Murder She Wrote: We’re Off to Kill the Wizard

On the ninth day of December in the year of our Lord 1984, the seventh episode of Murder, She Wrote aired. It was called We’re Off to Kill the Wizard. (Last week’s episode was Hit, Run, and Homicide.)

There’s a man inside the car who is on a car phone talking to someone named Horatio.

For those who weren’t alive in the 1980s, a car phone was a cell phone actually build into the car. This worked better than hand-held cell phones for several reasons, but the primary one was that it had a better antenna and could be powered by the car’s generator. Cell phones in this era were analog devices, and not very different than talking over a radio only with private channels. They were also extremely expensive and pretty rare. This means that this guy is rich and important.

Anyway, the guy promises Horatio that he will do whatever it takes to bring Mrs. Fletcher back with him.

The scene then shifts to Jessica working on a bicycle while two kids look on.

The boy’s name is Billy. The girl’s name is Cindy. You can just see their mother in the background. She walks up a moment later, after Billy rides off on the repaired bicycle. (Apparently their father couldn’t figure out how to fix it and was ready to junk it. Jessica has one just like it back home in Maine. Given that this is a BMX-style children’s bicycle, I assume that the similarity is that her bicycle also has two wheels.)

Her name is Carol Donovan and she’s Jessica’s niece (her children share her last name). She says that Jessica’s flight to Kansas City has been confirmed, but won’t she consider staying longer?

Jessica replies that she won’t because a good guest is like Haley’s comet: seen and enjoyed seldom and briefly. Right after her lecture, she goes straight home.

This is interrupted by the car pulling up and the guy on the car phone stepping out of it. His name is Michael Gardner and he’s an ardent admirer of Jessica and her work. His employer, whose name is Horatio Baldwin, who goes by the stage name Horrible Horatio, desperately wants to meet her. Little billy is excited at the mention of Horrible Horatio. He runs theme parks throughout the country and today he’s got an opening of a new venture, Horatio’s House of Horrible Horrors (or words to that effect). Little Billy and his sister are so desperate to go that Jessica relents and accepts, despite obviously hating the idea.

It’s apparently medieval themed.

The scene opens with a monk in a cart being led to a gallows. The monk is Horatio Baldwin, and he protests that it’s all a big mistake. He keeps protesting as he’s led onto the gibbet and the noose is fitted round his neck. His cries for help are eventually answered by a robin-hood like figure standing on the wall.

He swings in on that rope and wrestles with the executioner. Unfortunately for Horatio, in their tussle they knock into the lever which operates the trap door, and Horatio falls. The crowd is aghast, but then Horatio appears, laughing, at the top of the castle and assures everyone that he’s fine. The crowd applauds.

Michael Gardner approaches Jessica and her niece and grand-niece and grand-nephew and asks how they enjoyed the show. Jessica says that she found it appalling, I think because she’s morally opposed to fun. Or perhaps it pains her to see children enjoying themselves at something other than a founder’s day picnic. Anyway, Michael says that Horatio is ready to meet her and he’ll arrange for the rest of the family to tour the park.

Horatio meets her in an underground office.

He looked better in the robes, but then most people do. He also has a kind of British accent, which is never explained. He tells her that it was good of her to come and she replies, “How could I not? I had two loaded children pointed at my head.” She says that she doesn’t want to be rude but wants to get away as soon as possible.

When he says that it must seem odd to have an office complex beneath the park, she says, “perhaps you have an aversion to sunshine.”

Jessica isn’t usually this rude and I don’t know why she’s so desperate to get away from her niece, Horatio, and the entire city. It’s an odd choice for the writers because it’s just unpleasant without adding anything. I think this may be because of the idea many screenwriters had that there must be “conflict” which they took to mean everyone hating each other, rather than somebody having some goal that they can’t easily achieve.

Horatio is then accosted by Nils Highlander.

He doesn’t care that Baldwin is busy; he’s been busy for weeks but won’t be so busy if the city shuts him down for safety violations. This upsets Nils because it’s his name on the building permits and his reputation that’s at stake. I’m pretty sure that’s not how it works unless Nils is in charge of the safety situation and directly responsible for it, making the safety violations his fault. I suppose that they’re trying to set it up that Horatio personally intervened and forced the people who report to Nils to introduce safety violations in the rides in spite of what their boss was telling them. You know, like highly successful businessmen do. Because that benefits them somehow. They enjoy micromanaging operations in order to create fodder for lawsuits.

Horatio yells at Nils and he leaves. Horatio then directs Jessica to his office and she pauses and asks if he’s lured her here in order to offer her some kind of job. Why she thinks this I can’t image unless it’s because she’s read the script. Anyway, Horatio responds, “Mrs. Fletcher. Please allow me the seduction before you cry rape.” Jessica smiles at this and they walk off to his office.

Somebody sticks his head out of the door this was said next to.

The name on the door is “Arnold Megrim” so perhaps that’s this character’s name. I’m sure we’re going to see more of him later.

The way to Horatio’s office is through an antechamber with Horatio’s secretary.

Her name is Laurie Bascomb. Horatio instructs her to see that they’re not interrupted, though before they go into Horatio’s office she mentions that he had an important call from “Mr. Carlson”.

He replies, “I’ll be the judge of which calls are important, Miss Bascomb.”

The dialog isn’t realistic, of course; the goal is to paint the characters as efficiently as possible, not to scenes in which it’s possible to suspend disbelief. That’s a pity because it’s possible to do both and many Murder, She Wrote episodes do, but at least we’ve learned that Horatio is the scum of the earth.

Before they go in, Jessica spots one of her books on Laurie’s desk and offers to sign it for her. Laurie says she’d be honored if Jessica did and mentions that she’s trying to write a book herself. Horatio is impatient at this, of course, because his success up til now has been achieved by alienating everyone he wants something from. Or because we’re supposed to hate him. One of those two. Probably the first one.

The scene then shifts to a different office where we meet another character.

His name is Phil Carlson. Arnold (the guy who stuck his head into the hallway before) comes in and says that J.B. Fletcher actually came, but Phil is unimpressed. Arnold turns out to be worried, not impressed. This means another park, more red ink, and more falsified accounts. Phil tells him that if he doesn’t like the job, he should quit. Arnold says that he can’t quit, anymore than Phil can. Phil says that he doesn’t want to quit, though, since he’s going to be made a vice president tomorrow. Arnold replies that he was promised a vice presidency two years ago, before Horatio snatched it away.

This is definitely how businesses work, especially successful businesses.

To be fair, people do sometimes cheat and do illegal things, and murder mysteries will, by their nature, tend to focus on those cases because it provides more suspects (as the above was meant to do) and more intrigue. That said, the hurried pace and frank discussions where people are entirely open about doing illegal things feels cartoonish.

Anyway, as Arnold leaves he says, “he’ll do the same to you, Phil, just watch.” Given that Phil will find this out tomorrow, this seems unnecessary. Phil will certainly find out soon enough, one way or another. Phil considers this after Arnold leaves, though, and then we go back to Jessica in Horatio’s office.

Horatio’s idea is “Horatio Baldwin Presents: J.B. Fletcher’s Mansion of Murder and Mayhem.” He promises her a panoply of blood and gore, chills and thrills. The kids will love it!

Obviously, Jessica hates this because she’s a schoolmarm scold whenever it comes to physical violence, but I find this weird because it’s a complete misunderstanding of the murder mystery genre. Jessica may be a literary titan who’s work is known to three quarters of humanity and is to (almost) everyone’s taste, but the among the one quarter who doesn’t know her work is the majority of people who want to go to haunted houses for fake gore and jump scares. It just makes no sense at all to try to base a haunted house theme park on a mystery writer’s books. Horatio should be even more against this idea than Jessica is, since he has better reason.

There’s an interesting bit of conversation in which Horatio says that violence is money in the bank and Jessica is appalled. He asks her where she gets her moral outrage from. He’s read her books and they’re in the same business. She replies that she writes her books for people who read, while he stages his bloodbaths for tots who have not yet learned to differentiate his sordid charades from the real world.

This is idiotic, of course, but I’ve finally remembered that back in the 1980s there was a kind of woman (whom Jessica is meant to portray) that was deeply upset by portrayals of violence in the media, thinking that it would destroy civilization and debase everyone into barbarians. Tipper Gore comes to mind as one of the champions of this line of thinking. They were wrong, especially in their expectation that graphic violence would become pervasive. Graphic violence is not interesting to most people; even to the people who find it interesting it doesn’t tap into any strong instincts in the way that explicitly sexual content does. And that’s where I have a real antipathy to the people who were only against graphic violence. A particularly stupid catchphrase for this kind of idiocy was, “I’d rather a child watch two people making love than two people trying to kill each other.” Jessica never said it, but she might have; this is one of those aspects of Jessica’s character which I didn’t notice when I was a child but notice all too well now—Jessica wasn’t a good woman. She was a shrewish scold with no real principles except for a strong dislike of unpleasantness. It’s a real pity, but on the plus side it only ruins the occasional episode.

Anyway, this speech by Jessica is idiotic, in particular, because children so young they can’t tell that fake blood is fake don’t buy tickets to parks. In fact, Horatio’s parks almost guaranteedly have a minimum age for admission without a parent for simple practical reasons. He’s running amusement parks, not daycares.

