Laura (1979)

Purely Joyful Movie!

Masterful Cinema

I wanted to but couldn't!

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

PAUL IS STILL BLIND AT THE END.Many viewers fail to realize this, and thus come to erroneous conclusions concerning the final scenes. Paul's removal of the smoked glasses as he examines the leaf is meant to symbolize that he has learned to "see" the world through his sense of touch and no longer feels "blind" as an artist. This is why he pays no attention to Laura as she watches him play in the fountain. His eyes cannot see her. Laura for her part perceives that Paul no longer needs her to serve as his muse, so she leaves.All that aside of Hamilton's 3 plot structured films, LAURA is his best effort. Each frame of film has delicately lit mies-en-scene and purposely resembles impressionist paintings -- particularly those of Degas. This is not an "actor-oriented" movie. It's a "picture-oriented" movie. Hamilton has meticulously choreographed and rehearsed every human movement he captured on this film. All movie-acting should be like this. If I feel the finished product is what the director intended it to be, I give a film a high rating whether I personally enjoyed the viewing experience or not. Regarding LAURA I enjoyed the viewing of it but the score makes me wretch. I despise every note. Patrick Juvet must have become tone deaf by the time he scored it.

This David Hamilton movie is something of a disaster. It has a half-decent story (coming-of-age/love triangle) and a mediocre script. All of Hamilton's usual trademarks are here - stunningly beautiful & innocent young girls, soft-focus photography, lots of nudity, gentle lesbianism, and a romantic soundtrack. There is/was a good movie to be made with the given material & cast, but this is not it. The editing is appalling, and at times the scene shifts seem somewhat disjointed.It's worth remembering that Hamilton was an iconic photographer of his time and experimented with taking his art into the movie field, in many ways pioneering the penchant for photographers in the adult industry to also dabble in video work.However, on the plus side, there are very good performances from Dawn Dunlap (as Laura) and James Mitchell (as Paul), and the soundtrack is quite nice.To summarise, I'd say that unless you're a fan of Hamilton's other work, e.g. Bilitis, Summer in St Tropez, then this is best forgotten.I rate it 4/10.

David Hamilton's "Laura" has got to be one of the most gorgeous erotic films of all time. The story of a young girl's sexual awakening is a rather simple one, and certainly more based on fantasy (more specifically, 'male fantasy') than reality. 15 year-old Laura (Dawn Dunlap) lives in a pastel world where everything is white, everyone is beautiful, and nothing is quite real. Laura develops a fascination with the much older Paul, a sculptor with an eye for a special kind of beauty. The conflict here, is that Paul is the former lover of Laura's mother Sara, (Maud Adams). Here develops a classic situation of mother/daughter competition. When Paul sees the beautiful Laura, he is smitten, at the girls beauty, and also at how she resembles Sara, at age 15. Sara's attempts to keep the two separate are not entirely successful. Filmed on the French Riviera, in soft focus style, by renowned photographer Hamilton, you can imagine the look of the film, if you are familiar with his work. It is strange, quiet, dreamlike, quite unlike anything i have seen before. Quite controversial too. Dawn Dunlap, who was not so much older than the character she played, is very graceful and nice to look at, and former Bond girl Maud Adams is incredibly beautiful in this one as well. Although the character of Paul, (James Mitchell) is supposed to be close to 50 years old, the relationship between him and Laura is not so hard to take, as he is also a very handsome guy, who looks nowhere near his age. Also worthy of mention is the lush, dreamlike soundtrack that accompanies these images. One scene that stands out is a dream sequence; Filmed in black & white, Laura is running through a maze of little streets and alleys, looking for Paul, but he continues to allude her. Very nicely done. Hamilton creates a kind of quiet suspense, as the viewer waits for the time when the two get together. While there is nudity in the film, it is all done with the utmost of taste and subtlety. One thing: I cannot stress how important it is when watching this film, that you see the original French language version. The English dubbing for this one is wretched, absolutely dire. It is not even proper English, but American English, and it totally destroys the feeling and tone of this very French film. I first saw it in English, and I didn't think too much of the film, as the visuals were great, but the voices and dialog were so bad. When i saw the French version, it was like another experience entirely. Usually i don't mind voice dubbing so much, but here it is intolerable. I think that a lot of reviewers here have only seen the easier to find English version, which might explain the films low rating. "Laura" is a very classy erotic film, in it's original French language.

I've often wondered why David Hamilton hasn't been arrested! The world's dirtiest old man - and he gets PAID for it! Considered soft-core pornography when released, Hamilton quickly sprang to his age-old defence.."But this art chaps!" It sure IS! Pre-pubescent wannabe ballet dancer Laura - she must be all of 14, stripping off, for her MOTHER for God's sakes! - and performing multiple er, dance moves? gymnastic workouts? whatever...for the camera....and most every other paedophile in the Western world! The "plotline" such that it isn't, has James Mitchell as sculptor Paul Wyler, obviously playing out Hamilton's own fantasies, who wants to sculpt Laura, as he did her mother (OCTOPUSSY Bond girl Maud Adams, can you believe?) 20 years earlier.All the Hamilton trademark shots - soft focus, young rear ends, girls drying each other off in the showers, skipping down the boardwalk, teenage nudity viewed every which way. God, no wonder I like this flick! Seriously folks...art house fodder? supposedly....but in the upshot, just sexploitation of very young girls - and ALL in the name of "art" he did it with BILITIS I'm SURE he did it here...pretty often too!