Charade

[audio:/podcasts/pdm10.mp3]
Download Episode | Subscribe via iTunes | Subscribe via RSS

Story: A Paris housewife is widowed, only to discover that a number of parties want money her husband hid… and think she’s the one who has it.

Detective: Regina Lampert/Peter Joshua

Release Date: December 5, 1963

Writer: Peter Stone

Source: “The Unsuspecting Wife” by Peter Stone and Marc Behm

Mystery Analysis:
Detective as protagonist?

Jenny: Yes.  Reggie’s pretty much forced into it because everybody thinks she killed her husband and hid the money.
Lani: Yes, although an amateur, forced into the role by circumstance, but still functioning as a detective in the story.

Murderer as antagonist?
Jenny: Terrific antagonist.  All his moves are logical and smart and yet you never see him coming.
Lani: Yes, and wonderfully present throughout.

Conflict created by murder?
Jenny: The body falls off the train at the very beginning, and even that flirting scene at the beginning is Peter/Alex trying to find out if she killed him.
Lani: Yes, and also by the mystery of where the money is.

Fair play with all the clues given?
Jenny: Yes
Lani: Yes.

Solved using deduction, not luck?
Jenny: Yes.  She tracks down every clue.
Lani: Yes; it’s Reggie who figures out how Charlie hid the money, and it’s through her deduction that she’s able to follow the trail through to the end

Story Analysis & Ratings:

Jenny says: 5 Pops
Mystery: 5, Craft: 5, Suspense: 5, Romance: 5

Lani says: 5 Pops
Mystery: 5, Craft: 5, Suspense: 5, Romance: 5

Laura

[audio:/podcasts/pdm09.mp3]
Download Episode | Subscribe via iTunes | Subscribe via RSS

Story:
A detective falls in love with the woman whose murder he’s investigating.

Detective:
Mark McPherson

Release Date:
November 1944

Writer:
Vera Caspary (novel), Jay Dratler (screenplay) and Samuel Hoffenstein (screenplay) and Elizabeth Reinhardt (screenplay) (as Betty Reinhardt) Ring Lardner Jr. (uncredited)

Source:
Laura, by Vera Caspary

Mystery Analysis:
Detective as protagonist?

Jenny: Yes.  Introduced in the first scene, then dropped while a suspect he’s interviewing throws the movie into one hellacious long flashback, then back to him.  Waldo’s voiceover is confusing, too.  The beginning of this movie is really botched, but MacPherson is definitely the protag.
Lani: Yes… once we finally get to him. The first third of the movie, Waldo’s presented as the protagonist, and the switch isn’t made gracefully.

Murderer as antagonist?
Jenny: Yes.  He does everything he can to muddy the investigation and throw suspicion on the other suspects.
Lani: Sure. Mostly.

Conflict created by mystery/murder?
Jenny: Yes.
Lani: Yes, the death of Laura brings the protagonist and antagonist together.

Fair play with all the clues given?
Jenny:  Yes.
Lani: Yes, in that we get all the clues that the detective does. He doesn’t get many actual clues, though.

Solved using deduction, not luck?
Jenny: Yes.
Lani: Yes, although if he’d looked inside the clock right after Waldo first mentioned it… but no nitpicking. Yes.

All threads pertaining to the mystery pull together at the end?
Jenny: Yes.
Lani: Yes. Not a lot of threads there, but yes.

Story Analysis & Ratings:

Jenny says: 3 Pops
Mystery: 4, Craft: 3, Suspense: 2, Romance: 2

Lani says: 2.5 Pops
Mystery: 4, Craft: 3, Suspense: 2, Romance: 1

March: Romantic Mystery

Hey, it’s March.  And this post was supposed to be up yesterday.  Apologies.

Romantic mystery is a natural.  Mystery has plenty of plot but not much room for character development; romance is all about character but has a tougher time with plot; marry the two and you’ve got a winner.  Romantic suspense, woman-in-jeopardy, rom-crime, whatever you call it, this kind of story puts two people under a great deal of stress while they work together.  If there’s one thing we learned doing rom-com, it’s that working together is a great way to build a relationship in a story, and working together under life-or-death circumstances only heightens that bond.  Stress is great fuel for romance–that’s why there are so many office romances and war babies–because it provides one of the two basic emotions necessary for people to fall in love: pain.  If you have a story where your protagonist isn’t sure that the love interest isn’t the guilty party, the stress is even more heightened (see Laura, Charade, Trenchcoat, The Big Easy . . . uh, see the movies we’re watching this month).  The other emotion?  Joy.  The excitement of falling in love, the fun of flirting, the exhilaration of great sex . . . .  A good romantic mystery has it all.

