745 Don't Look Now
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: 745 Don't Look Now
Horror is also perhaps the most arbitrary genre too though, because it's so rooted in personal parameters. Sure, ghosts and serial kills can be indicators of horror films but they don't necessitate that they are horror. By the same token, what is the difference between a psychological thriller and a psychological horror? I think many here (in a great discussion by the way) have already spelled it out: This is a horror film because it takes the authentic drama of psychological responses to crises to create an exposition on the internal and relational pain that spawns from such crises. This film is allowed to be a tragic relationship drama, a supernatural horror, and even kindof a slasher, without drawing the horror primarily from the latter details as a rule. Rather, the film is a great horror for me at least moreso because of the drama, the building of anxiety and dread as we watch a couple process how to live with each other and themselves in a dance between confronting and hiding from the intangible horrors that have occurred in their lives. The crescendo is what finally strips all of this bare, and certainly delivers the chills on a level of shock, but even more than that it tips over a fragile house of cards revealing the horrors that have been manifesting and growing all this time, as a result of a very real horrific event that has haunted these fleshed-out relatable surrogates through actual earthly loss, not from the intervention of some supernatural force.
- The Curious Sofa
- Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:18 am
Re: 745 Don't Look Now
I don't see horror being more arbitrary than any other genre, even if it contains more subgenres and overlap with other genres than most. There probably have been more reference books written on the horror genre than on any other and they mostly appear to be on the same page as to what constitutes a horror film. By your logic I could claim that comedy is equally arbitrary if I were to only measure it by what makes me laugh. Adam Sandler comedies don't make me laugh, but I recognise that they are comedies. The Friday the 13th movies don't scare me, but they are part of the horror genre.
We are on the same page in that horror films frequently work better if they also function as a satisfying dramas but then that's more a question of the quality of the horror film (the writing, the acting, the direction) rather than whether it belongs in the genre at all. Your claim that Don't Look Now is successful because its ending is rooted in human drama strikes me in contradiction to your earlier claim which made me enter this discussion in the first place, that the serial killer is a demon. That would add a level of the supernatural complication which I can't see as being intended at all.
We are on the same page in that horror films frequently work better if they also function as a satisfying dramas but then that's more a question of the quality of the horror film (the writing, the acting, the direction) rather than whether it belongs in the genre at all. Your claim that Don't Look Now is successful because its ending is rooted in human drama strikes me in contradiction to your earlier claim which made me enter this discussion in the first place, that the serial killer is a demon. That would add a level of the supernatural complication which I can't see as being intended at all.
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: 745 Don't Look Now
Well I’m not saying I was right to believe it was a demon but how is that contradictory when I said specifically that the supernatural elements and family drama don’t have to be mutually exclusive even in initiating feelings of horror? To say it simply: why can’t the film involve supernatural horror which is absolutely terrifying and the horrors of actual relational and personally psychological circumstances that occur in reality; and have the corporeal ones have the most profound effect? Perhaps it wasn’t clear when I said that the ending reveals all the horrors in the drama that have occurred all throughout the film.. It’s not about the actual occurrence of the ending or if it’s rooted in supernatural or natural horror, but what it exposes about, and implies for, what we’ve experienced and ultimately Sutherland’s failure. But I was also never married to the demon idea, and am less convinced of it now, so it all feels like a moot point.
I knew someone would bring up comedies as arbitrary and I won’t fight that humor’s subjective nature gives credence to this, but to say it a different way, my point was that while comedy is arbitrary the jokes are often intentional and our reactions are the ambiguous part (unless we’re watching The Happening or The Room etc). However, what I find horrifying in films can be absolutely unintended to be interpreted as such by anyone in the film, as so the film becomes horror for me through no intent on either party. Even in a film like this that is undeniably intended to be a horror, what each poster here relates most to within the relationship drama as horror (or not) I don’t think it’s wholly intended by the filmmakers to unsettle in the way that a joke would be written in the conscious intent for a laugh.
