augustian David Hamilton may have made his name as a photographer but Laura leaves his writing and directing abilities with a lot of question marks. The plot and characterisations have holes that you could drive an army through.When Paul asks if Laura would pose for his new sculpture Sarah refuses so why does she then say that she will take photos of a naked Laura for Paul to use? It's as if she is saying, "No, Mr Wyler, Laura will not pose naked but I will take lots of photos of Laura in erotic poses so that you can ogle her young naked body at your leisure." This is surely not the action of a responsible parent, especially as she knows him well enough not to let Laura anywhere near him. This is evident at a party given by Paul. Sarah, her husband Richard and Laura are invited to the party but Laura is left at home. There are other unanswered questions such as what did the woman at the party want to talk to Paul about and why was Paul allowed access to the ballet school? There is more but it would take too long to go into it all here.As this is an erotic film centred around art, there is obviously a certain amount of nudity. David Hamilton shows his photographic background by having the ballet students adopting various poses and so looking like living tableaux. There was too much use of fade-to-black and the permanent soft-focus was annoying. This film does not warrant more than 2 stars.

tensaip 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.

tedg Sometimes a movie can be merely about its images, like this one. The story can be about the images too.I was very impressed with the way vignettes were composed. Rather lovely, most of them except for the annoying fade to black at the end of each and every one. To appreciate this, or rather to not be offended, I suppose you have to accept that the female form is appealing, and accept that a young girl can initiate an affair with an older man.Besides the appeal of the balletgirls and the way they are displayed, there's the story.It isn't much of one, surely insufficient for most commentors, and the fact that it is so slight seems to rile them a bit, as indication that the nudity was all that mattered.But the elements of the story that do exist are what I call "folding." Usually the purpose of folding is to place the viewer in the movie, and that's the case here.We have an artist in the writer/director who represents young girls in the nude. He and we have a surrogate on-screen, in a character who is an artist (a sculptor) and represents young girls in the nude. The titular Laura is a dancer, inviting viewers.So far, the fold is ordinary. By the thinnest of plot devices, our sculptor goes blind after starting a sculpture of Laura. So she offers to be the model, allowing him to caress her on every part, sufficiently to make a clay copy, which he similarly caresses. She, meanwhile has a crush on him and seduces him during this process.See the fold? We not only get to look but touch, and that touch is returned.No, ma'am that's not a slight story. No, not at all.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

archmehitabel Look, I'll give it to you straight: if you are thinking of watching this movie, chances are it's because you are a big David Hamilton fan. And if you are a big David Hamilton fan, chances are it's because you like looking at pubescent girls who also happen to be naked. If that's what you're looking for, this movie's got 'em in abundance. The title character is, conveniently, a ballerina, who conveniently showers for with the other sylphlike creatures in her ballet class. (The gaggle of girls is credited as "The Hamilton Girls", I believe. Just like the Goldwyn Girls!) Also, the scene at the end, in which Laura and the sculptor finally get it on, is not graphic, but it's quite hot. Nymphsploitation galore. Hotcha.Other than that-- the acting is nonexistent, the film is paced like a still photograph, and the title character only stops resembling plywood when she has her clothes off. And the script, aside from its stilted dialogue, ends up incorporating just about every cliché there is about the sexual awakening of young girls. You can tell that Hamilton doesn't really understand those pretty little creatures he loves to photograph, nor does he care to.This irresponsible lack of connection to reality is what bugged me the most about this movie. I think it makes it come across as a lot sleazier than it needs to me. Read the little captions and epigraphs in a book of David Hamilton photos, and you'll know what I mean. Stay behind the camera and shut up, Mr. H; we don't want to know what you're thinking.I wouldn't say, though, that the movie is perverted. I think that pubescent girls are pretty interesting, actually, and I think that the attraction they hold for certain grown men is an interesting subject that ought to be intelligently explored without veering off into Never- Never Land (or, for that matter, getting up in arms about evil child-molesting men). David Hamilton seems to have filmed this entire movie on location in Never-Never Land, so the value of this film is severely limited. If you're seriously interested in this stuff, you're much better off watching Kubrick's "Lolita", which is brilliantly written, brilliantly acted, and (intentionally) funny.