase as she scrambles over a boat, she is wearing the same boots but is now also wearing dark colored stockings/tights.
- Citazioni
John Baxter: What are you reading?
Laura Baxter: I was just trying to find the answer to a question Christine was asking me: if the world's round, why is a frozen lake flat?
John Baxter: Huh. That's a good question.
Laura Baxter: [flipping through a book] Ah-ha. "Lake Ontario curves more than 3 degrees from its eastern most shore to its western most shore." So, frozen water really isn't flat!
John Baxter: Nothing is what it seems.
- Versioni alternativeThe region 1 DVD released by Paramount contains the full love scene which was slightly trimmed for an "R" rating in the U.S.
- ConnessioniEdited into Spisok korabley (2008)
I più visti
- How long is Don't Look Now?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paesi di origine
- Lingue
- Celebre anche come
- Venecia rojo shocking
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Chiesa di San Nicolo dei Mendicoli, Campo San Nicolo, Dorsoduro, Venezia, Italia(Church Baxter is restoring)
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 1.500.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 116.094 USD