This stupid exchange goes on for a bit longer, giving us an excuse to find out that Horatio has a button on his desk that locks his door. He had it installed to keep people out but uses it to lock Jessica in when she tries to storm off, but relents when she threatens legal action. This is obviously only here in order to establish its existence for later. I really wish that the writer for this episode, Peter S. Fisher, had tried on this one. He wrote Lovers and Other Killers and (aside from the scene with Jessica, the baby, and the nuns) it was much better written.

After he unlocks the door Jessica leaves and Horatio calls someone by the name of “Mickey” on the phone, telling him that they’re going to need his special brand of research in order to convince Jessica to agree to the mystery-novel-blood-and-gore theme park. This is so dumb I had trouble typing it.

Fortunately things pick up in the next scene, which is that night. A security guard at the park hears a gunshot and runs off to investigate. He’s joined by another security guard and they go into the anteroom to Horatio’s office. They wonder what Horatio is doing there this late at night and where Laurie Bascomb is because she never leaves until he does.

They check the door and Horatio has it bolted from the inside. They knock, but no one answers. The security guards wonder what to do and one recalls that (Phil) Carlson is still here and so they give him a call on the phone in Laurie’s office. Why they’re consulting the architect, I don’t know, but he directs them to break down the door, using the fire ax if necessary, and he’s on his way.

The guard does as he is bid and breaks down the door with the fire ax, then enters through it.

They don’t enter very far, though, when they see Horatio.

The camera zooms in so we can see the gun in his hand. The guards then walk up and take a look.

The one asks the other if he’s dead, and the other simply replies, “I don’t know.”

As they start to lean in to take a pulse, Phil calls to them from the door.

Phil walks in, looks at Horatio, then we fade to black and go to commercial.

When we come back from commercial break, little Billy is talking to his father about how great a day he had at Horrible Horatio’s Medieval House of Horrible Horrors. He’s telling his father about how everyone thought that the guy really got hung when Jessica interrupts to correct Billy that the correct word is “hanged.” Drapes are hung, people are hanged.

(The father’s name is Bert, btw.) This important lesson over, the phone rings and it’s for Bert. Apparently he’s been assigned to the investigation of Horrible Horatio’s Suspicious Suicide. Also, the Captain wants to talk to Jessica. Jessica expresses her conviction that it’s not a suicide since Horatio was not the kind of man to kill himself, and they’re off.

When we get to the scene of the crime we meet the Captain.

Played by delightful character actor John Shuck, the character’s full name is Captain Davis (he never gets a first name).

Anyway, while the physical evidence rules out murder, Horrible Horatio took a blow to the back of the head which was the cause of death, not the gunshot. So we’ve got ourselves a locked room mystery!

The Captain wants Jessica’s opinion on it because she creates such ingenious plots in her books. She has a way of creating “impossible” murders that are not really impossible. So he’s hoping that creativity will help here.

I don’t know why, but Jessica always responds negatively to this kind of request for help. Approximately as negatively as she does to police detectives who don’t want her to stick her nose in when she offers help unasked. I don’t know why the writers thought that this was a good idea, because it was a bad idea.

In this case Jessica isn’t as bad as she was in Hooray for Homicide; all she says is, “I’m sorry to disappoint you but I don’t have a clue.” No offers of help or anything, or even an expression of interest.

The next morning as Jessica comes back from her morning run in a full body sweat suit she finds the newspaper at the door and looks at it.

(The full headline is “Mystery Surrounds Baldwin Death.” I can’t really make out the text of the article but from the words I can make out it’s clearly got nothing to do with the episode. Presumably this was just stuff pasted over a real newspaper. Also, it’s curious that they used the actress’s head shot rather than taking a picture of her with the haircut she had in this episode.)

As an amusing bit of scenery inspection, here’s the front of the house as Jessica runs up to it:

Now, here’s what we can see out the door when Jessica walks in:

Let’s do that computer-enhance stuff of what’s over Jessica’s shoulder:

Not as good as in the movies, but it will do. We can clearly see that the interior, if it’s not just a sound stage, is very much not of the building that the exterior was of. If this is a sound stage, I’m impressed with how much they were able to make it look like there’s a real outdoors outside that door.

Anyway, when Jessica comes in, she immediately picks up the phone and calls the airport reschedule her airplane flight to a later one and then get a flight returning in the evening.

We then cut to the inside of one of Horrible Horatio’s rides.

The lips move a bit as a recording of Horrible Horatio’s voice plays, telling guests that they’ll have some moments of panic but they were warned. I’m not sure whether it’s Horrible Horatio’s face and voice because he was that much of a megalomaniac/celebrity or because it saves money on casting. Maybe a bit of both.

After a few lines, it begins to slow down and eventually stops. Phil and Nils come up to it and Nils says that it’s not the relays, he’s already checked that on another machine. They open it and begin to look into its guts when Jessica walks up looking for Phil.

Jessica asks Nils if he got his problem from yesterday solved and he sourly replies that he’s got no problems, he just does his job the best he can. A phone rings and he excuses himself, explaining that he programmed his phone to forward his calls here.

Jessica talks with Phil a bit and they discuss how literally everyone who’d ever met Horatio is a suspect, at least as far as motive goes. Phil concludes by saying that, personally, he thinks that Horatio did the world a big favor, but if not, let him know who to thank. He then excuses himself as having work to do.

Jessica then goes to the airport, where Michael Gardner intercepts Jessica. He’s armed and shows her his gun by way of persuading her to come with him. Jessica does, though she protests it’s not because of the gun but because her curiosity was piqued. This is weird because she says it insincerely, but it’s completely implausible that Gardner would actually shoot Jessica in front of dozens of witnesses, so it kind of has to be true.

They board a private airplane, where Jessica meets Horatio’s widow, Erica Baldwin.

There’s some small talk in which Jessica mentions that Erica has buried four husbands so far, according to her nephew, Bert. It also comes up that she used to be a showgirl. There’s also a bit where she asks if it would surprise Jessica if she said that she loved Horatio very much, and when Jessica assures her that it would, she replies, “then I won’t say it.”

Jessica asks about Michael’s attachment to her and she explains, “for the past two years, Horatio chose a celibate life. With Michael’s cooperation, I didn’t.”

Technically “celibate” means unmarried. What she actually meant was “continent” or “abstinent.” For some reason Jessica doesn’t correct her on this point of English.

Anyway, the conversation turns to the police suspecting murder and Jessica says that she’s concerned for Laurie Bascomb, and they’re very mistaken if they think that they can get her to stop investigating. On the contrary, though, Erica so much doesn’t want her to stop that she’s prepared to offer Jessica $100k ($297,766.38 in 2024 dollars) if she can prove that Horatio didn’t commit suicide. Eleven months ago he took out a life insurance policy worth two million dollars. This won’t pay if it’s suicide. He hardly seems the kind to have paid money which would only benefit other people, but life insurance policies are necessary to murder mysteries, so it’s fine.

Oh, and when Jessica says that she neither needs nor wants Erica’s money, Erica replies, “then give it to the starving orphans. They do.”

As everyone buckles up for takeoff, Jessica says that she doesn’t have the faintest idea how she can prove Horatio didn’t kill himself.

In the next scene Jessica returns to her Niece’s house via a taxi. After some apologies about them being worried and Jessica saying she tried to call the house which explains nothing that we saw, it turns out that they have company—Laurie Bascomb. She comes up to Jessica and says that she wanted to call her and doesn’t know what to do. Jessica tells her that it’s alright, but Laurie says that it’s not alright. “Horatio Baldwin is dead and I killed him.”

And on that bombshell we fade to black and go to commercial break.

When we get back, Jessica is pouring coffee for Laurie as we clear up that it’s not actually true that she killed Horatio Baldwin, she just feels responsible because she left her desk early. This absurd justification for the cliffhanger before commercial break feebly explained, we then get a flashback as to what happened.

Laurie wanted to quit because she couldn’t stand how Horatio used people, but he threatened her. He would reveal certain things about her past if she quit. She followed him into his office, then ran out back into hers and he followed her. He told her that she’d never work again but she didn’t care, she just wanted to get away. He laughed at her and went back into his office, shutting the door behind him. She heard the bolt slam into place at a quarter to seven.

Bert picks up on the blackmail and Jessica points out that if he was blackmailing her, he might have been blackmailing others. Laurie says that he had files on Phil, Arnold, Nils—all his key people. Laurie didn’t know where they were kept, though.

Jessica suggests in his office, given all of his security precautions. This is ridiculous, of course, since he has theme parks and consequently offices throughout the country—this one is only his latest—and that doesn’t even matter because the best place to keep something like incriminating evidence you probably won’t have to use would be in a safe deposit box in a bank, not in the office of your latest theme park. That’s not very convenient for a TV episode, though, so he will have kept it here as a character quirk.

Bert and Jessica go to Horatio’s office to search for a secret compartment for the blackmail files. Captain Davis comes in and asks why Bert didn’t arrest Laurie Bascomb. Before Bert can answer, Phil comes in and asks what’s going on.

The blocking of this is kind of interesting. I’m not sure why they’d arrange these people like this, especially with Phil coming between Bert and the Captain. It feels like it suggests something, but I’m not sure what.

