Scissors in your back wouldn't just kill you - Dial M for Murder (1954) Discussion

[–] muzilon 12 years ago

Maybe the scissors went through his heart or some other vital organ.

reply

She was repenting after having cheated on him, and just wanted everything to be Ok again, so she was willing to make an extra effort at being the perfect wife.

Violet

*´¨)
¸.·´¸.·*´¨) ¸.·*¨)
(¸.·´ (¸.·´

reply

[–] Violet_Loves_Iliona 12 years ago

Exactly - or they could have punctured one of his lungs or punctured his bronchus, causing him to drown in his own blood.

Violet

*´¨)
¸.·´¸.·*´¨) ¸.·*¨)
(¸.·´ (¸.·´

reply

[–] bctelecom 11 years ago

And if they didn't kill him imagine how embarrassing it would be walking around with scissors sticking out of your back. "Hey mister you got scissors sticking out of your back"

reply

[–] davidwile 11 years ago

Hey folks,

The blade part of those scissors had to be at least six inches long and perhaps even seven or more. When Margot first stabbed him in the back, it appeared the blade penetrated the attacker near the middle of his back. It was obvious the blade first went in about half its length, and that would mean it was not obstructed by a rib or the spine.

The attacker immediately broke off his attack and was futiley trying to reach the scissors sticking in his back. This certainly makes sense considering the serious nature of the wound. Even with the scissors blade penetrating his back only half its length, the point would certainly have penetrated his lung and may have even penetrated his heart. As the attacker floundered about and finally fell on his back, it was plain to see the scissors blade was driven the rest of its length into his back. At this point, the wound would have certainly been fatal in minutes or even less. The effects of shock would certainly account for the manner in which the attacker died.

It certainly looked real enough to me.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

reply

[–] leader-7 11 years ago

the dorsal scapular artery could have been severed by the scissors. It's pretty superficial and she could have easily stabbed him right there.

Oh -- and one more thing.

It's a movie. don't overthink the "realism."

reply

[–] davidwile 11 years ago

Hey Leader,

You are right about that. Severing any big artery will bleed out pretty quickly without intervention.

The original poster's point was that a scissors blade in the back wouldn't have killed the man so quickly. Well, I just watched the film, and it looked to me like the scissors penetrated his back at or close to where the heart is located (not close to the scapular artery). It was obvious the blade had penetrated several inches, and that would mean the blade did not get stopped by the spine or ribs.

My point was even if he had not fallen on the scissors and driven the blade all the way in, a scissors blade stuck several inches in one's back would tend to get his attention and likely stop his attack on the woman. When he then fell and drove the scissors all the way in, the blade could very likely penetrate the heart or nearby arteries and result in fairly quick death.

I did not think I was overthinking the realism of the scene at all. Actually, I thought the scene played very well to my eyes and seemed quite real to me.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

reply

[–] leader-7 11 years ago

Hi there.
I didn't mean to imply that you were doing the overthinking -- not at all.

And yes, when he fell over, the blade did go further in. I just think that there's a tendency on these boards to over analyze scenes, over think the director's or the writer's intention, and a general unwillingness on the part of the viewer to leave some of the goings-on to imagination, poetic license, and just general, "it's only a movie. leave it be."

:-)

The point is, he's dead; Tony is arrested, and she gets to spend her life with Mr. Boring and Totall Unsexy.

reply

[–] davidwile 11 years ago

Hey Leader,

I think I know what you mean about over analyzing films, books, and probably just about any other art form. I was never very much for over alalyzing anything. In college, I always was wondering what the Lit teacher was talking about when she was discussing the symbolism of some particular passage. I'm afraid most of it just goes over my head. I have always had more of an appreciation of the simple story. I have always loved a good story.

Most of the time I am pretty good as suspending my disbelief for the sake of a good story. My one favorite example of this is the production of "Grapes of Wrath" done by Gary Sinise at the Steppenwolf Theater. "Grapes of Wrath" was always a favorite book and a favorite film of mine, but I never expected it could be done on stage. When I saw it done at Steppenwolf, I was really surprised. So many of the scenes were done with minimal props. They had a stage version of the truck to pile everyone on for the trip across to California, and it barely looked like a truck. They piled the people on it and it just stood still as the wheels turned under it. Of course it did not look like the real truck in the film, but the magic of the story unfolding on the stage allowed me to believe I was seeing what Steinbeck described in his book.

It was a great production, but like you said, you simply cannot over analyze everything or you will lose the story.

It has been fun "talking" with you.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

reply

[–] jj-patton 11 years ago

Sheesh, you guys, why does analyzing bug you so much? Hitchcock movies especially, the man has a fetish of making viewers attentive to every nuance and detail, so why does it bug folks that people notice things?

