So I am deep in pre-pre-production for my independent film, and I suddenly realized I hadn’t thought about one aspect of the project as much as I should have.
I initially just matter-of-factly started working with my guys to get the “squibs” (remotely detonated blood bags to simulate being shot) ready while I moved on to other things and then when I was scrubbing through my collection of films for some other research, I realized I couldn’t find a single instance where someone getting shot was denoted by a “burst” of blood. Not one. 75% of the gunshots end in a victim grabbing their side or spinning to the ground or both. The other 25% that include blood only show “static” blood, and always on a cut-away scene showing the victim after the scene where the gunman pulls the trigger.
Wow - these movies were always so violent and action-packed (aka awesome) in my mind - I can’t believe my brain ever grasped that I wasn’t seeing arterial spray. To the point that when I saw Django Unchained I didn’t even count the endless showers of red-mist among its “non” spaghetti western tropes.
So all this to say - Do you guys think it is OK to stay true to the genre and show homage by using no blood and just an actor grabbing his guts and hitting the ground - or will that be lost on a no-budget film audience and read as a cop-out or something?
I have the capability to go either way - but I’m on the fence. All I’ll add is sans shooting in Spain I am trying to follow every other letter of the genre to a T… a spag-eh-“T”
I should say that there might be “one” film out there (even though it’s not in my top 20), but I am trying to reflect the majority.