Anyway, Bert answers and says that they’re searching for a hiding place. Phil says that no one could have hidden in here, but Bert says that they’re searching for files. The Captain asks what files and Bert explains about the blackmail. While this is going on, Jessica examines Horatio’s desk and finds the hiding place.

Well, not quite, but she’s on the trail. She wonders why Horatio has a builtin thermostat on his desk. She then notices that it is covered in soot. Jessica then strikes a match on the strange match-holder on Horatio’s desk right next to the thermometer…

…and holds it up next to the thermostat. When the thermostat reads hot enough, his desk slides open, revealing an empty compartment. Horatio was an inveterate gadgeteer, so this is in character! Also, the compartment is empty and the files are gone!

Phil is deeply skeptical of the murder theory, then excuses himself. No one asked him to be there so there was no need to excuse himself, of course.

When he’s gone, Jessica remarks, “for a man whose career has been steeped in illusion, Mr. Carlson has a very closed mind.” Jessica then suggests that they should find whoever did the research for Horatio, since Horatio was unlikely to do his own dirty work.

The scene then shifts to the airport where Arnold Migram is trying to board a flight to Mexico City. There is apparently a sting operation to catch him, for some reason, as the woman at the desk presses a special button to signal the guards that Arnold is there. The guards then apprehend Arnold, though not without a minor chase. As part of that chase, Arnold trips and his briefcase falls, opens, and an enormous number of bills pop out and start blowing in the wind. Some onlookers come to help, but Arnold rushes to it and starts scooping up bills, saying, “This is my money!” over and over again.

Back at police headquarters he swears at the money is his because Horatio owed it to him for ten years of servitude. In the briefcase there’s also the blackmail documentation of him embezzling money, though he says he never took it, it was his associate, Wanda Perlstein. Also, he has no idea how the blackmail documentation got there.

Jessica asks why he ran. He ran because he received a phone call saying that the police had Horatio’s files on him and would be around to pick him up. Bert notes that it was also a phone call that alerted airport security to pick Arnold up. He says this as if it being a phone call suggests it’s the same person, since normally you’d expect the airport to be told by a registered letter or by someone having rented an airplane that does skywriting. This, at least, explains the sting operation to get Migram, at least if we’re willing to believe that airports in the 1980s arrested people on the say-so of anonymous phone calls.

Migram asks if he can go because he’s worried about his cat, and Bert says that’s fine but he shouldn’t go anywhere they can’t find him. You know, like he just tried to do. But Migram says that he can’t anymore because they have all of his money.

After Migram leaves, Jessica looks through the blackmail documentation and wonders if it’s accurate. For example, the dirt on Phil is that he fled to Canada during the Vietnam Crisis, which is hardly a devastating revelation. Also, there’s one person who’s conspicuously absent—Michael Gardner, the business manager.

That night Michael Gardner, wearing a bright red robe over his pajamas, in hotel room on a high floor, hears a cat mewing from his balcony and goes to investigate. When he finds that it’s a tape recorder a figure dressed in black grabs him from behind and throws him off the balcony.

The figure then retrieves the tape recorder and leaves. We fade to black and go to commercial.

The next day Bert talks it over with Carol. As a curious bit of character development, they begin their conversation with him saying that she’s sexy in the morning and her saying that he’s finally noticed. She asks whether Michael Gardner really killed himself and Bert says that there’s no way to know. Interestingly (to Bert), his real name was Mickey Baumgardner, and he was a former private investigator who worked for Horatio digging up dirt. (I’d always thought that “Mickey” was a nickname for Michael, making this not much of an alias.) Also, he was apparently trying to dig up dirt on Jessica, which amuses Carol to no end. Bert asks where Jessica is and Carol says she went over to the house of horrors.

He wants to talk to Jessica so he’s sorry to miss her. There’s a private line into the office so he calls it. It actually goes to Laurie’s desk, and the security guard who had stopped in picks it up and transfers the line in to Horatio’s office where Jessica is.

After Jessica is done with the call she’s about to leave but then gets an idea and picks up the phone, takes off the back cover, and looks at it.

One of the red wires has been cut. Jessica then gets an idea. Talking with the security guard, she establishes that there are two lines, 1998 and 1999, and if 1998 is busy, the call is automatically kicked over to 1999. Like if you use 1998 to call 1999. She demonstrates, and on Laurie’s phone 1998 doesn’t light up and in Horatio’s office the phone doesn’t ring for 1999.

Ned (the security guard) asks what this is all about and Jessica says that she just figured out who killed Horatio and how it was done.

Ned then goes and visits Phil, giving him a note saying that Mrs. Fletcher stopped by and wants him to call her at her Niece’s house. He obligingly does so. She tells him that Michael Gardner had some microfilm that he had hidden. Her nephew thinks she’s bonkers but she knows exactly where it is and so does he—in the attraction that’s not quite working right. She asks if they can meet in forty minutes with the blueprints? It will take that long to get across town. Phil says sure.

This is silly, but since it’s clearly just a setup, it’s fine.

Phil then immediately goes to the ghoulish head of Horatio and turns it on for atmosphere, because when you’re trying to find hidden microfilm you want all of the circuits to be live. Anyway, he finds something he takes to be microfilm and as he does, Jessica, off to the side, says, “How wonderful, Mr. Carlson. You’ve found our prize.”

Jessica then explains that Phil killed Horatio because Horatio didn’t make him a vice president and also had some sort of really bad dirt on him which he replaced before planting the blackmail files in Arnold Migram’s briefcase. He used call forwarding to make it seem like Horatio was killed in a locked room, as Jessica had to seem forty minutes away. That and some misdirection.

Phil says that she’s clever and pulls out a gun. Jessica tells him that he can’t expect to get away with murder and he replies, “But I already have.”

He then shoots and a sheet of glass shatters. It turns out that it was just a mirror and Jessica was safely out of harm’s way. Bert, after cocking his pistol, tells Carlson to freeze and drop the gun. There’s an entire crowd who was watching, apparently, including armed backup.

Phil complies.

Jessica walks up and, after thanking Nils because the illusion was perfect, Phil says that she got lucky that he didn’t know about the microfilm. Jessica takes it from him and says, “Oh, this? No, this is just a roll of negatives from my trip last year to Spain.”

Back in Horatio’s office, Bert explains Jessica’s theory (he gives her credit).

After Laurie left, Phil came to Horatio’s office and Horatio and he quarreled because Horatio reneged on the promotion. Somehow Horatio was struck on the head, possibly when he fell. Carlson thought quickly. He got the gun he kept in his own office, then forwarded his phone to Horatio’s office. He disconnected the light under the line in Laurie’s office. He went into the office and bolted the door. He also disconnected the bell on Horatio’s phone. He then put the gun in Horatio’s hand and shot him in the head.

When the security guards called Phil, the call was forwarded to Horatio’s office where Phil took it. He then moved to the shadows next to the bolted door (there’s a cabinet there which is quite concealing) and pulled the black turtleneck sweater he had been wearing up over his head. There isn’t a great picture of this area of the room; the best one I can find is actually from a flashback when Laurie is telling the story of her fight with Horatio when she quit:

The cabinet is big enough and that corner of the room dark enough to make concealment plausible. When the guards broke in they were focused on Horatio. After they walked up to the desk and while their attention was on Horatio he quietly left the room behind them. In the corridor he got rid of his sweater (for some reason) and rushed back towards the office, calling as he did so.

Jessica remarks that it might have worked, had it not been for their medical examiner.

Later at the airport Bert and Laurie are dropping off Jessica. (Apparently, Jessica forbade Bert from bringing Carol and the kids to say goodbye to Jessica because she hates public goodbyes.)

Laurie tries to thank her and Jessica says that the best way to do that is to start writing that book she’s wanted to write. Laurie says that unfortunately she needs to find a job, and Jessica gives her the check that Erica Baldwin gave her for proving her husband’s death wasn’t suicide. Jessica has already endorsed it over to Laurie.

Jessica then tells Bert, “see you next year” and walks off to her flight.

There’s then a very weird scene where Laurie opens the check as Jessica leaves and is overwhelmed. She hugs Bert for some reason, and mouths “thank you” to Jessica, who is a bit far away to shout to. Jessica smiles and waves back, and we go to credits.

The mystery in this episode was pretty neat. Locked room mysteries only ever have so many solutions, of course—either the room wasn’t really locked, the victim wasn’t dead until after people broke in, or the murderer hid out and left after people broke in. Each of these has variants, though, and it’s in these variations that people can be clever, which this episode was.

It did play a little unfairly with us by not really showing the part of the room that could hide the murderer until late in the episode, but it did show us the guards being focused on the body in a way that might have let someone slip out behind them, so I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it cheated.

In terms of locked-room solutions, I would say that this one is decent, though not brilliant. They do a fairly good job of piling on the evidence that Horatio was alone, or at least that Phil wasn’t in the room. In general they don’t stretch plausibility too much to do it. Phil’s hiding place was pretty concealing and if he chose his time well, he probably could have snuck out behind the guards. He was taking a big risk that they both came in but he didn’t have many options since he had never intended to kill Horatio. Probably the biggest risk was in firing the shot with no clear indication of where it came from. In an underground complex with neither of the guards nearby they’d have no way of knowing which office it came from and with Phil being the only person known to be working late one would expect them to check on him first. Him not being in his office would certainly be a problem. (And you can’t solve this by having the guards nearby since then you’d have expected them to hear Horatio and Phil fighting.) That said, since this wasn’t planned it works for him to take his best chance and the only reason that there’s a mystery is because it happened to work out. It’s fine for the murderer to be audacious and lucky… at first.

