MovieChat Forums > Ecologia del delitto (1972) Discussion > Fathoming the depths of Mario Bava's 'Ba...

Fathoming the depths of Mario Bava's 'Bay Of Blood'-

posted 18 years ago by melvelvit-1
18 replies | jump to latest

Mario Bava's Reazione A Catena (Bay Of Blood aka Twitch Of The Death Nerve 1971) is as joyous and life-affirming as The Sound Of Music and, quite simply, the greatest story ever told:

***SPOILER WARNING***

Falling too deeply into this film will make your skin crawl.
I bugged out and had to shower with insecticide!

PART I

This Italian mystery/thriller (or "giallo") is one of the most misunderstood films of all time due to the fact that it has been packaged and marketed for exploitation purposes as a gory slasher/horror film. Friday The 13th Part 2 (among others) may have ripped off it's set-piece murders, but it's the original Friday The 13th that paid Mario Bava's masterpiece true hommage by remaking it's crime thriller plot: When a long-abandoned waterfront resort threatens to re-open, all hell breaks loose ...in one crazed killer's mind, that is. Although it's not readily apparent, there's only one killer in Reazione A Catena -the bay itself.

The first clue is in the original Italian titles: Ecology Of A Crime, Antefatto (Before The Fact), and Chain Reaction. The titles that try to exploit this film as horror (Bay Of Blood, Twitch Of The Death Nerve, Last House On The Left 2) are catchy but misleading and should be discarded for a true understanding of the film.

Unlike most "style over substance" giallo, Chain Reaction has a perfectly (eco)logical reason why the killer goes on a rampage: it's very survival is at stake!

The weapon of choice for the sole killer in this giallo is a "chain reaction" of murderous dementia that doesn't stop until all who try to harm the bay are eliminated. The carnage begins (Antefatto) when the bay's beloved owner (the Countess) is murdered so that the bay can be inherited and exploited. If you listen closely to one of the Countess' flashbacks, you'll realize that the bay has killed before -many years ago when the bay was hacked up to make the original resort. Once it ran the public off, the bay lay dormant because the Countess became a recluse and kept it as a private estate.

The clues to the "ecology" of this crime are in front of viewer's faces right from the start. The POV insect that buzzes around the bay after opening credits and suddenly drops dead over the water is us (mankind)! The bay will rise up to squash us like bugs if we harm it ...very ironic, since mankind has been doing that to Nature for years. The bay will continue to kill until all who threaten it are extinct!

The strangest critic/viewer comments I've ever seen come when discussing the film's ending. I've seen it referred to as "stupid ...whazzup", "tacked on", "a black comedy joke" and a "shocking surpise ending". That's not quite true after repeated viewings.
The ending is perfectly logical once you remember you're watching a giallo. The killings stop because all who threatened the bay are exterminated. The two children (the new owners by process of elimination) are going down to the bay to play ...not to harm it. If they were running there to Pave Paradise And Put Up A Parking Lot, the movie would not have ended as there would have been more exterminating to do. The bay was at peace (again) because all who schemed to exploit it are gone ...same as it was before the Countess' murder. The tale was told. Where's the surprise in that?

Ecological references are scattered throughout this crime film:
How could anyone miss the poetic justice of the two teens ("making the beast with two backs", their four arms flopping like an insect) getting speared through and through. It mirrors a scene in the film where the insect-collector puts pins through helpless (and still living) bugs. Payback is fair play when Nature's threatened. Didn't the insect-collector's tarot-reading wife warn us that the "sickle of death" has settled over the bay right after the Countess was killed?

Many modern-day viewers seem to have 80's slasher films as their only frame of reference but this is a giallo. The teens weren't there to increase the body count and weren't killed because they had pre-marital sex. They wandered into this film for a reason and got killed for it. The (ecological) reason for the crime is because they were just the type of plunderers that a re-opened resort would attract, the kind that would leave their garbage all over the place. The bay did not want to be overrun with destructive human-bugs (the same way picnic goers don't want to be overrun with ants)! NOTE: The teen (Brigitte Skay) who takes a dip in the bay finds her leg entangled in a rope that's twined around a dead body. The body is that of the Countess' husband, the man who originally built the resort, and the girl is the typical type that the resort would attract. That's why they're tied together!

Numerous references are made in the film's dialogue comparing mankind to the insect world:

The first time Claudine Auger (the next to inheirit the bay) and her husband are seen, they're hiding behind trees using binoculars, looking like a big-eyed bug on a leaf. We see (POV) through the "Claudine-bug's" eyes the bug-collector chase his prey (predator-bug watches man watch bug). In two key scenes, Auger's eyes are photograhed without the whites showing, making her look like a queen bee.

