• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Faceless Ghosts

This may be a complete false memory...but...I seem to remember being absolutely terrified as a child (almost as terrified as when I saw that photo) by a hooded figure in an episode of....

.....wait for it....

Bergerac.
 
Bergerac?

Fires in the Fall CarlosTheDJ :D
 
Oh my god I think you're right! Just looked on IMDB and it was broadcast on Boxing Day 1986 - I was ten so the dates match-up, and I remember my grandparents being there when I saw it, literally seconds before going to bed.

Bloody hell I'm getting shivers just thinking about it....

Now, to find a screenshot....

EDIT A cursory Google Image Search reveals nothing, other than Jimmy Savile dressed as a priest for the first result.

The first result - from a search of "bergerac fires in the fall monk".
 
That Savile image is deeply disturbing too :( And I can't find a good shot of the "monk".

I'm not understanding/remembering why there was a monk?

Did many of the Bergerac episodes have a supernatural bint? I'm rather puzzled that I remember this becuase I didn;t actually watch it, must have come across it very much more recenelty while channel surfing I think.
 
I remember my Dad taking us all to Sudeley Castle in the 70s, and I do recall that we saw lots of people in period costume - it may well have been one of those days. I don't remember anything spooky happening, though.
It is definitely the sort of place where you might find a ghost.

You might not even know you were looking at a ghost when you thought it was a re-enactor and it wasn't. Though I don't suppose many of those can pull off the "no face" look, no matter how accomplished their outfit.
 
Though I don't suppose many of those can pull off the "no face" look, no matter how accomplished their outfit.

If you are presenting to humans and can set the scene with expectations and lighting etc, then very fine black net across the face within the hood or head dress works a treat. Most effective if there is a depth to the headress and so the net can be recessed. You can still create the grues in people even without the depth if you matt down face and hair with make up and then swathe net more loosely around the whole head. It relies on the outline being visually confused I think - a problem is that the eyes tend to reflect light!
 
In that case, I take it back, those re-enactors are craftier than we thought!
 
Did many of the Bergerac episodes have a supernatural bint?
Not sure whether that last word is "hint", "bent" or "bit". Whichever it is, the answer is "hardly any of them", to the best of my recall. They were all fairly cheesy crime tales, in which Jim's ex-father-in-law would normally have some sort of involvement. I say cheesy, but it was pretty decent for its time, but the general tone of the show would probably make a supernatural episode seem even odder.

Of course, if you meant "bint"... Monty Python and the Holy Grail comes to mind.
 
Last edited:
lololololol no, not bint! bit, bit, bit as in element or portion :oops:
 
Not sure whether that last word is "hint", "bent" or "bit". Whichever it is, the answer is "hardly any of them", to the best of my recall. They were all fairly cheesy crime tales, in which Jim's ex-father-in-law would normally have some sort of involvement. I say cheesy, but it was pretty decent for its time, but the general tine of the show would probably make a supernatural episode seem even odder.

Of course, if you meant "bint"... Monty Python and the Holy Grail comes to mind.

There's a couple of others, probably inspired by by the success of Fires in the Fall - one of them involved a (Viking?) burial ground and people being attacked by birds (I think), and I'm pretty sure there was another one too.
 
I say cheesy, but it was pretty decent for its time, but the general tine of the show would probably make a supernatural episode seem even odder.

I'm sure I remember them working the Welcome to AIDS ul into one of the stories, so not supernatural but someone writing for it was clearly into things like that.
 
Hello.
I know this thread petered out last year, but I thought some of you might like to watch the episode of Bergerac in question. I looked for it for years on You Tube, to no avail, but it is available here - http://watchfree.club/bergerac-s04e10-fires-in-the-fall-christmas-special_86617f0c5.html

The faceless figure doesn't make an appearance until well over halfway in, but it's still quite a creepy and enjoyable episode. I still remember watching it with my dad on Boxing Day '86, probably full of turkey and Branston sarnies, Harlequin chocolates and Corona dandelion and burdock. The image of the 'monk' has stayed with me ever since, such was the impact it made.

