MovieChat Forums > Sunset Blvd. (1950) Discussion > Fantastic movie but I found a flaw Upd...

Fantastic movie but I found a flaw Update: Not a flaw, standard at the time it was made.

posted 2 years ago by jcnyclv (1556)
26 replies | jump to latest

This movie is timeless! I just watched it for the first time in years and it's still just as good as it was years ago.

I did, however, find a pretty big oversight which I hadn't noticed before. Joe was shot three times and stumbled to the pool where he died. There was not one drop of blood on the ground, nor was there any blood in the pool! The pool should have been filled with blood from a man who had been shot three times. It's just surprising to me for such a wonderful film that looks like it didn't spare any expense in the making, to have forgotten to add blood at the crime scene. Has anyone else noticed this?

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

She was using a small gun and presumably small-caliber bullets. Now large-caliber bullets are known to cause huge bloody exit wounds, but a small-caliber bullet might leave only small holes in its target. And since his heart stopped pumping the blood around in 10-15 seconds, so perhaps it's possible that that gun could cause fatal injuries that didn't bleed much.

If a forensic pathologist ever comes to this board, be sure to ask them.

[–] jcnyclv (1556) 2 years ago

I appreciate your response very much. Even with a small caliber gun I thought there would be some amount of blood. Or maybe not if you're right.

I'm not going to dwell on it. It's still such a fantastic move!!

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8705) 2 years ago

It does seem like there should be SOME blood, but I've actually read comments from police offers where they have said that they investigated murders where the victim was shot with a .22. They said there was little or no blood and in some cases you really had to search to find the bullet wounds.

However, according to this the gun was a Colt Model 1903:

https://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Sunset_Boulevard

If you follow the link to the gun's page, it says it's a .32 ACP. You can see a caliber size comparison here:

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/media/pocket-calibers-labeled.jpg

Comparing it to the .22, it does look a little big to me to render a bloodless kill. If so, I'm not sure that I'd call it a "big" flaw, but I would agree that it's an oversight. Or perhaps it had something to do with the Hays Code.

[–] jcnyclv (1556) 2 years ago

My gut tells me there should have been a drop or two of blood but it's not really a big deal. You're right in that it's not a big flaw but probably an oversight. I'm surprised I even thought of it but I watch so many horror/thriller/sci fi/murder mysteries I'm just so used to seeing blood with an injury 🙂

[–] EdwardHaskell (142) a year ago

Of course people notice this. And they accept it. It is not so much a, "flaw," as you like to call it but just the practice of the time. It was 1950. Someone gets shot onscreen but there is no blood. A mistake? Like there they are in the editing room and someone says, "Oh shit! We forgot the blood!"

No. In those days gunshot wounds were, for the most part, not graphically depicted in film.

I suppose the thought was that some audience members might be a little squeamish.

Billy Wilder was a director who liked to push the boundaries of acceptable content, albeit mostly thematic. I agree, a little blood in the pool really would have been a nice touch. But the fact that there is none is not a mistake.

[–] jcnyclv (1556) a year ago

Yeah, keelai pointed that out. In thinking about it, there was no blood in other old films either, which I never even noticed! This one stood out to me and I questioned it.

[–] Callahan7 (1155) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jcnyclv (1556) 2 years ago

You're so funny, thanks for the laugh. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Have a great day.

[–] Callahan7 (1155) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Keelai (34853) a year ago

Posters write (Spoiler) in the headline to warn people. It's a minor spoiler, but that was implied by your headline, anyway.

Re: Your question. The film was made in 1950 before the movie rating system. Old Westerns and Ancient Roman movies are relatively bloodless, too. Perhaps too gruesome for the Hays Code.

[–] jcnyclv (1556) a year ago

You're right about there not being blood in other films of that time. I didn't even think of that. For some reason, this one struck me as being a flaw but you're right, there wasn't much blood (if any) in other films of that time either.

Good point, thanks!

[–] Keelai (34853) a year ago

You're welcome! I was around when the MPAA rating system started because movies were no longer "wholesome".

[–] jcnyclv (1556) a year ago

I was around too, albeit 7 when the ratings system took affect in 1968. I was always a horror fanatic so I was used to seeing blood in films from a young age (Night of the Living Dead, Italian horrors, etc.). I've also seen my share of older films that had murders in them, including Sunset Blvd., and I still can't believe that I never noticed there was no blood in them! I think because when someone got shot, the scenes were quick and didn't dwell on the dead bodies. With Joe, not only did we see him get shot, but saw his body in the pool for quite a long time, which made me question the lack of blood. Obviously it's not a flaw, it was the standard at the time. I've updated the heading of this post to reflect it's not a flaw.

