As September rolls around and the countdown to Halloween begins (yes, we are that kind of people), there’s no better time to dive into one of the season’s most iconic element: blood. Whether it’s the crimson splash in horror flicks or the arterial spray in action scenes, how blood is portrayed can greatly impact your film. But how has its depiction in movies evolved?
A BRIEF HISTORY OF BLOOD IN FILM
Despite our long-standing fascination with blood (and gore), in the early days of cinema, hemoglobin was rarely depicted in graphic detail. Violence was often implied through shadows and lighting rather than explicitly depicted. An example of this is the shower scene in Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960), where the stabbing is suggested, not shown. And the blood swirling down the drain? Chocolate syrup!
This all changed with Herschell Gordon Lewis—known as the "Godfather of Gore"—and his film Blood Feast in 1963. Lewis broke new ground by featuring graphic violence and copious amounts of blood, effectively launching the "splatter" genre and paving the way for more explicit depictions of violence on screen.
"I accept Psycho as a film that suggested what was to come later, but it wasn’t like Blood Feast where the tongue gets pulled out", the Godfather of Gore
So, for much of cinema history, practical effects were the go-to method for creating blood on screen. SFX artists crafted various mixes, often using corn syrup and red dye as a base, to achieve the desired texture, color and viscosity. Techniques such as squibs (small explosive devices to simulate gunshots), air-filled tubes for spurts and splashes, and pressurized pumps for arterial sprays were essential tools in their toolkit. These methods are still used today, though with more modern and safer approaches (lucky us!). But sometimes, it's all trial and error—like when actor Harry Crosby was blinded for six months after the crimson mixture, made with "special ingredient" Kodak Photo Flo for realism, got into his eye during the shooting of Friday the 13th (1980), as reported in the Netflix series The Movies That Made Us.
It's the constant evolution of these techniques that has allowed filmmakers to use blood not just for realism, but as a storytelling device. For instance, Quentin Tarantino’s approach in Kill Bill (2003) shows how blood can be more than just a gruesome detail—it can be a key part of the film's stylized, artistic vision. Drawing inspiration from the exaggerated, vibrant red blood sprays in the samurai film Lady Snowblood (1973), the director opted for a more theatrical and impactful depiction rather than ultra-realism.
“I’m really particular about the blood, so we’re using a mixture depending on the scenes. I say, ‘I don’t want horror movie blood, all right? I want Samurai blood”, Tarantino, IGN.
However, going practical can present challenges; the messiness of multiple takes can make the process both time-consuming and costly. Sometimes, you only have one shot—one opportunity to get it right. This was the case with the emblematic elevator scene in The Shining (1980). As Leon Vitali, Kubrick's personal assistant recalls in a Yahoo! interview: "we spent weeks and weeks and weeks trying to get the quality and colour of the blood as natural as it could be. [...] And then, of course, there were the mechanics of it, because if you have that much pressure inside something like an elevator, it’s going to blow if you’re not careful". It was so stressful, that Kubrick himself left the set when it was time to shoot. Needless to say, the stakes were high. Today, this scene would likely be done with CGI, as seen in Spielberg's Ready Player One (2018).
THE RISE OF CGI BLOOD
The advent of CGI revolutionized many aspects of filmmaking, including the depiction of blood. But it did not come without controversy. CG blood is often criticized for lacking the gritty authenticity of practical effects. However, whether you like it or not, CGI has undeniably enabled more creative, complicated and definitively gory scenes, ranging from ultra-realistic to more fantastical depictions.
But why is it used so often now? Like practical effects, CGI blood is customizable, but it’s also often cheaper and saves tons of time on set—no need for clean-up! Most importantly, you can truly direct it. Similar to the logs in Final Destination 2 (2003), by doing it in post, you can exaggerate the effect, correct it or fine-tune it to perfectly match your vision. This flexibility is evident in films like Deadpool & Wolverine (2024), where it is used extensively and extravagantly to amplify the violence. Or in 300 (2006), where the spurts of blood are deliberately exaggerated to mimic the comic book's style, amidst epic and complicated stunts.
On the other hand, some films require a more subtle and realistic approach. For instance, Joker (2019), which uses far more VFX than you might expect, incorporates CG in every scene where blood appears—such as the first murder on the train, the apartment fight and the climactic shooting of Robert De Niro's character. A lesser-known example occurs near the film's end, when the Joker stands atop a car and paints a bloody smile on his face—a moment achieved with CG to save time on Joaquin Phoenix's makeup.
“That was one of the few moments where we did have help from CGI to create exactly the way we needed it to be”, Makeup artist Nicki Ledermann to Hollywood Reporter.
Overall, CGI blood offers several advantages over practical effects. It provides flexibility during the shooting and allows directors to adjust the amount, color and trajectory of blood during post-production. However, it’s important to recognize that practical effects can also be finely tailored to match a film's tone, so the choice between the two often comes down to a director's preference and the specific needs of the film.
THE MIX OF BOTH WORLDS
In some cases, the best results come from blending practical with CG. This hybrid approach allows filmmakers to leverage the strengths of both techniques. For example, in The Boys series, real (fake) blood is frequently used, providing actors with something tangible to react to and giving VFX artists a reference on how it would behave.
“It’s so important for the actors and the camera to experience it. It’s hard to explain it, it’s like a different feeling”, Stephan Fleet VFX supervisor on Corridor Crew.
It is the combination of both techniques that sells the illusion, as practical effects provide the audience with a "ground truth", something that feels real. When VFX is added to the mix, the illusion is fully completed.
Extract from Corridor Crew's video - a mix of practical and CG
In conclusion, whenever possible, give the audience (and actors) something tangible to connect with. That way, when the time comes for enhancements or full-CG effects, the illusion is already grounded in reality and packs an extra punch. And remember, if you ever find yourself in need of some blood splatter, Orbitae has got you covered. We’ll help you get the best of both worlds.
Comments