*brrrr*
 
Don't suppose you know where the ghost appears do you? I haven't got time to watch the whole thing...but I want to see if I remembered it correctly.....**the horror***
 
We need a YouTube clip for speedy reference. Don't recall this at all and I thought I'd seen every episode of Bergerac.
 
How's this for a wild theory - in the past when mirrors were expensive or unusual, you wouldn't see your own face very often. So you might be able to visualise yourself generally, ie what height you are, what you're wearing. But not your own face. So given some theorising about how at least some ghosts are produced, this variety is produced by the person who is the ghost - then this type of ghost has no face.

I thank you.

(I know it's hopeless really)
 
How's this for a wild theory - in the past when mirrors were expensive or unusual, you wouldn't see your own face very often. So you might be able to visualise yourself generally, ie what height you are, what you're wearing...

(I know it's hopeless really)

Actually, I think that's quite an elegant theory. I like it.

One problem, though: the same theory that holds for your face might also hold for your backside. But then again, I don't think I've ever heard anyone make specific mention of a ghosts backside - so maybe they don't have them either.

But, seriously - I think that's quite an interesting idea.
 
And what about animal ghosts? They don't know what they look like either. But I do like the theory very much.
 
Just read this thread and thought what if the faceless ghosts are those that are beginning to be forgotten about and are therefore fading away? How about it is only the ghosts and spirits that still have people around that talk of them or remember them in detail ( even if that means history books etc) that helps them manifest fully, whilst those that have no one or no detailed record of their physical life begins to struggle with manifesting hence no face - daft thought I know, never mind I'll go back to my corner x
 
Just read this thread and thought what if the faceless ghosts are those that are beginning to be forgotten about and are therefore fading away? How about it is only the ghosts and spirits that still have people around that talk of them or remember them in detail ( even if that means history books etc) that helps them manifest fully, whilst those that have no one or no detailed record of their physical life begins to struggle with manifesting hence no face - daft thought I know, never mind I'll go back to my corner x

I like this theory as well but it doesn't hold up against say, ghosts of Roman Centurions in York cellars. Thomas Hardy wrote a poem about facial features surviving down through the generations. What if faceless ghosts are of people with no living descendants? A bit abstract, but I've just woken up from an afternoon nap.
 
Thomas Hardy wrote a poem about facial features surviving down through the generations. What if faceless ghosts are of people with no living descendants?
ooh that's rather poetic, i like that. See, afternoon naps can be good for creativity. (But it does rather introduce a whole new idea into the theory of ghosts... and requires extra information to be somehow available that your basic stone tape idea doesn't. but then what the hell, why not, new theories are good. I'll put my occam's razor away).

anyway

i do have a rejoinder for your Roman centurions argument - there were a whole bunch of them marching along were there not. And so (by my very thin theorising) - these ghosts were created not by the centurions themselves, but by someone else (unseen) that saw them marching and was very taken by this impressive sight. (thus they saw the faces of the centurions, and so the centurions have faces).

Whereas the ghosts of lone anguished figures with no faces were created by the lone anguishment of the lone person, rather than someone observing them.


(On the subject of reflections in water.... well you can, that's true. But you're always looking vertically downwards which makes you look a bit weird to yourself, and you'd need very still water too. I suppose a bucket would do. But most natural water is too rippley, surely. I'll have to have a go, I've never particularly tried. There's something for us all to do at the weekend if we get bored.)
 
these ghosts were created not by the centurions themselves, but by someone else (unseen) that saw them marching and was very taken by this impressive sight. (thus they saw the faces of the centurions, and so the centurions have faces).


this is like the er.... lost his name, archaeologist, got into pendulum dowsing and the ghosts and ghouls...... AAAARGH! sorry, brain is pulp at the moment.
 
Lethbridge? (not sure he was an archaeologist. not sure he wasn't a bit batty. but maybe him?_
 
that's going to take some serious genetic engineering. but I'm glad i've saved you from brain fog :)
 
You can have my babies instead. Please, take them.
 
Back
Top