It’s also interesting that we’re seven episodes into Murder, She Wrote and have met two nieces and a (female, niece-aged) cousin of Jessica’s. (I didn’t start with the pilot, but that has Jessica’s favorite nephew, Grady, so we can bring the relatives up to four at the expense of considering this the eighth episode.) Throughout the twelve seasons of the show we would only get about twenty relatives of Jessica’s, which is an average of 1.67 relatives per season. We’re currently averaging just under one relative per two episodes. I think that this may have contributed to the perception that Jessica had hundreds of nephews and nieces, since with (around) 260 episodes, the current rate would give us almost 110 relatives. Obviously, the rate of new relatives will go down pretty quickly.

There are a few odd choices in this episode, such as having Horatio’s widow offer Jessica one hundred large to do what she was going to do anyway. It didn’t make her a suspect and I don’t know that else it was supposed to add to the story otherwise.

There’s also the ridiculous business stuff. I really don’t know what to make of it; it’s so absurd that it’s tempting to think it was meant as comedy, except that the serious part of the plot depends on it. A businessman who runs his business by hiring key people at reduced salaries because he’s blackmailing them is not, strictly speaking, impossible. But how much money could he save this way? If he pays his top people $50k instead of $100k, this isn’t much of a savings when you take into account the fifty people making $10k each for each person at the top. Amusement parks are labor-intensive, especially when you include maintenance, security guards, etc. And what sort of quality of employee will you get if you only hire people who’ve done blackmail-worthy things in their life? It would be one thing if Horatio took over a business he didn’t know how to run and was basically managing its decline, but that’s not what’s portrayed. Horrible Horatio is a celebrity who built an empire. Again, anyone can do any evil, but this is just not in character. Someone making money hand-over-fist on his way up would very believably over-extend himself then be desperate to try to cover things, but that’s not what was depicted. Horatio, as we saw him, was still on his way up.

Also, if Horrible Horatio was in financial trouble to the point of cutting corners on safety for his slow-moving flat rides past barely-moving animatronics, why did he go to the expense of building an underground office complex? Excavating enough ground to fit a dozen large offices and then putting a roof on top of it which can hold an uncovered dirt floor (that gets really heavy in the rain) and multi-story buildings would cost a fortune.

And getting back to the issue of character consistency, Horatio was simultaneously charming and went out of his way to pointlessly antagonize people. It is generally good advice to “never make enemies for free” and Horatio gave out being his enemy like he was Santa Claus, if you’ll pardon me mixing my metaphors. It was helpful in establishing suspects, but it felt very much at odds with the charming bits.

This episode was a bit rushed and a bit silly, but at least it was not wacky, so I think that we’re starting to see Murder, She Wrote settle in to what it would be for the main part of its run. It was common for TV shows to need a half dozen episodes or so to find its footing, so we’re not doing too bad.

Next week we’re in both Boston and Cabot Cove for Death Takes a Curtain Call.

Murder, She Wrote: Hit, Run, and Homicide

On the twenty fifth day of November in the year of our Lord 1984, the sixth episode of Murder, She Wrote aired. Titled Hit, Run, and Homicide, it’s set in Cabot Cove. (Last week’s episode was Lovers and Other Killers.)

After some pretty establishing shots of the California coast we’re pretending are the coast of Maine, the camera zooms in on Jessica riding her bicycle along the coast road into town. In town she nearly runs into another person on a bicycle who isn’t looking where he’s going. Jessica has to ring her bicycle bell and call out to him to avoid a collision. Despite having seen him coming from like fifty feet away and there being almost no one on the road.

The camera angles are cut very tight to ensure we don’t notice how easily Jessica could have avoided him. Anyway, his name is Daniel and he’s an inventor. He wasn’t looking where he was going because he has a ridiculous device in his bicycle which monitors his heart rate and blood pressure and tells him how fast he’s going. Unfortunately, it says 22 miles per hour while he’s stopped, so it’s not working.

We learn from this that he’s an absent-minded brilliant inventor. And from the ensuing conversation that the founder’s day picnic is coming up because actual founder’s day (which was last week) was rained out. Jessica wants him to come, but he has a house guest.

The scene shifts to the picnic. There’s various talk, including Jessica talking to someone about how the founder of Cabot Cove, Captain Joshua Wayne, was a pirate who fought on the side of the British during the revolutionary war.

This discussion is interrupted by some guy who runs up to the field shouting for help as a car chases him. He eventually tries to climb up a chainlink fence but the car drives into it (gently) and he falls onto the car’s hood. The car then drives off. A closeup allows us to see that it has no driver.

In the next scene, Captain Ethan Craig tells Sheriff Amos Tupper that there was no one driving the car but Amos thinks that Ethan was drunk. When Ethan asks if everyone at the founder’s day picnic was drunk, Amos responds that it was mass hysteria. Amos then goes into the Cabot Cove Hospital to see the victim and we meet the man who was chased.

His name is Charles Woodley and he came up from Boston to meet an old friend, Daniel O’Brian (the absent-minded inventor). According to the doctor he has no broken bones but he’s in traction for some reason. Anyway, Daniel used to work for his company, Wompco Electronics. Daniel invited Charles and his former partner up to visit. When he got to Daniel’s house Daniel wasn’t there and his cab had left, so we walked into town and a kid told him about the picnic.

In the next scene Jessica stops by Daniel’s house with a pie.

The woman’s name is Katie Simmons and she’s Daniel’s house guest.

We then meet two more characters:

His name is Tony. Her name is Leslie Alder. They just got in a few days ago, which is why Jessica didn’t know that he was in town. They’re going to get married and Leslie has read Jessica’s books and is a fan.

I love the size of her shoulder pads.

Leslie has some stops to make in Portland—she’s in sales—and will drop Tony off somewhere on her way. (They’re staying in town at the old Hanset place.)

As Jessica and Katie go into Daniel’s workshop, we get a view of it.

It’s interesting to consider what a high tech workshop looked like in 1984. Truth to tell, not that radically different from what it would look like now, at least by TV standards. Cathode ray tubes instead of LCDs in some places, and fewer circuit boards, but people still prototype with the kinds of stuff that they did back in the 1980s. Advances in electronics have tended to concentrate in production rather than in prototyping, though I don’t want to oversell this. Someone with money these days would have a high end oscilloscope and a computer-connected multimeter, not to mention small single-board computers lying about.

In the conversation that ensues we learn that Tony met Leslie a month ago and it’s been a whirlwind courtship. Given that there’s probably money in the family, this is, of course, suspicious.

Katie’s here to recruit Daniel for a job in Memphis, Tennessee. The topic shifts to the odd happenings earlier in the day and it comes out that Daniel hates Woodley and his partner Merrill. In his words, the only thing he’d invite them to was a hanging party, and only then if he had charge of the ropes. He storms out and when Jessica asks Katie what all that was about, we cut to another scene.

In this new scene, a man who we presume is Merrill shows up by a chartered boat and asks Ethan for directions to a taxi.

He’s got a southern accent and is looking for the hospital. Ethan helpfully points in the direction of the hospital, which is only a mile away (as opposed to the train station, where the taxis are, which is two miles away). I hadn’t realized that Cabot Cove was so big before, but, truth to tell, it probably won’t be so big again. This episode just wants Merrill to have to walk a long distance.

As Merill walks along the deserted road on the way to the hospital he sees the station wagon which attacked the founder’s day picnic. Once he’s sufficiently ahead of it, the driverless car starts chasing Merrill down at low speed and finally runs him over. Well, it’s about to when we fade to black and go to commercial. This is, of course, more sanitary and shows no blood, but I can’t help thinking that it’s convenient that it also requires no special effects.

When we come back from commercial, Ethan brings Jessica the news of Merrill’s death. No one saw it happen but later a kid saw the driverless car going north on a nearby road. Ethan asks Jessica to go help Amos and she agrees.

Jessica goes and talks to Amos and suggests some questions to ask in a round-about, manipulative way. (Though you could interpret this as helping Amos to save face.) She also points out that Woodley is into electronics and probably knows a lot about remote control, which is the only way that a driverless car could be operated.

(Of course, back in the early 1980s the TV showing the remote operator what the car saw so it would be possible to steer it would probably have been big enough to be seen, but I’m guessing the writers didn’t think of that.)

Also interesting to consider is that if Woodley is the killer, it means he had to have an accomplice when he had the car attack him. My top pick would be Katie, though Leslie is a definite possibility as well.

Anyway, Amos invites Jessica to join him in interrogating Woodley and Jessica agrees.

Back at the hospital, the nurse chides Woodley for having lowered his tension again.

I’m guessing that this is supposed to be him having his leg in traction. Why, I have no idea, since the doctor clearly said that he had no broken bones. That said, this isn’t at all how traction works, so I guess that kind of balances it out.