I knew someone would bring up comedies as arbitrary and I won’t fight that humor’s subjective nature gives credence to this, but to say it a different way, my point was that while comedy is arbitrary the jokes are often intentional and our reactions are the ambiguous part (unless we’re watching The Happening or The Room etc). However, what I find horrifying in films can be absolutely unintended to be interpreted as such by anyone in the film, as so the film becomes horror for me through no intent on either party. Even in a film like this that is undeniably intended to be a horror, what each poster here relates most to within the relationship drama as horror (or not) I don’t think it’s wholly intended by the filmmakers to unsettle in the way that a joke would be written in the conscious intent for a laugh.
- The Curious Sofa
- Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:18 am
Re: 745 Don't Look Now
I’ve already agreed that a great horror film can play human drama and horror off each other and I never said that family/human drama can’t also generate horror. I disagreed with the specifics of how tenia interpreted John’s character in that regard, which the film doesn’t support.
You’ve lost me with your take on what constitutes genre. Genre is defined by a number of mutually agreed on conventions as a short-hand for what the work intends to achieve, not by how successfully the work achieves that or by your personal response.
I’ll leave it here.
You’ve lost me with your take on what constitutes genre. Genre is defined by a number of mutually agreed on conventions as a short-hand for what the work intends to achieve, not by how successfully the work achieves that or by your personal response.
I’ll leave it here.
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: 745 Don't Look Now
I think we disagree on how flexible genre can be. If genre was mutually agreed upon you wouldn’t find our list projects’ guidelines specifying that if one person considers a film fitting for the horror genre then vote for it. demonlover is a great example of a film that really doesn’t meet the qualifying markers of genre indicators but its unsettling existentialist consequences on the viewer have led to many assigning its horror categorization. But I don’t really care about genre specifically if an argument is going to emerge from something as pedantic as a label. My post was about the feeling of being horrified being subjective, and allowing for personalized impact of cinema as eliciting sensations of horror to quality films along those lines. If we agree that the drama in this film generates a lot of the psychological horror, why nitpick.
- Rayon Vert
- Green is the Rayest Color
- Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:52 pm
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Re: 745 Don't Look Now
I get that this discussion is about Don't Look Now and it's not taking place to debate the pliability of horror as a genre category, but since it's brought up, my own 2 cents would be that there are definitely limits to the flexibility. Just addressing your second sentence here, to be pedantic for a second (but because this subject is one I care about at least to some extent), I don't think the logic is quite sound. If the horror list project's guidelines assert that one person considering a film fitting for the horror genre can vote for it, that only says something about the decision of the list project initiator(s), (which could also be motivated by a variety of potential factors), and doesn't necessarily reflect on whether the horror genre is something "mutually agreed upon" (which, to be significant, would also have to mean outside of this forum community, in the broader film audience/scholarship). Anyway, debating this, if worthwhile in anyone's eye, should take place in the horror list project thread, so I personally won't add anything else here.therewillbeblus wrote: ↑Sat Feb 29, 2020 3:31 pmI think we disagree on how flexible genre can be. If genre was mutually agreed upon you wouldn’t find our list projects’ guidelines specifying that if one person considers a film fitting for the horror genre then vote for it. demonlover is a great example of a film that really doesn’t meet the qualifying markers of genre indicators but its unsettling existentialist consequences on the viewer have led to many assigning its horror categorization. But I don’t really care about genre specifically if an argument is going to emerge from something as pedantic as a label.
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
Re: 745 Don't Look Now
The "vote for it" rule more means that if several people vote for it as horror, we guess it must be horror. domino also encourages people to use common sense in their votes for each genre, and indeed, any of your 50 votes not corroborated by someone else is in some respects a vote wasted
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: 745 Don't Look Now
I’m not contesting that there are limits, just that one’s definition of horror is loose based on subjectivity not necessarily all rooted in the intent of the filmmakers. There are certainly common denominators in genre but not variables that necessitate belongingness. I know I’ll have films on my list some don’t consider horror, while when looking at domino’s top hundred list there were a good chunk I wouldn’t consider horror either, and I don’t think I’m right or wrong about my own assessments nor is he. Cronenberg is king of body horror but only considered one of his films to be pure horror, and in my rewatches I’m finding a lot don’t meet genre requirements for me while they will undeniably feature high on the project. The line between thriller and horror is often subjective too. Should a film like Detention, which is basically a genre blend and primarily a comedy, be admitted to the genre because a serial killer is involved somewhere in the mechanics of the plot, while a film like The Trial, a likely orphan, should not even if the latter is actually terrifying from a philosophical space through surrealist psychological manipulation in both narrative and technique?