Claudine Auger's children are seen three times in the film. They're always in the camper ...the same way the insect-collector keeps his pet bug "Ferdinand" in a glass box. Once all predators have been eliminated, the children and nature can run free and not be "boxed up".

It's no coincidence the four teens roll up to the resort in a Dune Bug-gy and after they're killed the Dune Buggy actually smiles.

This film was made in 1971, the era of hippies and ecological concerns (remember "earth shoes")? Why wouldn't a giallo use this topical subject the way Hollywood mainstream horror films like Ray Milland's Frogs did in 1972?

Reazione A Catena is mesmerizingly beautiful. The film palpatates with the bay's presence, it's the most "fleshed out" member of the cast (and the most deadly).

The musical score tells the tale: During opening credits, the bay's theme plays slightly ominous as a blood-red sundown begins. Primitive drums play, signifying the bay is stirring, angry that it's threatened again as it's owner is about to be murdered. At the end of the film, the same theme has been transformed into a happy children's song as the two kids run through flowers to play in golden sunshine by the bay. The killer can rest, the threat gone for now.
WARNING: Whenever the drums of death start up throughout the film, know the bay is getting ready to strike ...yet when the children are first seen through a camper window a light airy flute plays, telling us the children will never come to harm.

The killer actually shows itself (briefly): In the form of an octopus, the bay can be seen wrapping tentacled fingers around the head of the man who murdered the Countess, before being plucked off and thrown back where it came from.

The moment the Countess is killed, those responsible reap the whirlwind. The bay unleashes it's chain reaction, infecting the destructive schemers like rabies and the cast go at each other like sharks on a feeding frenzy until they're all exterminated.

The forces of Nature are often deadly but never evil. The bay had no choice but to use the children as weapons to eliminate the last two predators, but the children wanted to help (even if only subconciously). Note: When the tarot reader is decapitated, her head rolls (metaphorically) at the children's feet in the form of a broken porcelain doll's head. A child cries out "Give it HERE!!"
The meaning: The child is saying " Give it to ME! Give ME the weapon! Infect ME! I'll HELP you Mister Bay!"

THE THREE NON-PREDATOR MURDERS:
Three characters that weren't there to destroy the bay were slaughtered by it for serious lapses in judgement that cost them their lives:

SIMON:
The Countess' family owned the bay for centuries and was it's protector along with her illigitimate son Simon. He was never targeted for extermination. Like the children, he was used only as a weapon to eliminate the predators, but he betrayed the bay. The moment he remembers he signed papers selling the property he was run through with a spear and pinned to a wall (like the ungrateful insect he was.)

THE TAROT READER:
This lady did the bay no harm and was not a target either, but this film is a giallo, which have certain rules, and she violated a big one: If a character happens upon or deduces who the killer is long before the movie's over, they've basically signed their death warrant. Her tarot cards told her way too much! If she wasn't half in the bag all the time, she'd have realized she was way a-head of her time in figuring out the killer's identity. that's why the killer chopped it off!

THE BUG-COLLECTOR:
Nature tolerates a small amount of plundering (if we live and let live) and the bay allowed Simon to fish and the collector to add specimens to his collection, but the collector knew too much: He was the last one living who remembered what happened the first time the Countess' husband tried to open a resort. The exact details and the actual bodycount is never revealed, but in one conversation the collector refers to the resort's original opening as "Hell", and the Countess says she "suffered" and wouldn't dream of ever re-opening the resort again. The bug collector died because he revealed to Claudine Auger and her husband who the killer was. Ironically, Auger misunderstood him. He said the resort had to close because of too many insects. She took it to mean the place was infested with them and people wouldn't come. A fatal misunderstanding because what the bug-collector meant was: The original opening of the resort brought swarms of human insects and the bay put a quick (and deadly) end to that. Knowing too much is one thing, but TALKING about it is suicide. That's why the killer strangled him with a TELEPHONE cord!

The Countess was the only character the bay didn't kill. Her murder was ANTEFATTO (Before The Fact). The fact is: Her death left the bay vulnerable to ravenous predators swooping in for the kill, ripping Nature apart to lay down concrete and hotels. This in turn would bring humans swarming like insects to the place, destroying it's Natural beauty. The bay wasn't about to let that kind of "chain reaction" happen, so it let loose a chain reaction of it's own!

