Review # 42 | Essay | "Don't Look Now" (1973)

Daphne Du Maurier’s novella “Don’t Look Now” is not considered the best suspense story of the twentieth century, but good things come to those who wait. Du Maurier’s novella is not a masterpiece. There are plot holes, shallow characters, multiple story lines that to do not translate clearly and a heightened air of affluence which does not translate well to many readers. After the novella’s publication in 1971, it was quickly in the works to become a motion picture. Nicolas Roeg’s 1973 film adaptation of the same name heightens the suspense of the novella into a justified, full arched plot teeming with insight, elevated suspense, and ethos. The main characters of John and Laura are fleshed out into approachable, normalized people in extreme, dramatic situations. The circumstances of the family and the events around them justify their anxiety and the catharsis the audience experiences which is not available from reading the novella. These circumstances come full circle in the film adaptation with justification of the original themes established by Du Maurier. To heighten the drama of Du Maurier’s novella, Roeg’s film explores and enhances the themes of grief and the ability to move on, pride and the ability to be open minded, as well as life and the way we live it.

The driving force of both the novella and the film is the palpable grief both John and Laura are enslaved by. The novel accentuates their grief by enhancing the circumstances of Christine’s death. Du Maurier wrote Christine dying from meningitis, the swelling of the brain. The inability of a parent to protect their child from illness is heartbreaking, but forgivable. Even a parent’s care can only extend so far. The film’s decision to adapt Christine’s death into a drowning becomes the emphasis of their guilt. As parents, John and Laura feel more responsibility for their daughter’s death when it physically could have been prevented. Venice does not strike one as the first place a couple would go after their child has drowned. The central location of the film is a constant reminder to John, Laura, and the audience that Christine’s death will not recede into memory. The commitment to continuing John’s work in Venice justifies their physical presence there and makes their lingering grief more prominent. Du Maurier’s version, where John and Laura visit Venice on their vacation, a time of healing, seems insensitive and inconsistent with the grief of parents who have lost a child. In both the novella and film, Laura begins to recover from her grief when she receives the first message from the sisters in the restaurant. John’s recovery is not so cut-and-dry. His dominance over Laura, trying to get her to let go of the sisters and their supposed knowledge, suggests that perhaps he has a harder time moving on than Laura. Venice leads him on a chase, literal and imaginary, to find the manifestation of Christine to ease his guilt. He sees her in the reflection of the water, remembering the day he could not save her. He sees the doll on the water’s step, cascading water out of its body. Most of all, he sees a child. A child in a red hood that seems to be running from something, or someone, in pursuit of safety and tranquility. John thinks could this be Christine? The chase of this child becomes justified and suspenseful in the film because of the recurring memories of Christine that appear throughout his time in Venice. John’s experiences, the onset of his psychic evolution, are the ones that torment him the most, but could lead to his own salvation and redemption.

The evolution of John’s psychic abilities is greatly apparent in the film. The audience does not have to do much guesswork about what is happening in John’s head. The novella, however, mentions the possibility of John’s abilities but does not elaborate on them. Even at the end of the novella, during John’s life montage, it does not relate as a psychic experience like it does on screen. He is ignorant of the messages his abilities, and Christine, are sending him because he chooses to ignore him. Here, ignorance is not bliss. Perhaps John thinks it is easier to emotionally handle his grief if he completely ignores the “other side.” A father’s guilt of not saving his child from death would be so irrevocable, having psychic abilities and still not saving his child would perhaps be even worse. John sees, but he doesn’t look. For example, the film’s vaporetto is clearly heading a funeral procession, but John does not register the details. He only sees Laura with the two sisters. The succession of psychic episodes in Venice push John face-to-face with his fears. In his mind, the hooded figure has a strong connection to his memory of Christine. He interprets the figure as a sign of life, but through the photo slides, sightings, and representation of children, the film slowly reveals the ominous presence of this figure. One of John’s mistakes is trying to think of death in a logical way, paralyzing “himself with unwarranted fears.” The evolution of John’s abilities ends up stripping him of his pride and literally opening up his mind to new ideas and ways of thinking. He can finally accept the world as it is when facing his fears in his moment of death.

The film adaptation explores more depth in the way the characters deal with the tragedies that become them. In both the novella and the film, Laura readily takes the sisters’ messages as a way to move on. She accepts their word without a second thought because the overwhelming relief that washes over her outweighs her skepticism of the paranormal. On the other hand, John, who has more inclination to believe the visions of the blind sister, refuses to accept her words and dissuades Laura from any thoughts of them. In the novella, his dismissive nature towards the paranormal is not as prominent as it is in the film. This is because the audience can now visually see the contrast of husband and wife onscreen. Laura takes this chance to live again whereas John holds on the the tragedy of Christine’s death. On screen, this inability to let go also translates into as a rejection which generates the plot’s motion. All of the subtle, strange events that are inflicted upon John become heightened by his utter refusal of the paranormal and the sister’s psychic gift, the very untapped gift he has. Perhaps if John were able to move on from Christine’s death, his psychic abilities may have allowed him to heal in a healthy way. As Laura heals she can put her energy elsewhere, like taking care of her husband as well as her son. In Du Maurier's novella, their son suffers from a bad appendix which rushes Laura home to England. In the film adaptation, the stakes of the son’s injury are heightened when the school Headmaster calls informing that the son has suffered burn injuries in a fire drill. With one child already taken from her by the elements, Laura rushes home in haste to comfort and care for her only living child, perhaps realising that she cannot live her life in fear of what happened to Christine. In the novella she does not have plans to return to Venice after tending to her son. In the film her plans to return heighten the mystery and suspense of John’s sighting of her. He still hasn’t moved on, and the pursuit of the mysterious red-hooded figure, in his mind, is his route to redemption for not saving his daughter. As John chases down the figure, who he thinks is a child, Laura has returned to Venice and is on a wild search for her husband. The differences of where these two characters are at, mentally and emotionally, in this final scene is the juxtaposition of their character progressions. Laura has returned from her son’s bedside, healed of her fears and worries. John has become trapped in the world of Venice, a palpable reminder of Christine’s fate. As Laura chases John, John chases what he believes to be his chance at peace, redemption, and happiness. If he could have moved on the way Laura had, perhaps he would not have come face-to-face with his fears, and let them kill him.

The saying goes, “the book was better than the movie.” That is not the case for “Don’t Look Now.” The film adaptation delves deeper into the motives, emotions, stakes, and circumstances that surround each character. Creating this depth creates insight, elevated suspense, and ethos. Du Maurier wrote a thrilling novella, but the characters are bland. If only the lake were as shallow as Du Maurier’s perception of character. With the addition of the film, John and Laura are no longer superficial characters, they are suffering parents navigating supernatural circumstances. This heightened film is a must watch for followers of the thriller genre, but the original novella is of no great recompense for insight into the questions following a viewing of the film.