I don’t disagree with either of your posts, and I’ll concede that genre as a term is more challenging to dispute than my entire point which is what is most horrifying to the viewer within a movie. In Don’t Look Now the ending that is terrifying reveals itself to me as the needle that pops the bubble of terror from the drama throughout the movie, and so for me that normally non-horror content within this context becomes the meat of what comprised the horror throughout the film. But this specific example of a film wouldn’t be a horror movie if it was simply about grief, it’s how it’s portrayed and contextualized.
Also, RV, I know the logic isn’t sound as applicable outside of this forum, but it was just one small illustration of how even in this community there isn’t a hardened rule on what is or isn’t horror (and honestly it helps fuel my own war against claims of blanket objective parameters on genre- who makes these rules?). But yeah, I’m not going to vote for The Diving Bell and the Butterfly because it tackles my fear of being immobile, Contagion because it confronts my fear of airborne viruses, Children of Men because it presents an allegory for my fear of our future, or Betty Blue because it’s a horrific movie to me, because the way the mood functions in those films don’t make me stew in unwavering horrific discomfort.
I don’t disagree with either of your posts, and I’ll concede that genre as a term is more challenging to dispute than my entire point which is what is most horrifying to the viewer within a movie. In Don’t Look Now the ending that is terrifying reveals itself to me as the needle that pops the bubble of terror from the drama throughout the movie, and so for me that normally non-horror content within this context becomes the meat of what comprised the horror throughout the film. But this specific example of a film wouldn’t be a horror movie if it was simply about grief, it’s how it’s portrayed and contextualized.
Also, RV, I know the logic isn’t sound as applicable outside of this forum, but it was just one small illustration of how even in this community there isn’t a hardened rule on what is or isn’t horror (and honestly it helps fuel my own war against claims of blanket objective parameters on genre- who makes these rules?). But yeah, I’m not going to vote for The Diving Bell and the Butterfly because it tackles my fear of being immobile, Contagion because it confronts my fear of airborne viruses, Children of Men because it presents an allegory for my fear of our future, or Betty Blue because it’s a horrific movie to me, because the way the mood functions in those films don’t make me stew in unwavering horrific discomfort.
- ianthemovie
- Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:51 am
- Location: Boston, MA
- Contact:
Re: 745 Don't Look Now
I'm trying to find something I once read about Don't Look Now and am hoping someone can help me to place it.
It's a piece written by a critic (possibly a female critic) who related the experience of watching the film with a group of students who were non-native English speakers. The students did not understand all of the dialogue but were still able to follow the film because it is so visually strong. Of the love scene, one of them commented afterward that "it is beautiful when they try to make another baby." Any help in identifying this piece would be appreciated.
It's a piece written by a critic (possibly a female critic) who related the experience of watching the film with a group of students who were non-native English speakers. The students did not understand all of the dialogue but were still able to follow the film because it is so visually strong. Of the love scene, one of them commented afterward that "it is beautiful when they try to make another baby." Any help in identifying this piece would be appreciated.
-
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 7:35 pm
Re: 745 Don't Look Now
Helloianthemovie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 10, 2022 11:32 amI'm trying to find something I once read about Don't Look Now and am hoping someone can help me to place it.
It's a piece written by a critic (possibly a female critic) who related the experience of watching the film with a group of students who were non-native English speakers. The students did not understand all of the dialogue but were still able to follow the film because it is so visually strong. Of the love scene, one of them commented afterward that "it is beautiful when they try to make another baby." Any help in identifying this piece would be appreciated.
In case you still haven't found it, it's the essay that comes with the Criterion edition of Walkabout. It's the opening paragraph. Cheers
- ianthemovie
- Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:51 am
- Location: Boston, MA
- Contact:
Re: 745 Don't Look Now
Thank you! I never would have thought to look there.