So why are they so hard to find?  Once we’d identified our subgenre–a mystery with a subplot romance that is so strong it can’t be removed from the story without wrecking the primary mystery plot–we really had to scrounge to find films that were mysteries first with good romances second that didn’t have protagonists we wanted to strangle.  Laura was a no-brainer for me–I’d read the book ages ago and loved it and the premise has tremendous juice–and Charade is one of the greatest romantic mysteries of all time.   And The Big Easy . . . well, everybody should see “You’re luck’s about to change, cher” plus a truly good mystery plot (I think; it’s been awhile since I saw it and I’m a lot more critical these days).   Then one more.  I picked Trenchcoat because I’ve always loved it and because it has a mystery writer heroine; then I found out Roger Ebert called it one of the worst movies of all time.    Lani and I will be watching it soon; if she’s with Roger, we may switch to To Catch A Thief which was fun.   That’s two Cary Grant films, but if you’re going to wonder if the guy is going to kill you, it might as well be Grant.

So here’s the tentative schedule.  Lani and I will be previewing Trenchcoat tomorrow night to see if it makes the cut so stay tuned, there may be some changes:

March 5: Laura

March 12: Charade

March 19: Trenchcoat (or To Catch A Thief)

March 26: The Big Easy

Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

[audio:/podcasts/pdm08.mp3]
Download Episode | Subscribe via iTunes | Subscribe via RSS

Story:
A murder mystery brings together a private eye, a struggling actress, and a thief masquerading as an actor.

Detective:
Harry Lockhart

Release Date:
11 September 2005

Writer:
Brett Halliday (novel), Shane Black (screenplay)

Source:
“Bodies Are Where You Find Them”, by Brett Halliday

Mystery Analysis:
Detective as protagonist?

Jenny: Yep.  He’s even first in that stupid prologue.  Unfortunately the mystery doesn’t start there.
Lani: Yep, although it takes a while for the problem to start.

Murderer as antagonist?
Jenny: Yes.  As soon as the murder happens and Harry screws up the murderers nice clean getaway.
Lani: Yes, once the murder has actually happened.

Conflict created by mystery/murder?
Jenny: Yes, but again, not until the murder happens.  This movie needed to start much later; it’s got two prologues and then a huge waste of time about the heroine’s friend, and THEN the murder happens.
Lani: Yes. Until Harry witnesses the dead girl in the trunk, the antagonist couldn’t care less about him.

Fair play with all the clues given?
Jenny: Yes.
Lani: Yes.

Solved using deduction, not luck?
Jenny: Yes.
Lani: Yes.

All threads pertaining to the mystery pull together at the end?
Jenny: Too damn many threads are resolved, some of them having nothing to do with the main plot.  We were hostile at that point.
Lani: Yes, although some threads are resolved when we don’t need them necessarily.

Story Analysis & Ratings:

Jenny says: 4 Pops
Mystery: 5, Craft: 4 (splitting the difference between the sloppy plotting and the incredible dialogue) Suspense: 4, Romance: 3 (Harry and Perry would have gotten a 5; they really missed an opportunity to do a great gay romance here)

Lani says: 4 Pops
Mystery: 5, Craft: 4, Suspense: 4, Romance: 3 (5 between Perry and Harry; 1 between Harry and Harmony, splitting the difference.)

LA Confidential


This week on Popcorn Dialogues, Alastair stands in for Jenny as we take a stroll through organized crime and institutional corruption. Sounds like fun!

[audio:/podcasts/pdm07.mp3]
Download Episode | Subscribe via iTunes | Subscribe via RSS

Story:
A shooting at an all night diner is investigated by three LA policemen in their own unique ways.

Detective:
Bud White and/or Ed Exley. It’s complicated.

Release Date:
September 19th, 1997

Writer:
James Ellroy (book); Brian Helgeland and Curtis Hanson (screenplay)

Source:
LA Confidential by James Ellroy

Mystery Analysis:
Detective as protagonist?

Lani: Yes. All three of them.
Alastair: Absolutely, although who the protagonist actually is remains open to debate.

Murderer as antagonist?
Lani: Yes.
Alastair: Yes, although the focus shifts from Patchett to Smith.

Conflict created by mystery/murder?
Lani: Yes, it’s the typical shed light/remain in the dark conflict.
Alastair: Yes, it’s present from the second scene of the film — or the first, if I had editorial control.

Fair play with all the clues given?
Lani: Yes; there were some areas that felt a little vague, but overall, I think everything was there all along.
Alastair: Yes, although it can be difficult to appreciate their significance through the smog of 1950s Los Angeles.

Solved using deduction, not luck?
Lani: Yep.
Alastair: Absolutely.

All threads pertaining to the mystery pull together at the end?
Lani: Yes; once you go back through from the end and look at the beginning, it all makes sense why it’s there.
Alastair: Definitely. All those errant strands are pulled tight in the last act, and it comes together beautifully.

Story Analysis & Ratings:

Lani says: 4 Pops
Mystery: 5, Craft: 4, Suspense: 4, Romance: 1

Alastair says: 4 Pops
Mystery: 5, Craft: 3, Suspense: 3, Romance: 2