Chain Reaction is the best and most clever giallo ever made, A virtual Rubik's Cube of a mystery/thriller puzzle. Mario Bava turns the giallo genre conventions on it's ear with this film. In most gialli the cast is slaughtered for an inheritance, but this time out the inheritance butchers the cast.

Again, this is not a horror film although it is horrific and not a slasher film although some of the cast are sliced open. It's also not a sick joke, although there's sly humor galore. If anyone was foolish enough to believe Mario Bava when he called this film "a piece of sh!t", the joke was on them.

Reely watch this film (either for the first time ...or again and again) and savor....then start a Chain Reaction by telling your friends...

PART II

Diving to the depth of a bloody bay

****SPOILER WARNING****
The killer in Reazione A Catena becomes ever more clear...

SUPERSTITIONS:
There are many here and they confounded me at first, but no more.

There are 13 cast members:

THE (antefatto) COUNTESS
SIMON (her illegitimate son)
THE COUNTESS' HUSBAND
THE COUNTESS' STEP-DAUGHTER (Claudine Auger)
THE STEP-DAUGHTER'S HUSBAND

THE ARCHITECT NEIGHBOR
THE ARCHITECT'S MISTRESS
THE BUG-COLLECTING NEIGHBOR
THE TAROT READER (the bug-collector's wife)
and:
FOUR TEEN-AGE INVADERS

The two small children are not listed in cast/credits!

13 DEATHS:
One murder and a dozen grusome killings. The Countess' death was before the fact and was the only real 'crime' committed in the film. The other twelve deaths were in self-defense.
The story takes place on Friday the 13th.
In order to fake the Countess' suicide, the predators ripped a page from her diary to use as a "farewell note". That page is dated February 13.
The weekend aspect is unspoken (like alot in Bay), but it's a given as Claudine Auger and husband bring the kids with them to the bay in a camper, unlikely on a weekday.

THE TAROT:
When the Tarot-reader looks to her cards a second time she turns up a card with a large black sword on it and says aloud:
"The 13th Face...."
With the Countess dead "before the fact", there are 12 cast members left in the film. The 13th face is the killer's. The bay. After saying that, the tarot-reader never turned another card in this world again.

POSSESSION:
Two years before The Exorcist, Mario Bava used possession as a way to reveal the culprit:
During a confrontation scene in Simon's shed between Simon and the architect's mistress, Simon's eyes grow large and in a voice not his own he tells her:
"You killed my mother, you were in on it and that's why you're going to die!"
The girl pleads and says it's not true: they wanted the bay but didn't have murder in mind. Simon kills her ANYWAY, and as he kneels over her body he looks at her and sees a flashback:
The Architect and his mistress are sitting alone in his car and together they hatch a scheme to kill the Countess. There is no way this was Simon's memory. How could it be, he wasn't there. It was THE BAY'S all knowing memory and was telling us the girl was a liar and did plot the murder and that's why she died!

****THE MEANING OF ALL THIS****
Tarots, superstitons, possessions, et al. are there to show anyone who can't suspend disbelief (and may be tempted to say "Absurd! How can a BAY kill?") that THERE ARE MORE THINGS IN HEAVEN AND EARTH THAN WE ARE EVEN CAPABLE OF CONCEIVING!

A note on the MUSICAL SCORE:
Brilliant and vital to the tale. The sad forlorn piano theme accompanying the Countess as she wheels around in the opening scenes is repeated only ONCE more. When Simon hangs dead on a wooden wall it starts again. This shows us how the bay felt about it's beloved owner and the son who lived there all his days. Simon was kept in a shack by the bay all his life so the Countess could have him near. Athough UNSPOKEN, I know that the bay punished the countess for trying to open a resort by crippling her so she'd always stay near.
The bay is also happy (breifly!) at one point in the film when one of the teens (Brigitte Skay) strips to take a dip in it. Peaceful musical score here because 'Getting back to nature' IS beautiful.
But primitive drums beat ominously for Claudine and her husband, the four teens and the tarot-reader whenever she starts to turn cards!

GETTING BACK TO NATURE sets one free:
Throughout the film, the bug-collector keeps "Ferdinand", his favorite bug, in a little glass box and takes him out to play with at key points in the film.
The uncredited (and therefore innocent) children are only seen twice in the film. Both times they're locked in a camper (a la "Ferdinand") until the end when they're set free as the new owners of the bay. As the children of Auger, they are next in line to inherit.
THE FILM ENDS AS IT BEGINS, with the bay at peace and accord with it's caretaker/owners.