(Traction used weights on pulleys to pull on the limb on both sides of a broken bone in order to balance out the muscles contracting so that the parts of the bone, which were likely to be sharp, don’t get shoved into stuff that isn’t supposed to have sharp bone shoved into them.)

What they’ve got on Woodley is basically just a leg rest; all it’s doing is elevating his leg in the same way a stack of pillows would. If he had some sort of bruise or swelling, elevation might help (a little) to promote healing. I think that the actual purpose is just to make it look like a hospital room since there’s not much in the way of other props to convey that. Though why Woodley is even in a hospital room is a bit under-specified. Even in the 1980s I don’t think that they’d be very likely to keep someone overnight who has no injuries and just has some (unspecified) pain. I was going to say that they’d just give him Tylenol and send him home, but back then they probably would have given him opiates. They were still handing those out like candy in the 1980s.

The conversation doesn’t really turn up anything useful except that the technology for a remote control car has existed for years and in fact Daniel once built a remote control car for Woodley.

After Jessica and Amos leave, the nurse comes in. Woodley unpleasantly remarks, “Here comes little mammy sunshine,” whereupon the nurse pulls on the cord elevating Woodley’s leg further and he screams in pain. I’m guessing he has a pulled hamstring. Why he’s hospitalized for a pulled hamstring, I cannot say. I can’t even say for a story reason. Perhaps he’s the murderer and trying to distract us by giving himself an alibi. Except with a remote control car, being in a particular location isn’t an alibi.

The scene then shifts to another cookout, this time at Daniel’s house. According to Daniel, he designed a remote control car a dozen years ago. The discussion makes this sound like it’s actually an autonomous car, but I doubt it’s meant to be that. Katie remembers the car Daniel designed and it was great. Even had a built-in protection system against collisions. (Clearly the car that killed Merrill didn’t have that.)

In the next scene, Jessica talks to Letitia, who runs the local phone company, and gets Daniel’s confidential phone records (by asking Letitia to break confidentiality because trust me). Jessica then goes to confront Daniel. Instead she finds Katie and tells her about the phone records. In the last week Daniel’s house made two calls to Boston. One is just to a bank, the other was to Charles Woodley’s private office. Katie recognizes the number because she used to work for Woodley. Katie seems crestfallen that Daniel lied, but Jessica points out they only know that the calls came from the house.

Jessica then asks why Daniel was fired, and the explanation was that he was a futuristic genius. That’s not much of a cause for firing someone, but there can’t really be much of a cause that preserves Daniel as a successful genius. When he was fired, they tried to take all of his designs and Daniel hired a lawyer and lost most of his money suing to get his designs back. Katie then goes on about how Daniel couldn’t hurt a fly. To prove this point, Daniel brings out his latest invention—an ultrasonic bug deafener which is supposed to drive aphids into other people’s yards in order to protect his roses.

For some reason this ultrasonic noise makes a bunch of dogs run up and start digging around the roses, which is played for comic effect.

Later, Tony and Leslie are over at Jessica’s place for dinner with Ethan. They discuss the days’ activities, which was a large, fruitless search for the car which covered most of the area around Cabot Cove. Amos thinks that the car was smuggled out of the area in a moving truck. Jessica asks if they checked the stretch of woods just east of the old Gentry farm. Ethan is dismissive because it’s so overgrown you couldn’t hide a tricycle in it, but Jessica says that she jogs every morning and knows that there are at least a dozen ways in and out of it.

The next morning Jessica shows up at Amos’s office to argue over looking there. Amos is being a world-class idiot and refuses to investigate. Jessica decides to investigate on her own. Of course, she finds the car. In fact, she finds it riding in on a bicycle. Oddly, she’s signaled to the location by someone with a black glove using a mirror to catch Jessica’s eye.

(This screenshot was taken a moment after a blinding flash of light.)

The path Jessica is riding her bicycle on is wide enough to fit two cars side-by-side, so I have no idea what Ethan said that this area would be inaccessible even to a tricycle. Anyway, Jessica finds the car in a large clearing.

I think that this is meant to look like an artistic shot but I suspect it’s the best way to disguise that wherever this was actually shot was not an overgrown wood. As Jessica goes up to investigate, we see a black van pull up along some other, presumably nearby, road. Foolishly, Jessica gets in the murder car.

A mysterious figure with a black glove flips the “door” switch which closes the door.

I love TV control panels. This is a ridiculous user interface unless it was specifically designed to trap Jessica, in which case I wonder why it has separate door and lock switches. Anyway, the figure locks the car, Jessica finds she can’t get out, and the car starts up and begins to drive. The van follows like fifty feet behind. Jessica tries to overpower the wheel but fails. The car drives mostly at about fifteen miles per hour but we get tons of screeching tire sounds like it’s going sixty.

As Jessica is being driven through town Ethan spots her as he’s driving by in his truck, turns around, and begins pursuit. Eventually they come out the other end of town and are on the coast road.

At some point the car Jessica’s in starts driving off the road and towards the cliff by the light house. Suddenly, right as the car is about to drive off the cliff and the music has us at a fever pitch, the gloved hand in the black van flicks the brakes switch and the car stops. The gloved figure in the van turns everything off and they can open the car. The van drives off, but not before Ethan sees it.

At Sheriff Tupper’s office, Amos says that the remote control device is a lot like the one Daniel invented. They also found a bunch of Daniel’s papers in the back of the station wagon. Amos is afraid this obviously planted evidence means that he’s going to have to bring Daniel in for accusing questioning.

Back at Daniel’s house, he’s going through his files looking for the papers they found in the back of the station wagon. Jessica asks Tony if he and Leslie went directly home last night and they didn’t. They stopped off at Daniel’s house and saw Daniel and Katie. Jessica asks if they happened to mention Jessica’s idea about the location of the driverless car and he says that he did.

Daniel then finds the papers, which means that Amos has to bring him in because the device in the car looks exactly like Daniel’s designs. As Amos takes Daniel in and sad music plays, Leslie drives up.

That night Leslie tells Tony that Daniel has been acting strangely. She thinks they should arrange to have a psychiatrist examine him.

I’m really starting to think that she’s in league with Woodley and Katie is a misdirection by the writers. Leslie’s sales business is so vague it could easily be a pretense, but the problem is that the writers would be this vague even if it’s real so we can’t tell whether that’s a clue or just the writers being lazy. If she is in league with Woodley, pretending the clue is actually the writers’ laziness is pretty cheesy.

The next day Jessica discusses Daniel with Katie. We find out that Woodley and Merrill were in a 50/50 partnership where Merrill provided the money and Woodley ran the company. Now Woodley gets everything, though there are rumors that the company is in financial trouble.

Jessica visits Daniel in jail and they talk about Daniel’s troubles. Tony got him a lawyer who wants a psychiatric evaluation to try for a plea of temporary insanity. Also, they lay the grounds for a romantic sub-plot between Daniel and Katie.

In the next scene Jessica is walking her bicycle (which has a flat tire) along murder road (i.e. the same road Merrill was killed on) when Tony picks her up. They discuss the case a little, but then we get the real reason for this scene: Tony has to stop for gasoline. The gauge has been unreliable and he doesn’t know how much gasoline he has and with Leslie going back and forth to Portland, it might not be much. The gasoline only costs $7.08, which with a national average gasoline price in 1984 of $1.13 and the vehicle they’re in probably getting around 20 miles to the gallon, means that the car’s only been driven around 125 miles since it was last fueled up.

This could mean anything or nothing since Leslie might have refueled anywhere along the trip, but I think this is a clue against her and I suspect that Jessica thinks so too because she suddenly “has something in her eye” and asks if there’s a tissue in the glove box. This allows Jessica to look at the rental slip which has the mileage the car was rented at written on it.

Jessica then takes a tissue and pretends to get the pretend thing out of her eye.

Back at home Daniel looks over his workshop as sad music plays. Then Tony shows up to take Daniel to the psychiatric evaluation. Katie weeps as if he’s going off to be executed, and as they drive off we fade to black and go to commercial break.

When we get back from commercial break Jessica is buying groceries at the local grocery store. I can still remember when there were little grocery stores which looked like this:

It’s a distant memory and I far prefer modern supermarkets with their vastly better selection, but this does bring back memories of when I was a tiny child.

Anyway, there’s an arcade game in back which Ethan is playing and his loud complaining attracts Jessica’s attention. Jessica talks to Ethan as he plays and it comes up that the same van was seen at the picnic. By who, I don’t know—certainly not by us. Jessica works out that it’s the control van. I’m not sure why they have Jessica work this out so much later than we are shown it, but obviously Jessica is correct.

They then get in an argument over the video game and Jessica plays it. We see this from the perspective from the inside of the video game screen, which is a great shot:

They bicker like an old married couple as they always do. When Ethan says that Jessica should ease off the speed until she has the hang of it, she suddenly realizes the solution to the mystery and leaves.

In the next scene Tony and Leslie pull up in their rental car and ask the Sheriff “what’s this all about?” The this is explained to be a reconstruction of the events of the picnic. Mr. Woodley has agreed to help in the reconstruction. Leslie asks about this and Amos points out who he is—the guy with the cane.

Apparently they take hamstring pulls very seriously in Cabot Cove.

