Profondo rosso/Deep Red (1975)
Review Proper (Concluded)
Two Questions, One Answer
One of the more amusing aspects of the next two questions, “What was the painting taken from Ulmann’s house” and “Why was it taken?”, is that they fundamentally have the same answer. On this, they are the frame work on which the plot hangs. For if it wasn’t for the “picture” it’s quite likely a whole lot of people wouldn’t have been killed.
Consider this: Martha goes to Ulmann’s apartment for the express purpose of killing her. Before she leaves, would be Good Samaritan Marcus arrives. While she might not know at the time he’s seen her (I think she would have killed him there and then if she had), she finds out soon enough due to Gianna’s sensational headline (and/or the rumors swirling afterward). Carlo tries to warn him away later in the film, but if Marcus wants to survive, he needs to find remember that one little detail.
And what a detail it is. Here Argento plays absolutely straight with his audience. If you watch Marcus entering Ulmann’s apartment carefully, you can spot Martha there. With it being only a moment and in a location to the side of where the camera’s focus, you’d have to be looking for it to see it. Extremely bold.
But then again, the whole idea is. It answers the audiences questions in an unexpected, yet plausible fashion, in away that afterward you could believe a person could miss.
What a wonderful thing. A MacGuffin that doesn’t actually exist at all.
"Hear that? That's another girl who heard a noise then went investigating alone in the dark. City's full of them. Or WAS full of them..."
The Unanswered Questions
Where Deep Red goes wrong (assuming you’d call it wrong) is as I stated in the questions it doesn’t answer. In the time old mystery tradition, questions of motive and opportunity.
By motive, I don’t mean “Why does Martha kill?” She does so to hide the first murder, that of her husband. Or, if you rather, she kills to protect herself from being discovered. It’s stated right there during the demonstration with Ulmann.
No, the real problem with motive is just why is Martha there in the first place? From what we see of her, it doesn’t seem like the whole psychic thing is one of her interests, especially at the level of European Congress on Parapsychology. What possible reason could there be for her being there?
Speaking about her being places she shouldn’t be, isn’t it interesting how she managed to stay one step ahead of Marcus? First in killing writer Amanda, then killing Professor Giordani just as he discovered who was doing the killing. Most convenient. Almost as if she was psychic.
And maybe she was.
I reiterate, I’ve not done any study on the background of Deep Red. What I say might well be completely off base. However, I strikes me that most of the above plot problems could be explained away if Martha was psychic herself. It could explain her interest in the phenomena and sure as hell cover knowing things she really shouldn’t.
There are some indications that this might be the case. The scene at the library, where Marcus discovers the picture of the house, has a moment at the end with the sound of wind and strange cries, suggests the preternatural. Then, long before that, there is Ulmann’s claims of a twisted mind sending her twisted, murderous thoughts. Maybe it doesn’t take a lot of reading between the lines to see such things present in the film.
If it is the case, if Martha is psychic, then it shouldn’t have been obscure as it is. If it isn’t then the above questions remain unanswered. Either way, I’m afraid it brings down the film. Not a lot, mind. Just enough.
We told him not to watch MANOS: THE HAND OF FATE uncut, but he wouldn't listen. Now look at him.
Final Thoughts
Now the previous remarks, as well as the various gaffes I noticed as the film proceeded, shouldn’t have happened. Some of the bad effects works (the house burning down, for instance) shouldn’t have been there. And I’m sure somewhere I’ve missed something or another that is perfectly obvious.
I don’t think it matters.
Deep Red was meant to disturb. To bring unease. To ratchet up the tension until the very end. I think it succeeds, despite its faults. Would it be better with a flaw less? Sure. As it is, it’s a fine Horror flick. One worth seeking out.
But in its complete form. Avoid the out-of-copyright versions.
Speaking of other versions, how the hell does one even think this movie should be called The Hatchet Murders? It looks like Martha uses a cleaver most of the time, and even then only one out of the four killings.
It’s almost as bad as calling The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. One killing doesn’t a massacre make, people.
Pingback: Written in Blood