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
- FrauBlucher
- Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
- Location: Greenwich Village
Re: 745 Don't Look Now
I was thinking of getting this and then it went oop. So that was that. But now I'll be rewarded for my tardiness with a 4k restoration
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: 745 Don't Look Now
You could also import the excellent SC 4K, which is region free. I'm curious if the accompanying blu-ray will be the old transfer or the new one, given that this was OOP, but not for as long a spell as Le Cercle Rouge was..FrauBlucher wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 5:31 pmI was thinking of getting this and then it went oop. So that was that. But now I'll be rewarded for my tardiness with a 4k restoration
- FrauBlucher
- Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
- Location: Greenwich Village
Re: 745 Don't Look Now
The bluray is listed as being from the new 4k restoration. I haven’t upgraded to 4k and probably won’t. So happy anytime a blu gets a full blown restoration.
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: 745 Don't Look Now
Check again - the blu-ray-only version is listed as the 4K restoration approved by Roeg (also listed on the first page of this thread, from the old release now back in print), not the new one "supervised by director of photography Anthony Richmond." So I think it's safe to say the blu-ray included will be the old transfer since they can still produce/have copies, unless I'm missing somethingFrauBlucher wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 7:02 pmThe bluray is listed as being from the new 4k restoration. I haven’t upgraded to 4k and probably won’t. So happy anytime a blu gets a full blown restoration.
- FrauBlucher
- Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
- Location: Greenwich Village
Re: 745 Don't Look Now
Yeah, it seems to be the older bluray from 2015. I didn’t realize that was also a 4K restoration. I’ll be happy with that.
- Soy Cuba
- Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2023 8:36 am
Re: 745 Don't Look Now
I would be all over this, but only recently bought the Studiocanal 4K disc. Happy enough with that one.
- Rayon Vert
- Green is the Rayest Color
- Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:52 pm
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Re: 745 Don't Look Now
Reading back this older post, that brings to mind Stephen King's novels, anyway the early ones of his first decade or so which are the ones I read as a teen. The supernatural horror (killing car, murder through psychokinesis, hauntings, etc. - I'd include Cujo also where it's just a dog with rabies but the "monstrous" quality stands in for the usual supernatural element) was most of the time grounded in a larger context (family, school, etc.) where there was also relational trauma/horror where there's severe dysfunction (bullying - the teen world is brutal in his novels, alcoholism, adultery/separation, etc.). Even as a teen that stood out for me and it made them more relatable and scary.therewillbeblus wrote: ↑Sat Feb 29, 2020 11:15 amTo say it simply: why can’t the film involve supernatural horror which is absolutely terrifying and the horrors of actual relational and personally psychological circumstances that occur in reality; and have the corporeal ones have the most profound effect?
- colinr0380
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
- Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
Re: 745 Don't Look Now
I was recently reminded that in that early period of Stephen King that there is that supporting Sheriff Bannerman character who first appears in The Dead Zone who tries to utilise Johnny's psychic powers to track down a serial killer in that story; and then turns up again in Cujo to get summarily and brutally killed by the rabies infected St Bernard. That was an early suggestion that everything was taking place in a more or less unified "Stephen King universe" where you can have a significant part to play in one narrative, whilst remaining irrelevant as all but a victim in another.
-
- Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:49 pm
Re: 745 Don't Look Now
Considering the original Blu-ray of Don’t Look Now was already 4K-sourced is it safe to assume SC’s 4K uses the same master, and that it was just given a HDR pass or was there more than one 4K restoration? Because if it’s the same restoration, then a remastered Criterion Blu-ray wouldn’t really add much. I believe the same is true of Mulholland Drive. It was the same underlying restoration that was just subsequently given a HDR facelift.
- PfR73
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 6:07 pm
Re: 745 Don't Look Now
There was more than one restoration. The Criterion and Studio Canal releases look different. The Criterion Blu-ray used one restoration and now it appears the UHD will use the other restoration (while the included BD will be the original release).
- FrauBlucher
- Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
- Location: Greenwich Village
- Matt
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm
Re: 745 Don't Look Now
All he says is that it looks to him so similar to the Studio Canal release that he didn’t bother to do screen caps 🫠