Anyway, the goal is to jog people’s memories and Amos thought that Tony should be here since he’s Daniel’s nephew (and Daniel is suspected of the crime). As Tony goes to talk to Jessica, the black van drives up and ominous music plays.

There’s a bit of chitchat then Amos and Woodley, who are walking over to take their places, are surprised by the driverless car coming onto the field and chasing Woodley again. He throws away his cane and runs as fast as he can away from the car, just as he did on the founder’s day picnic.

Leslie looks at the black van, then decides that she has to do something and runs over to it as Woodley is calling out to her to stop it. When she looks inside, Jessica signals to Ethan to stop the driverless car.

Jessica then asks Leslie why she rushed over to the car and Leslie said that she thought she might drive it onto the field and in the way of the driverless car to protect Woodley. She chose this one because it’s bigger than her own car. Jessica replies that it certainly is bigger, but probably doesn’t get the gas mileage of her car. Jessica then points out that she never went to Portland—the car mileage proves that.

Leslie begins to blame Woodley, who tells her to shut up because the Sheriff doesn’t have any evidence against them and they should keep it that way (he’s not quite so explicit). Leslie protests that if she goes, then Woodley goes too.

That night at dinner with Ethan, Daniel, and Katie, Jessica explains how she figured it out from the video game. She kept crashing into everything, even when she slowed down. Then she thought about the speed of the driverless car and how slow it went. Had the person remotely driving it wanted to kill Woodley, it would have overtaken him easily. While it is true that Leslie drove the car slowly so as to not hurt Woodley, Jessica’s experience with the video game actually suggested the opposite—that the driver went slow because it’s hard to drive a car remotely, not because they wanted to spare Woodley. All’s well that ends well, I guess.

Anyway, it was a simple plan motivated by money. Woodley would control the entire company with Merrill out of the way and Leslie would, as Tony’s wife, control Daniel’s estate once he was ruled insane for killing Merrill. While Daniel didn’t think the estate was worth much, there were designs in it which were the key to a multi-million dollar contract Woodley had just signed and he needed control of them. Also, it was Leslie who made the phone call to Woodley’s number in order to frame Daniel.

With everything explain, Daniel proposes marriage to Katie as Ethan and Jessica excuse themselves to go play the video game. There’s a tournament on and Ethan, as the reigning champion, feels obliged to defend his title. Jessica asks if she can join in, and warns Ethan that she’s been practicing. He asks how much practicing and we go to credits.

I really can’t tell why this feels like a stupid episode. The basic bones of it are decent—Daniel has a treasure he doesn’t know he has and Woodley and Leslie are acting in concert on a plan to get it. That’s a decent murder mystery plot worthy of a golden age mystery. I suspect that it’s the remote control car which is at the center of the story. I’m not entirely sure why, though.

I think part of it is just the high-tech nature of it doesn’t feel right. Murder mysteries are supposed to be about human nature, which doesn’t change over time. By introducing a high tech component, it breaks the feeling of universality. But I think that another part of it is that the technology wouldn’t have worked back in the day.

It’s not the remote control part—that was, in fact, doable in 1984. It would have been expensive, but it would have been doable. It would have been nearly impossible in the way that they portrayed, though, since what they showed was remotely driving a car just by looking at it from a distance. Translating vectors to frames of reference you’re not in is an incredibly difficult skill to master, especially in unfamiliar circumstances (very few people can drive toy remote control cars, which use that kind of control, without tons of practice). I seriously doubt that any normal person could accomplish it while driving their own car, as would have had to have happened when Jessica was being driven around. It’s almost a detail that it would be basically impossible to do when you can’t see the car you’re controlling because it’s around a bend, as we saw happening during parts of the scene in which Jessica is driven, or as had to have happened during the founder’s day picnic since the van certainly wasn’t following the car then.

Fun fact: at roughly the same time on TV there was a show called Knight Rider about Michael Knight and his intelligent, self-driving car Kit. The special effect for Kit driving himself around with no driver was accomplished, not with remote control, but by having a special version of the trans am they were using for Kit that had no driver’s seat and a stunt man driving the car leaning back and wearing a trans am seat cover. These days it’s really obvious on the Knight Rider blu-ray but back in the early 1980s TVs weren’t high-res or clear enough to tell. I have a suspicion that they did something similar for this episode.

I asked my teenage son why this premise seems so ridiculous, and I think he made a good point: buying a car where the license plate and registration aren’t traceable to you, getting it to Cabot Cove, and setting it up to be driven by remote control (to say nothing of sufficiently practicing controlling it) would be expensive and time-consuming. If you have this kind of time and money to commit murder, there are many better, more reliable methods. Even if you take into account the desire to frame an inventor, this should still shouldn’t crack the top ten on the murderer’s list of possible means.

Leaving that aside, there are, of course, some loose ends. How did Woodley and Leslie know each other? This plan required quite a lot on Leslie’s end—she had to marry Tony for years as well as murder Merrill. That’s a heck of a plan for two people to enter into. Woodley is the one who had the requisite knowledge to come up with it, while Leslie did approximately all of the work. I feel like it should come out that she’s actually Woodley’s daughter, or something like that. They needed some kind of strong connection in order to cooperate like this, and a romantic connection feels wrong for several reasons.

Another loose end is the question of how Leslie and Woodley knew the area well enough to hide the driverless car in a location that only Jessica knew was accessible, and only because of her jogging habits. This is so glaring a problem that it really should have been a clue. For example, Leslie having been around a lot since getting to know Tony could have explained how it wasn’t only Daniel who could have known about the hiding place. Or else that Woodley couldn’t have been acting alone, since he didn’t have time to find that hiding spot.

Their plan to kill Merrill was also a bit… improbable. I mean that even if we set aside the driverless car. The plan involved persuading Merrill to take a chartered boat into Cabot Cove and then waiting in ambush along a deserted road from the docks to the hospital. Had Merrill been able to find a taxi or even just gotten a lift from someone, they wouldn’t have been able to kill him. Again, I’m forced to wonder how they knew Cabot Cove so well.

Here, by the way, is the front of the Cabot Cove hospital:

There is about twenty five feet of building to the left of the door. This is established with a shot that follows Ethan and Amos as they walk-and-talk. This screenshot from a moment earlier might help to show this:

The bush (or small evergreen tree) you can see on the right in this screenshot is the same as the one you can see to the left of Amos in the shot with the door. It’s clearly not a big building. The way that they frame it, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was actually a single-story building and they’re trying to pretend that it’s a multi-story building. That blue thing on the left is a postal drop box. Here, by the way, is the very beginning of the scene, right before Ethan and Amos round the corner of the building:

I love the sign saying “NO PARKING DOCTORS ONLY” in front of some gravel.

I don’t really know why this hospital would be located a mile away from the docks, which seem to be the center of Cabot Cove. I suppose that this is just part of how the size of Cabot Cove changes radically depending on the needs of the episode. Sometimes it’s a small town where everyone knows each other and sometimes it’s big enough to support a high school with a full football team. In this episode they put the hospital a mile out of town along a deserted road; I expect that in some episodes the nearest hospital is going to be in another, larger own.

Another loose end is why Leslie lured Jessica into the car only in order to drive her to the edge of a cliff then stop. I can’t see how this benefited her at all and—though no one remarked on it—it probably gave Daniel an alibi since he was likely with Katie. For that matter, Katie could probably give him an alibi for the founder’s day picnic and the murder of Merrill, too, since they were constantly spending time together. Until it was revealed that there was a control van which had to be nearby, that probably didn’t matter much, but once that was revealed, that kind of alibi would be significant.

Technically it’s a loose end that they never so much as mentioned who the vehicle or license plate was registered to. On the other hand, I assume that Woodley and Leslie took the elementary precaution of not using their own vehicle for this, or at least not one traceable to them, so I’m inclined to overlook this as just saving time.

I really want to say some positive things about this episode because I think that the clues about Leslie were pretty well done and I feel like there has to be more positive things to say about this episode, but I can’t think of anything.

Well, I do like the Cabot Cove scenery. That’s always nice. The world-building of the small town where everyone knows everyone else is really fun. TV shows with recurring characters and locations leaned heavily into the parasocial aspect of television and for Murder, She Wrote that mostly meant the Cabot Cove episodes. The parasocial aspect of television is enjoyable, even if it’s not always the healthiest thing. But as long as we recognize it for what it is, I think it can be safely enjoyed.

So far, Murder, She Wrote is off to a pretty shaky start. Deadly Lady was solid, but every episode since then has featured something wacky. Lovers and Other Killers kept the wackiness to a few scenes, but in this episode we’re back to weird gimmicks. It’s been long time since I’ve seen the episodes coming up, but looking over the list I think that the show is going to settle down soon. I’m looking forward to that because wacky doesn’t work for Murder, She Wrote.

Next week we’re in Chicago for We’re Off to Kill the Wizard.

The Star Wars Hotel

Jenny Nicholson has an interesting 4-hour video on the Star Wars hotel (officially, Star Wars: Galactic Starcruiser):

It’s an interesting and entertaining video on the rise and fall of Disney World’s star wars hotel. If you’re in the mood for that kind of thing, I recommend it. If this is too long for you, the tl;dw is that the Hotel opened in spring of 2022 as a Star Wars sequel trilogy themed LARP hotel where there’s a running story with actors who sometimes walk around the “ship” and you, in theory, get to take part in the story. It seems like the taking part in the story is mostly theoretical, much of it being done with dialog trees on an app where characters are texting you, and after a few successful months interest faded quickly and the hotel was shut down permanently in the fall of 2023.