Again, thanks for pointing this out, I appreciate it.

[–] MaximRecoil (4597) a year ago

"It is a "fantastic movie" and you posted a major spoiler jackass."

First, it's not a "spoiler" at all, let alone a "major" one. Joe is seen dead in the pool in the very first scene, less than a minute after the movie starts, and the voice-over tells us that he was shot ("two shots in his back and one in his stomach"). So where's the spoiler? The thread-starter didn't even say who shot Joe.

Second, even if it were a spoiler (it isn't); people who are worried about spoilers shouldn't be reading a discussion forum for a movie they haven't seen yet, obviously. If they ignore this bit of common sense, then it's their own fault if they happen upon a spoiler. It's like waltzing into a book discussion group for a book you haven't read, and then declaring that everyone else has to make special accommodations for you by avoiding spoilers when discussing the book.

There are plenty of spoiler-free movie reviews and summaries out there for people who are trying to decide whether or not they want to watch a particular movie. On the other hand, in a movie discussion forum, the whole movie is open for discussion.

[–] Callahan7 (1155) a year ago

[deleted]

[–] Keelai (34853) a year ago

[deleted]

[–] MaximRecoil (4597) a year ago

It's not a spoiler of any kind (not even a minor one); it's not my headline, and it's not my question. I'm not the thread-starter; "jcnyclv" is.

[–] Keelai (34853) a year ago

I moved my post.

Spoiler:
"When someone reveals a previously unknown aspect of something which you likely would have rather learned on your own."

For me, it would be a minor spoiler if I hadn't seen the film several times since I'd rather know nothing about a film before seeing it.

[–] MaximRecoil (4597) a year ago

"For me, it would be a minor spoiler if I hadn't seen the film several times since I'd rather know nothing about a film before seeing it."

Then absolutely everything is a spoiler for you, but that isn't how the term is normally used. If it were, there would be no such thing as a spoiler-free review or summary.

Joe having been shot to death and found floating in a pool is the very first thing we find out in the movie, about 45 seconds after it starts.

The term "spoiler" refers to things meant to be unknown until the intended reveal, which usually happens toward the end of a movie. It doesn't refer to things that were never hidden by the movie makers to begin with, especially not stuff that's shown in the first minute of the movie.

[–] Keelai (34853) a year ago

""spoiler"... usually happens toward the end"

Your post explains the reason why movie trailers reveal 95% of the movie. They'll show everything except the final 15 minutes.

Joe floating in the pool is still meant to be a surprise pulling the viewer into the story.

[–] MaximRecoil (4597) a year ago

"Joe floating in the pool is still meant to be a surprise pulling the viewer into the story."

How can it be a surprise when it's the first thing that's shown in the movie? A surprise is something that goes against expectations, but the audience doesn't have any expectations yet because nothing has been established yet. Not even a minute has passed before we find out that Joe is dead. If the movie were a sequel where things had already been established in a previous installment(s), that would be different.

And everything in a movie is meant to pull the viewer into the story, unless someone is intentionally trying to make a bad movie.

Again, according to your idea of a "spoiler," there's no such thing as a spoiler-free movie review or summary, i.e., every movie review from e.g., Gene Siskel, Leonard Maltin, Roger Ebert, and so on, contains "spoilers." Since that's obviously not the case, your personal definition of a spoiler is at odds with the generally accepted definition.

[–] Seperatrix (1213) a year ago

I'd say it might be considered a "surprise" that the story begins that way. As in, when you see that opening scene you're comparing it with all the other films you've seen and recognize immediately that it's atypical, perhaps something you've never seen before (unless you've seen American Beauty for example).

But from within the story I don't know that it's a surprise since nothing has been established yet.

Anyway, it's a great movie.

[–] greenbudgie (2355) a year ago

I agree with the way you've put it. 'The Barefoot Contessa' begins with Ava Gardner's funeral so we know she's going to die from the opening scene. What lead to her death is what draws us into the movie. The same can be said for William Holden in this one. Films told in flashback have to give us a reveal at the beginning.

[–] jcnyclv (1556) a year ago

👍👍👍

[–] Callahan7 (1155) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] roreyking (591) a year ago

The lack of blood wasn’t a flaw. Times were different then. In films, it wasn’t unusual for a character to grimace and crumple on being shot, but never show any blood. You can see that many times in films of the 4Os & 50s, especially in war pictures. Films shied away from realistic depictions of violence then.