The last words Claudine Auger's husband says to her before they're blown away:

"ALL'S WELL THAT ENDS WELL!"

Indeed.

;
There's less to this than meets the eye ...as bees in honey drown

[–] kinetica 18 years ago

Having seen this film and many others of Mario's AND having seen many european and middle eastern and eastern films I can only say "YES" you are correct in your assessment. Eastern European movies have this flare about them. It is definately obvious. OLD hollywood used to make films like this, but then OLD hollywood spent decades in europe and the east, while new hollywood centers more often on just plain ugly VICE.

Great explanation!

Ticks Ticks thousands of ticks, and not one blessed TOCK among them!

[–] bad_habitt 18 years ago

yeah, great stuff.

"how about... a royal flush!" *loren avedon kicks a cauldron of boiling water into the bad guys*

[–] Stink_Face 18 years ago

Yes, yes a very very entertaining read. The general theme of the bay reaching out and being the reason for all these deaths would seem relevant, but I don't agree the bay was actually striking out. All of these characters had 'FREE WILL' and choe to butcher eachother for persaonl gain. However, there are a few parts i don't think ring true and are a far streatch of your imagination to make details fit, i.e strangulation with a telephone cord, it was another way for someone to get killed instead of another slicing or stabbing and being repetitive. In addition to your idea that the girl is tied to the original murderer, it's a far stretch, entertaining but I don't agree.

I also don't agree on Simon's possession:

Two years before THE EXORCIST, Bava used possession as a way to reveal the culprit: During a confrontation scene in Simon's shed between Simon and the architect's mistress, Simon's eyes grow large and in a voice not his own he tells her: "You killed my mother, you were in on it and that's why you're going to die!" The girl pleads and says it's not true: they wanted the bay but didn't have murder in mind. Simon kills her ANYWAY, and as he kneels over her body he looks at her and sees a flashback: The Architect and his mistress are sitting alone in his car and together they hatch a scheme to kill the Countess. There is no way this was Simon's memory. How could it be, he wasn't there. It was THE BAY'S all knowing memory and was telling us the girl was a liar and did plot the murder and that's why she died!

It was just a film flashback, I don't think it had anything to do with Simon's memory as far as I can see.

Also, I disagree with you explanation of the ending, I feel strongly that it was meant as a curve ball and sick joke. All that killing, risk, danger and tension and then BANG all gone in one shot.

However, loved the time you took to analyse this movie, it's fun to see what you can extract from a film in the way of subtext.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] splattaflix 17 years ago

I love your interpretation of it, even though I don't agree. I like to think of the movie as a study of HUMAN nature, greed, fear, etc. and almost a slight parody of gialli before it.

But that's kinda boring compared to your version! I'll have to watch for all these subtle clues next time.

They go in Hollister as cute little kids and come out THE STEPFORD TEENS

[–] melvelvit-1 17 years ago

I saw Bay Of Blood the same way you did for over 30 years and it was still one of my favorite movies. I first saw it in the drive-in in the early 70s as Last House On The Left Part II but one humid, smoky night in August, 2004 I got an Epiphany while watching my VHS tape (an annual summer ritual for me) when I sat bolt upright and yelled out "I know who the killer is! I know who the killer is!!"

If you think about it, how could it be about Human nature? One of the biggest charges leveled against it over the years is it's lack of character development. The characters are little more than one-dimensional and are only there to be killed off is a common complaint -kind of like pesky ants at a picnic...

;
There's less to this than meets the eye ...as bees in honey drown

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] melvelvit-1 17 years ago

It's always cool to meet a like-minded individual and thanks for the background on Bava & Betti, I didn't know that!
Everytime I see this movie I see more and you will too. So deep and yet so very simple ...and much misunderstood until now. Bava himself called it "a piece of sh!t" and I think that was because no one ever got it and he may have felt it failed. It only took over 30 years for "understanding". I hope he's looking down and seeing it finally come into its own. I've never had a filmic Epiphany before or since and Bava is the only filmmaker to rip reality and show me something truly cosmic.
Reazione A Catena is more joyous and life-affirming than The Sound Of Music and it's become a Holiday Tradition for me to screen it every New Year's Eve!

;
There's less to this than meets the eye ...as bees in honey drown

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] melvelvit-1 17 years ago

The greatest thing about Reazione A Catena is it's endless capacity for discovery (even self-discovery) and I think I've only scratched the surface.
Thank you for contributing all the Bava background to this "thread" (it's actually more of a love letter to my favorite film) and you've got me very interested -I think it's long past time I bought a Bava book. I'm taking your post as a hearty recommendation for Howarth!

