Nowadays, with dash cams in police units and citizens whipping out their smart phones to record video of LE confrontations, the general public may be more aware than previous generations of the possible real-world effects of gunshot wounds.
If one looks at their portrayal in films spanning more than a century, there's what could be called an evolution taking place. In the earliest films, such as The Great Train Robbery (1903), victims often thrust their arms skyward and executed theatrical pirouettes before dropping. By the 30s, a dramatic clutching of the wound and momentary agonized expression typically preceded collapse (usually with no sign of blood or even evident damage to clothing) or, in the alternate "flesh wound" depiction, the hero or villain stoically or obsessively "pushing through the pain" until either their triumph or coup de gras. The '60s and '70s ushered in an era of graphic exaggeration with exploding squibs, copiously bursting blood packs and bodies hurled many feet backward into walls or through windows.
In the cases of both Chinatown and Double Indemnity, the non-fatal nature of the wounds is handled in distinctly low-key and unsensational fashion, as befits the mature and methodical character of their respective screenplays and direction.
It may also be worth mentioning that Evelyn is firing a small caliber derringer, and that (again, in the real world) where a bullet goes after entering or passing through the body and what it does to muscle, sinew, bone and organs has great impact (no pun intended) upon how the victim reacts.
Truth be told, I've heard more complaints about the distance and accuracy of the shot that Loach gets off, ultimately halting Evelyn's escape. But as with any seemingly implausible plot device, my attitude is that it need only be possible, no matter how unlikely.
Poe! You are...avenged!
reply
share