MovieChat Forums > Theatre of Blood (1973) Discussion > Question about a minor detail

Question about a minor detail

posted 19 years ago by jclayton-2
17 replies | jump to latest

My friend and I weren't sure how that one critic's severed head got from the bedroom where his wife and maid saw it to the milk bottles on Devlin's front doorstep. Are we to assume that Price went back and stole the head while the wife and maid were running around hysterically? I was wondering if the filmmakers originally intended to have a headless body in the bed but then decided to put the head there and didn't think about how it might then turn up across town.

[–] luke_bannon 19 years ago

It was a stupid moment I admit; though it's a B movie so I just smile and nod and go on.

ThE MaStER wOuLd NoT ApPrOvE- Torgo

[–] sdh500 19 years ago

Just seen it and came to these pages to find out if this very question had been asked. It makes no sense at all how that head got to the milk bottle top.

[–] monsieurzy 18 years ago

pay more attention when you watch a movie...it's quite easy for Price and Rigg to still be in the trunk in the morning ..after the maid and wife pass out from shock, they steal the head and take off.
.why is this so difficult for you to figure out??

[–] ian-onions 18 years ago

I think it's implied that the head in the bedroom is a dummy, Lionheart and daughter took the real one with them...

[–] monsieurzy 17 years ago

..I think you're reading waaay too much into it, my friend.

[–] axis12002 16 years ago

Obviously in reality both heads were FX dummies (or more likely the same one used twice).

However due to budget/technique both LOOK fake - as a result it is difficult to work out if one or either is meant to be fake in the context of the film.

Personally, I can't see how Lionheart could have retrieved the head after the maid & wife found it - therefore I have always assumed that one of them was a dummy head made by Lionheart

Probably however the real answer is that the film makers just wanted a bit more gore and didn't think through the in-film logistics.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] axis12002 16 years ago

"Really? Wow, thanks for the heads up on that."

============================================

Did you actually read the rest of my post?

My point was based on the difficulty of working out what is supposed to be real and/or fake when pretty ropey special effects are used.

My opening line therefore wasn't meant to be a revelation to you or anyone else - merely part of that argument and an attempt to stop a pedantic d**ckhead feeling the need to come up with some smarta**e reply along the lines of pointing out that all such discussions were fundamentally flawed because it was only a film and therefore not real.

Oh well - never mind.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jaddjamar 15 years ago

I've always believed the head in the bed is a stage prop.

[–] efs2 17 years ago

lol

Just because I don't care doesn't mean I'm not listening.

[–] deering24 16 years ago

"I can't imagine anyone programming such relatively unpopular plays as Henry Sixes (did they do the whole trilogy?!), Cymbeline, Titus Andronicus, and Troilus and Cressida in a single season."

Most likely, Lionheart was such an egohead that he figured _his_ brillance would be the one to make such plays "work." After all, any old genius could do a season of MACBETH, HAMLET, and HENRY V, right? ;) But only a true genius would dare try to make masterpieces out of Shakespeare's less-successful plays. Lionheart intended that season to be his defining masterwork--something that would not only fix him up in acting Olympus, but would prove he was a Olivier/Gielgud Renaissance man.

"Maybe he had more than the critics to blame for his stagnant career."

Homes _really_ needed to dial down his acting a bit. :) What probably really pissed him off was the critics were essentially saying his olde-schoole Edmund Lear-type acting was obsolete by giving the award to a (horrors!)Method actor.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GroovyDave1973 15 years ago

I always felt there was a scene missing regaurding the head/s......really it is the only thing that makes sense.

I doubt the head was there when the maid knocked on the door....she would have noticed it.

I as mentioned above think that they went back in the trunk.....when the wife and the maid fainted they picked up the head then placed the head at the door.....then say something witty like "Put the head over heels" or something.

Who's Afraid of the big Bad Wolf

[–] Montmartre1 15 years ago

that's a riot! I think it was just an error?!
I watched it yesterday and didn't pick up on it, which is hysterical because I write! There are writers (famous ones, not me!) who don't realize until they get to their second draft that they've killed off a character and write about him later as living!
I can't believe I didn't pick up on that in the film, truthfully, I think it was an error--either way because even if they deleted a connecting scene, they still didn't clarify it!