The 1975 Italian investigative horror film Deep Red attempts to tell a detective story, following a ruthless murderer who seems to consistently be one step ahead of him. It seems to pride itself in not pulling its punches in its graphic depictions of its deaths: one character is drowned in scalding hot water, another’s head is smashed against a desk corner repeatedly, and a third is dragged by a garbage truck and then gets his head crushed by the wheel of a moving vehicle. But who performs these violent acts? Well, the last one is an accident, so nobody, but as the lead detective Marcus Daly (who is not an actual Detective, but rather a jazz conductor who, for some reason, heads this case despite having no relation to the first victim besides being a minor witness) follows a thread that continues to wind and weave through different locations, the identity of the person committing these crimes is cloaked in a brown leather trench coat with black leather gloves… or is it?
At the end of the movie, it is revealed that the murderer is completely visible in a single shot at the beginning of the movie, as Marcus searches the first victim’s apartment. This shot is set up in a very specific way: it depicts Marcus walking down a hallway filled with paintings, the camera positioned behind him, capturing the left side of the hallway as it follows him walking. At roughly the middle of the hallway, there is a diverging path that goes off to the left, and from that little bit of wall that can be seen, a mirror reflecting a similar painting can be seen. He continues walking, but later returns to the hallway and is unable to find the painting he noticed in his initial passthrough. At the end of the movie it is revealed that the painting was not in fact removed, but rather was a different painting with the murderer standing in front of it, face fully pointed at the mirror, and thus at the camera. When it came out, this single shot was a huge deal in the scene, and is largely the reason this film is remembered today. Nobody had ever seen this bold of a clue hidden in an investigative story before. It set a new standard for what was possible in a detective film, and made the genre even more enticing to consume, with eagle-eyed viewers really believing that they would be able to figure out whodunnit if they paid close enough attention.
That being said, I think that this moment is absolutely ridiculous. First off, the murderer revealed in this scene had not been even seen on screen yet, so anyone who noticed the shot for what it was wouldn’t make a connection, but instead be confused, which is exactly what happened to me. When I first watched this scene, though I couldn’t tell what specifically was off, this shot immediately set off alarm bells in my head that something was up. To me, the shot just looked like passing a hallway with a person standing in it, and I was really lost as to why that kind of just got ignored in the moment. Furthermore, when he went back and noticed the painting was different and began searching for it, I only became more confused as I had already understood what was meant to be the supposed plot twist at the end. Upon analyzing it further, I think that something else which makes this reveal not work is the very specific camerawork used; so specific, in fact, that it isn’t seen anywhere else in the film. Deep Red is comprised nearly completely out of still shots, and the shots that are moving generally are used to provide a fuller view of the space than would be possible with a still shot. But why is it so then that this shot couldn’t be explained by giving further exposure to this hallway? Well, the shot only shows, at most, 1/3 of the hallway. If the shot was meant to give the audience a better sense of the apartment’s layout, it would follow Marcus from directly behind, allowing a view of both walls and giving an idea of the room he is walking toward. As a result of this, this shot feels intentional to an extent where something feels off.
Setting my critiques of the shot aside, what Deep Red attempts did indeed push the boundary for what was possible in an investigative film, and paved the way for many that followed it. Directors, cinematographers, and screenplay writers learned from Deep Red (in both its successes and failures) as to how to better give the audience the chance to “solve the riddle” before the answer is given. For example, in Rian Johnson’s 2019 murder mystery Knives Out, subtle hints can be potentially noticed, giving characters context and even alibis. One specific instance of this happens when dealing with the relationship between Linda Drysdale, daughter of the murdered Harlan Thrombey, and her husband Richard. Before being murdered, Harlan finds out that Richard is cheating on Linda, and threatens to tell her with a letter in an envelope. After his death, Richard goes through Harlan’s desk and finds the letter, opening it and finding a blank sheet of paper. Annoyed at Harlan’s seemingly empty threat, he leaves it on the desk torn open. But not two scenes later, Linda can be seen remembering her father by going through old letters he has given to her, and the paper can be seen having singed edges, hinting to the audience that the letters are written in invisible ink, and can be revealed by holding a flame beneath them; this idea is later explained more explicitly, but this single small shot, intentionally included, allows for the audience to make this connection much earlier on, giving character information to the relationships between Harlan, Linda, and Richard, and as a result allowing viewers to come to more formed conclusions about characters and their motives for murdering Harlan.
In all, the inclusion of this “aha moment” in Deep Red, in retrospect, feels confusing, disappointing, and underwhelming. It allows viewers to make a connection not by giving them a hidden clue, but just hiding the answer in plain sight. While this technique is overall a failure in Deep Red, the film’s pioneering of this technique displayed what is possible for more modern detective stories, and as a result, can be recognized in its on right as a success for the genre as a whole.
By Tyler Ziemba
Intermittent Mechanism 