MovieChat Forums > Dead Ringer (1964) Discussion > No Blood ?

No Blood ?

posted 13 years ago by Gubbio
15 replies | jump to latest

***POSSIBLE SPOILERS***

I realize it's mentioned in the "goofs" section, but I watched this movie again last night and couldn't get over that there wasn't one drop of blood at the murder scene. Obviously, a gunshot wound to the head at close range would have made quite a... ah..., um..., "splatter."

Bette kept touching and rearranging "the body" umpteen times -- including moving head and arranging the hair. I believe the pristine "suicide note" was sitting in "Edith's" lap.

I'm not fan of blood and gore and don't care if I see it or not, but this was totally unrealistic. It looked like it was filmed by a bunch of amateurs. For the sake of realism, they could have had some blood running from the temple area down the cheek. That would suffice.

I'm surprised that Davis, who always fought for realism and detail in her films, went along with this.

[–] Sheila_Beers 13 years ago

Sheila Beers
I agree that the crime scene in this movie is not realistic, but films in the 1960s and earlier had such "sanitized" scenes.

[–] skipper 12 years ago

I agree completely, Gubbio. As I was watching it with my husband I said "That was a pretty clean murder!"

[–] JaneDough42 12 years ago

Yes there was certainly no cleaning up afterwards, not one drop of blood to be seen at all, very unrealistic. I also noticed dead Margaret blinked when Edith was moving her head to comb her hair back.

www.TheAnimalRescueSite.com.

[–] MyMovieTVRomance 12 years ago

I also noticed dead Margaret blinked when Edith was moving her head to comb her hair back.

I find that that's a very easy AND ANNOYING detail to notice, one that totally ruins the realism for me. So, I purposely look away or try not to look too hard when those scenes come up---lest we be reminded that they are just actors playing parts.

Please excuse typos/funny wording; I use speech-recognition that doesn't always recognize!

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] roncerabona 10 years ago

They had quite a bit of blood during the scene with the dog mauling Peter Lawford's character so they could have had some with the gunshot, presumably.

[–] davidwile 9 years ago

Hey folks,

That scene may have been quite correct; it really depends on what caliber pistol was used. I stopped the film several times trying to determine just what caliber pistol was used, but I could not clearly see the bore size.

If the pistol was a .38 caliber or bigger, the bullet would have passed through the head and made a good bit of blood spatter as noted by others. If the pistol was a .22 caliber (or even a .32 caliber), the bullet would have most likely stayed inside the skull and made very little blood loss from the small entrance cavity.

Anyone who has butchered pigs can confirm that .22 caliber bullets stay inside the pig skull, and there is hardly any blood loss at the site of the entrance cavity. In fact, after shooting the pig in the head, it is necessary to slit the pig's throat to empty the blood, and that certainly is a bloody mess.

While watching the film, my wife did comment on the lack of blood mess, and I had to remind her of what it was like when we used to butcher pigs. So it really does depend on what caliber pistol was used, and from what I could tell, the revolver could have been anything from a .22 to a .38.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] davidwile 9 years ago

Hey Clint,

Maybe you should consider allowing your subscription to that magazine expire? You are getting to bellicose.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

[–] Zuider_Zee 9 years ago

When I first saw this in the mid-seventies, I didn't notice this but it glared at me upon the second viewing. No blood, hair in perfect shape, not a mark to the head or the face and the clothing was left immaculate!

[–] EliotTempleton 9 years ago

Oh, please, in countless vintage movies of the classic era, we are not subjected to blood gushing out all over the set. You rarely even see a bullet hole from a gunshot wound in an old movie, so what's the big deal?

[–] Gubbio 9 years ago

so what's the big deal?

Who said it was a big deal?

With the show Bette made of playing with the body, a trickle of blood on the actress' face would have been more realistic. That's all.

And, this was 1964 -- not exactly "vintage," in my opinion.

Yeah, "Oh Please" is right.

[–] EliotTempleton 9 years ago

Hello, the movie is fifty-one years old, which is pretty vintage. It hardly now rates as a recent film, so yes, again, oh please!

[–] Gubbio 9 years ago

Hello, the movie is fifty-one years old, which is pretty vintage. It hardly now rates as a recent film, so yes, again, oh please!

Someone's diaper is obviously full. 

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Bye. 

[–] EliotTempleton 9 years ago

If your diaper is full, go ahead and change it. Nobody here is going to do it for you. (And is that the best reply you could conjure?)