I just wanted to share a few thoughts on the thing.

Galactic Starcruiser looks very much like an idea which was going to be super cool and somewhere about three quarters of the way through implementation Disney realized that they couldn’t do it, and so scrambled to come up with something that could plausibly be considered a version of what they promised. They had wanted an interactive story, and that is doable if you have something like a 3:1 ratio of actors to guests. That would be expensive, but Galactic Starcruiser was. It was roughly $3000 per person for two days and two nights; that’s inclusive of food but still in the right ballpark to pay for a 3:1 ratio of actors to guests.

But for whatever reason, they didn’t go that route. Maybe they ran afoul of occupancy limits, maybe they couldn’t reliably hire enough actors. Whatever the reason, they ended up going more in the direction of a 1:20 actors to guests ratio. At that kind of ratio, it’s not possible to have any kind of interactive story where most guests are more than just extras. “Come pay a lot of money to be an extra in a star wars story that only you see” is not really a promise of “live out your star wars story,” so they had to come up with something. Enter the app.

Disney World has an app for using the parks and this was extended with gameplay for Galactic Starcruiser. Human beings can’t meaningfully interact in a dramatic way with 200 people, but a computer can. Well, not meaningfully, but it can interact with them, anyway. And so all of the interactions which had consequences consisted of texting back and forth with characters in the app going along dialog trees and doing miscellaneous activities which can be supported on a pre-existing phone app such as scanning QR codes on crates, ostensibly to help the characters you’re texting with. Of course, since the actors aren’t going to do anything differently based on how around 200 people interacted with an app, the consequences of these actions were mostly limited to scheduling you to appear at various scenes that would happen throughout the “ship” at different times. The actors’ dialog would be set up to be as compatible as possible with people thinking that their actions had affected the story, but that can’t be very much, at least for people over 8 years old.

Curiously, Disney didn’t even really commit to this approach. Most of your immersive experience being on a screen isn’t wonderful, but they didn’t even give you an exotic screen from the hotel. They just had you use your own phone. So you spent $3000 to go to a hotel where much of your time was taken up staring at your phone. I like my phone but I don’t go on vacation to spend more time with it.

It would have been easy enough to provide the guests with tablets that had star-wars themed cases (that beige metal with rounded corners which screams Star Wars, for example). That wouldn’t be a huge improvement, but it would have been an improvement and would have given guests something in their hands which is in-character and special.

It also wouldn’t have been that hard to make a recombining branching storyline. You can’t make it branch based on individual actions, but you could based on cumulative actions. For example, you could have guests on the First Order side look for hidden contraband, and depending on how much they find the resistance would smuggle some or most through, and the characters may have to do something different if it’s only most of the contraband. You’d still go to the next major story beat no matter what, but how you get there would be different and people would feel that they contributed to the outcome, much in the way that individual soldiers contribute to victory in a battle.

I find it weird that Disney did none of this nor anything like it, and relied on generic, ambiguous dialog to allow people to persuade themselves that they did something if they’re inclined to do that.

This weird course change also explains some of the really strange things, like how the hotel was quite small and everyone was expected to play the game that existed. This is an absurd design, since with a 1:20 actor-to-guest ratio it’s necessarily not a good game. It would have made far more sense to have a much larger hotel, with more things to do such as a pool, an arcade, etc. which cost a lot less and participation in the actor-driven game was a significant up-charge. That would make the cost structure far more bearable, make the actor-to-playing-guest ratio much better, and also make it more fun since there would be people watching the people who paid extra. And the people watching wouldn’t feel left out because they know that the people who are participating in the storyline paid like three times what they did for their stay. Plus most people don’t actually want to LARP anyway. If I, for example, was forced to stay at a hotel like this, I’d pay an upcharge for some kind of badge to wear which made the actors leave me alone.

There’s another really curious issue: did anyone like the sequel trilogy well enough to spend money to have a vacation themed with it? (The fact that the hotel closed does suggest an answer is no.)

I have a hard time believing that anyone could, or that at any time the answer could plausibly have been yes. This isn’t just about the sequel trilogy having been really bad. I mean, that certainly didn’t help, but apart from that the sequel trilogy wasn’t even coherent.

I haven’t seen The Force Awakens but plot synopses make it clear that the main driver of its plot is the search for the map left by Luke Skywalker in case the galaxy should need him. The Last Jedi simply throws this out. Luke Skywalker is a depressed old loser, the Jedi are terrible and should die out, etc. Love it or hate it (and there’s something wrong with you if you love it), this story simply doesn’t go with the first one. Worse, by the end of the film it is clearly established that there is no hope left in the galaxy and the Resistance has been so destroyed that it now fits on a single small ship. If you like this tale of incompetence and defeat, I don’t see how you can also like The Force Awakens, which is a hopeful story about main characters who are at least competent and striving to make the world a better place with some success. Yes, it is normal for the second movie in a trilogy to be a setback for the heroes, but not for it to be a complete defeat, due in no small part to their radical incompetence. Those are just dissonant, unless you pay no attention.

Then we come to The Rise of Skywalker, which again throws out a bunch of stuff from the second movie. Luke Skywalker straight-up says that he was wrong about stuff he said in The Last Jedi, and the galaxy is established to not be hopeless, and the good guys win through gumption, courage, and competence. Oh, and while the second movie claimed that Rey was no one—gutter trash whose parents sold her for drinking money—The Rise of Skywalker establishes her as the granddaughter of the Emperor. Again, this is just dissonant with the second movie. It also has minimal continuity with The Force Awakens, though I am on shakier ground, there, since I didn’t see the first one and only read detailed plot synopses. There is the redemption of Kylo Ren, so admittedly that is one through-line in the two movies. Turning Rey into a Palpatine is absurd and quite at odds with the first movie, but then so is Palpatine being alive. Again, these movies don’t really go together unless you pay no attention.

And the problem that I see, when it comes to marketing, is that people who don’t notice that movies don’t go together because they pay no attention don’t seem like a promising place to look for people who want to pay $3000 for a two-day vacation filled with stuff related to these movies.

The timing of the hotel with the movies is also a bit odd. They want Kylo Ren, and they want him in his Darth Vader knockoff mask because that makes casting easier, so they are forced to set the hotel inbetween the first and second movie. Except they can’t do that, because there was only about a day between the first and second movie and they also want Rey and she was off on Achtung at the end of the first movie. And Kylo had destroyed his mask halfway through the second movie and was dead by the end of the third movie, and had only rebuilt it for a little while during the third movie. So really, there’s no plausible time to have set Galactic Starcruiser. Now, this fits in with people who pay no attention and don’t care about details, but again that seems an unlikely place to look for people who will want to pay $3000 for a two-day “immersive” experience. What’s the point of immersion if you’re not going to pay any attention to it? Why pay $3000 for something you don’t intend to remember?

It would have been different had the movies been good, or even if they were just coherent with each other. I’m not in the target market for this, so I can’t draw on my own intuitions, but I can at least imagine someone who loves a trilogy of movies spending a lot of money for a day or two of pretending that he’s in them. But other than that one who who did the trailer reaction where he was crying at the beauty of everything equally causing many people to question his manhood and most people to question his sanity, I can’t imagine someone loving these movies. They just don’t cohere enough for that to be possible.

And given the spectacular failure of Galactic Cruiser, I guess I’m not going out on much of a limb.

There Was No Time in Which Most People Were Great

I’ve noticed in the last decade or so something of an increase in people complaining about how awful so many people are now. The intended implication is generally that society is doomed, but the real implication is that you can’t just pick anyone as an employee/wife/husband/whatever. The thing is, it’s always been that way.

There never was a time when it worked to hire just anyone. There never was a time when it was a good idea to marry just anyone. Yes, society can be organized in such a way that the pools of people from which it would be reasonable to pick were larger, but there was no time in which it was the majority of people.

I suspect that in many cases the defeatist attitude is the real point—quite a few people prefer explanations for why they can’t possibly succeed to a realistic plan for succeeding, or at least for maximizing their chances of success.

Having acknowledged that, I think that it’s still worth pointing out that in anything important involving people where you get to choose who you associate with, it’s very important to choose carefully. People find it comfortable to talk about compatibility of personality, and there is something to that. Far more important, though, is to find people who are seriously committed to being virtuous. Not merely people who have some decent principles, or who generally behave well, but who are actively trying to live up to their principles.

This is important precisely because, unfortunately, we all fall short. With extremely rare exceptions, looking for people who have never done anything wrong is mostly looking for people who have never done anything. (This is one of the reasons why it’s so easy for young people to pick girlfriends/boyfriends badly; they’re far more likely to mistake someone who’s never failed because they’ve never been tested for someone who’s never failed because they’ve always done well.) Looking for people who are committed to being virtuous solves the dilemma of how to sift through the people who have failed—the ones to pick are the ones who keep trying.

And the thing is, realistically, this is a minority of people, and always has been. And as long as you’re looking for a person who is in the minority, it’s going to be a long, difficult process to find them. So we’ve got to do the same thing that people always had to do—cast a wide net, be selective, and live in hope.