'It's only a movie. leave it be.". Look, it's only a point of discussion, so leave that be. I agree scissors in the back like it happened in the movie could kill someone, so I'm content to answer the OP with my belief the plot wasn't harmed at all. I don't see the point in scolding people for even thinking about it.

With a sense of perspective and an open mind, there is no such thing as over-analyzing. Matter of fact, it's fun to analyze movies and anything artistic - even things that require suspensions of disbelief. Try it sometime, with some practice it can be quite rewarding.

reply

[–] jescci 11 years ago

The problem I have is not could the scissor wound possibly cause death ... but how do you make a jury believe that the premeditated murder plan invovled a petite woman luring her strapping blackmailer to her home in order to kill him by stabbing him in the back with a pair of scissors?

reply

[–] Eddysfitzboy 11 years ago

I'm pretty sure that's why the trial and conviction of the missus was glossed over so quickly in the film. Hitchcock, et al knew there were quite a few areas that would be very hard to believe and prove regarding her conviction. I'm sure they breezed through that part as fast as they could.

"Chop your own wood and it will warm you twice." Henry Ford

reply

[–] mark-1589 11 years ago

leader-7 wrote "the dorsal scapular artery could have been severed by the scissors". That is a plausible theory, but I don't think it is what happened here. If he had bled out, then the rug would have had a large pool of blood. The film clearly showed, and it was mentioned in the dialogue, that there was a relatively small amount of blood, clearly indicating that the cause of death was his heart stopping. That would indicate that his heart was pierced by the scissors (most likely when he fell on his back), leading to more or less immediate death (and little further bleeding, as there is nothing to pump the blood out).

reply

[–] leader-7 11 years ago

and with poetic license, Hitch decided not to have a show of blood.

reply

[–] Ash-lee 11 years ago

That wasn't poetic license - Hitch probably would have loved to show blood (hence the tongue-in-cheek line Milland has, "There's hardly any blood. He must've..."). The problem was the Hays Code.

reply

[–] Tristan_Booth (403) 7 years ago

There was a dark spot of blood on the carpet, several inches across, after the body had been removed. In later scenes, there's a throw rug there. Since the wall-to-wall carpet was a shade of white, it's not likely that they could have cleaned the spot, hence the throw rug.

reply

[–] stephan-128 11 years ago

I didn't mind this, as films before the late 60's were much less graphic about violence. I think spefifically of West Side Story, one of my all time favorite films. During the rumble, both Riff and Bernardo take bloodless little knife wounds to the torso (neither in the heart) and both are dead within moments. Theres' a little blood on Tony's hand, but Riff's death in particular is absurd because he is wearing a white t shirt and there is a front-on shot of his little puncturing by Bernardo. It's not believable in any CSI kind of way, but it serves the tragic plot, which is more important. Riff is bloodlessly stabbed by a little knife a couple inches long, Riff dies. And that's that.
At least Hitchcock showed the scissors being pressed further into the guy's back as he sinks to the floor, which counted for pretty gruesome back then.
The plot says she kills him, so he dies. Don't let it bother you.

reply

[–] melnar1 11 years ago

You are quite right, Stephan. Another similar instance that comes to my mind is in Carousel (1956) when Billy Bigelow falls on his knife and dies - but you don't see much knife penetration on screen. The moviegoer accepted that; it was what the plot called for.

reply

[–] mark-1589 11 years ago

Large scissors are long enough to pierce the heart. They would have to be pretty sharp to do what was shown here, but it is entirely plausible, but an utterly unlikely thing for her to hit the bulleye.

reply

[–] Ramuna 10 years ago

Aw, c'mon guys, Hitchcock is not that stupid. If only censorship is not so strict at that time, I bet she would have made the stabbing in the neck, the head or wherever else more fatal. If she didn't stab him in the back we won't be having the movie at all.

reply

[–] movies789 10 years ago

People seem to miss the fact that Swann was wearing a heavy trench coat and, presumably, a jacket beneath it. Margot wasn't an especially strong woman to start with, was in the midst of being strangled with a stocking, and was bent over backwards against a desktop with Swann on top of her. Add to that the awkward angle of her stabbing motion, because of her position and Swann's body impeding her arm movement. Not to mention the fact that scissors are designed for shearing thin sheets of cloth or paper - not for use as a dagger. Realistically, all that would result would be a sharp poke in the back that might have elicited a loud "Ouch!" from Swann.

reply

[–] steven_torrey 8 years ago

My original response to the scene was that the scissors were not long enough to reach a vital organ--never mind through a coat and a woolen jacket.. A thrust of scissors from a woman, short of breath, who had just been strangled... It was just one of several stretches in the movie...

reply