;
There's less to this than meets the eye ...as bees in honey drown

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] melvelvit-1 17 years ago

Bay Of Blood is the greatest story ever told and my Citizen Kane is beyone cult -it's pagan religion personified. The legacy lives on:

Although not an all-time "giallo" favorite of mine (even though it scared the crap out of me when I saw it in the theater) Sean S. Cunningham's Friday The 13th (1980) is not only a remake of the Bava but the "missing link" between the Giallo and the Slasher.

Think about it:
Bay Of Blood's murderous set-pieces may have been lifted for Friday The 13th Part II but the original Friday The 13th is nothing less than a remake of the Bava:

All hell breaks loose when a long-abandoned waterfront resort threatens to re-open.

There's Camp Crystal Lake and the bay of blood with the same killer -Mother Nature in the Bava, a heart-broken mother in Friday The 13th- right down to the white fisherman's sweater worn by both Simon and Mrs. Voorhees.
All the Friday The 13th sequels are Slasher films with supernatural Jason as the killer but the original, while not up to the Bava, is really an adaptation of the greatest story ever told with a killer that cries giallo. The original Friday The 13th became one of the most influential films of its time because it kicked off the American Slasher cycle with a vengeance and, since Bava's complex/simple masterpiece was the inspiration, I think it's the missing link between the Giallo and the Slasher genres. Ironically, this is probably controversial in concept because one of the reasons the Golden Age The Giallo ended with the 70s was the Slasher cycle of the 80s which catered to an ever more jaded audience.

;
There's less to this than meets the eye ...as bees in honey drown

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] melvelvit-1 16 years ago

A European poster just shared this with me:

i watched the British Bafta awards last night, after the interval, host Jonathan Ross spoke about(...and i'm paraphrasing...) "how many great talents were present and all the great films they had seen so far, but now I'd like to talk to you for a half an hour or so about a passion of mine, Italian films of the 1970's.....called Gialli......in particular the films of Mario Bava.....Needless to say the audience were muted and perplexed and the joke died a death.

It sounds like Bava & Gialli were the butt of the joke but it's nice to see this sub-genre get some recognition among the creme de la creme. I realize there's paraphrasing but Mario Bava only made two Gialli in the 70s: Hatchet For The Honeymoon and Bay Of Blood. It's finally come to pass -Reazione a Catena has been recognized at a prestigious awards presentation!
Yes!!

;
There's less to this than meets the eye ...as bees in honey drown

[–] DrinkFromTheSameFountain 13 years ago

That was a fascinating interpretation, I must say. And I love your enthusiasm. Do you consider this to be Bava's masterpiece?

I like Dario Argento, but I LOVE Mario Bava. He really knew what he was doing. And his films were so lush. I think that's the best word for me.

[–] melvelvit-1 13 years ago

Hi, 'fountain'!

Do you consider this to be Bava's masterpiece?

As one of my all-time favorite films, Mario Bava's Reazione A Catena is definitely a masterpiece in my personal pantheon but objectively speaking, I'm not so sure.
When I saw it at the Drive-In as Last House On The Left II (the second half of a double feature) back in the mid-70s, I loved it and when I got a VCR in the early 80s I bought the tape. I'd tune in every now and again over the years but it wasn't until a hot August night in 2004 that I saw the light. That was when I shot bolt upright out of a stoned stuper while watching it and said, "Oh ...my ...God... OMG, I know who the killer is! I know who the killer is!"
I played the tape back and sure enough, everything fell into place, I couldn't believe it and put what I saw into this post.

If it took a fan who's watched it many times over thirty years to "get it", imagine how disappointed Bava must have been when audiences and critics at the time didn't see beyond the surface of the set-piece slayings the one time they saw the film. It may have been too ambitious is scope for 86 minutes and although I can't say for sure, I believe this is why Bava would later refer to his film as "a piece of sh!t". I think he's selling it a bit short, tho -that it can be enjoyed without having to know what's really going on is saying something, too. It's true, Mario's ne plus ultra giallo is "the great grand daddy of all slasher films" but it's also so much more.
Thanks for reading my ramblings!

;
There's less to this than meets the eye ...as bees in honey drown

[–] PoppyTransfusion 12 years ago

A sublime OP; creative and well argued with clear reference to the film. I watched Bay of Blood for the first time and was a little disappointed but having read your OP I need to watch it again with different eyes, so-to-speak.

I'm a fountain of blood
In the shape of a girl