That and realize that the cross we may be given to bear is not finding anyone suitable.

Murder She Wrote: Lovers and Other Killers

On the eighteenth day of November in the year of our Lord 1984, the fifth episode of Murder, She Wrote aired. Titled Lovers and Other Killers, it is set in a university in Seattle. (Last week’s episode was It’s A Dog’s Life.)

mpv-shot0001

The opening is unusual for Murder, She Wrote; it begins with a burglar dressed all in black and with a flashlight (that’s the bright spot in the opening card above) rummaging around. Then the burglar goes into a room with a large safe that he starts trying combinations on when a rich older woman walks in.

The burglar hides and the woman goes up to her nightstand where we get this shot of her telephone and some pictures next to it:

Presumably that’s her son, but the camera spends some time on it, possibly to give her backstory before she’s murdered in a minute. She tries to call someone but doesn’t get them. She then notices the rummaging (opened drawers and crumpled clothes) and investigates it. She picks up a very sentimental music box, whose song tinkles as the burglar creeps up behind her, waits for her to turn around and notice him…

…then strangles her with her pearl necklace.

When the old woman falls dead to the floor, we cut to an establishing shot of the Seattle airport. (The unusual thing about this opening was its length—it was over two minutes long. Well, that and actually having a murder within the first ten minutes.)

We then cut to the interior where Dr. Edmund Gerard (played by Peter Graves) is talking on the phone with his assistant, Amelia.

The subject is Jessica, who Edmund says was not on the plane. He asks her if there was any call about it and gives the background that Jessica said she was definitely going to be on this flight and might be coming with someone. He then spots Jessica and tells Amelia to ignore the call.

We then get to see Jessica and who she brought:

It’s then revealed that the person she was going to bring was Marylin Dean, her editor. The child is named Buddy, and Jessica then hands Buddy to two Chinese nuns.

At least, they’re dressed as nuns and Jessica speaks Mandarin Chinese to them and they respond in Chinese. When she introduces Edmund to them, in English, they greet him in Chinese. They then say goodbye and leave. Edmund calls off to them, “Sayonara” and Jessica scolds him that they’re Chinese, not Japanese.

I cannot imagine what the point of this scene is or how it was supposed to work; why on earth are there Chinese nuns in an airport in Seattle with a baby, and why did they randomly hand that baby to Jessica for a few minutes as they are getting off the airplane? Why would they show us something this strange with no explanation? When did Jessica learn to speak Mandarin? Why do the nuns understand English but not even attempt to speak it? Leaving aside all of the questions of how this is supposed to have happened, what on earth is it supposed to tell us about the characters? Are we supposed to believe that Jessica speaks most languages? Is this supposed to establish that Jessica has such a trustworthy face that random strangers will just hand babies to her and trust her with them to meet up with them later so that they can… I can’t even imagine what two nuns would have to do such that they can’t take turns holding the baby while the other one does it. This is just bizarre.

I suppose the best thing to do is to pretend that this didn’t happen. It’s still early days in Murder, She Wrote and perhaps they were just trying out wackiness. (Perhaps this was meant as a reference to the 1980 slapstick comedy Airplane! in which Peter Graves played the captain who got food poisoning.)

Jessica and Edmund leave and look for Jessica’s luggage. On the way to her luggage we get some backstory. Jessica is in town to deliver a lecture at the university and Edmund knows her from before she was famous. He’s now the Dean of Students at this (unnamed) major university in Seattle.

We then shift scenes to Edmund’s office at the university, where Jessica and Edmund talk with his secretary, Amelia. Apparently Jessica needs a secretary at her hotel, and while Amelia offers to help her, she explains that she needs a full time secretary and Amelia clearly has her hands full. According to the conversation which ensues, she handles Edmund’s personal bills as well as his school work. To prove this, she asks him if he really bought an inflatable raft, and he stammers that he might want to go camping some day. When she tells Jessica that it’s a wonder that Edmund has any money left, he remarks, “There she goes, acting like a wife again.”

Then we get this reaction shot (which will also serve to introduce her):

This distresses her, but then she notices Jessica and she starts laughing as if it didn’t sting. She covers by telling Jessica that she’ll post the secretarial job and one of the grad students will jump at it.

The scene then shifts to outdoors where Jessica and Edmund walk and talk. We learn that they used to hang out in the basement of Kappa Gamma Chi, which suggests that they went to university together. She spent most of her time with Frank, though, and Edmund jokes that she chose the wrong one. Jessica replies that Frank said the same thing—he had a morbid sense of humor. She also asks Edmund if he realizes that Amelia is in love with him, and he dismisses this as nonsense.

The scene shifts to Jessica’s hotel room at night, when there’s a knock on her door. She opens it, but with the chain still on. His name is David Tolliver and he’s here about the job as secretary.

Jessica is taken aback that he’s a young man; he asks if he can come in and she says no. Then she thinks better of this and lets him in. He is bold and presumptuous and apologizes for the late hour by saying that he wanted to beat the crowd and walks to her typewriter and gives a sample of his skills—he types very quickly, accurately, and without looking at the typewriter. He’s a smooth talker and takes the angle that people tend to be prejudiced against male typists.

Jessica humors him, but says that she would feel more comfortable with an older woman. Given that the actor who plays David was 29 at the time of the episodes and he certainly looks no younger than 24, I’m not sure how much older the woman was supposed to be than David is. This job was posted at a university. Did she expect one of the professors to take the job?

Anyway, he smooth talks her and she gives him the job. As he’s about to leave, she asks a curious question: “wouldn’t you rather attend the lectures?” He replies, “Well, actually, Mrs. Fletcher, my tastes in literature run from Vonnegut to Hesse.” Jessica looks a bit taken aback and he wishes her a good night.

Vonnegut is best known for Slaughterhouse Five, while Hesse is best known for Steppenwolf. If you’re not familiar with them (I had to look up Slaughterhouse Five on Wikipedia) they’re nothing at all like murder mysteries and generally quite dark. Which raises the question of why on earth David wanted the job.

Oh, David is also the guy in the pictures in the scene of the old woman getting murdered, so presumably that was his mother. This is our first glimmer of how that opening scene ties in with the rest of the episode.

The scene then shifts to the next day, with Jessica giving her lecture.

In fact this isn’t so much a lecture as a performance; she’s performing a dialog (with voices) between two characters.

We then get one of the most famous moments, or at least one that was included in the credits very memorably:

The crowd laughs, and we got a shot of the crowd. It’s large, as we might expect, though not quite the packed auditorium I had expected:

I guess we can chalk that up to extras being expensive.

Jessica then goes on for a bit explain some ludicrously complicated plot where Little Nell wasn’t deadly because she (Nell) was in a wheelchair and the victim was shot in the temple, the bullet coming out of the base of the skull, a downward trajectory.

This makes it slightly odd that Jessica points, not at her temple, but at her forehead:

She then asks the audience to say, all together, who the killer is, since it couldn’t have been Little Nell, and there was a confused bunch of different answers, to which Jessica answers, “by George, I think you’ve got it. At least some of you.” At which point she looks like she’s done and everyone applauds enthusiastically.

It’s a great showcase of Angela Lansbury’s acting talent, but it’s bewildering if you take it seriously as a lecture. Are we actually to believe that the university invited a guest lecturer to walk them through the plot of a murder mystery, acting it out as she went? This is really more of an act to be put on as student life entertainment, not an academic lecture. While it’s true that universities will give a lot of leeway on what counts as an academic lecture to famous people, even so, it’s not generally a straight-up theatrical performance.

I get that TV needs to be lively but they had the option of opening the scene with her closing remarks, rather than giving us part of the lecture. Realistically, they had a ton of options. And even TV audiences of the 1980s could stand a single relatively dry sentence which sounds sufficiently erudite to establish the lecturer’s status as an intellectual giant. Like the Chinese nuns at the beginning of the episode, this just doesn’t make any sense.

By the way, a downward trajectory through the skull ruling out the killer having been in a wheelchair doesn’t really work because the head is movable. You can get the same trajectory through the skull if the victim was looking down and the murderer was below him. Which you could easily get from a person standing in front of a person sitting in a wheelchair. (This could, of course, be excluded by the bullet having struck the ground shortly behind the victim, but she didn’t say that.) This is kind of just nitpicking, though I do have a point: TV writers of the 1980s were really lazy. Somehow, this worked for them, which I’m still trying to figure out.

And, of course, right after she’s done a bell sounds and the students start to leave. I’d say that the writers had never been to college—or perhaps the editor—but it was also a hallmark of 1980s TV that they thought that the average viewer was an idiot so they would get things wrong just because they thought that the idiots watching would expect it to be wrong.

Speaking of idiots, some guy by the name of Todd Lowery walks up and tells Jessica that her lecture was mind-boggling.

With that jacket, there’s nothing he can be but a professor, which he turns out to be—of English. He tells Jessica that he and his wife are both big fans—and his wife is very tough to fool. Jessica replies, “Well, I guess I’ll just have to try harder.” This is weird since he was complimenting her, implicitly saying that she managed to fool Emily.

Todd’s eye is then caught by a young woman who just came in the door waving at him.

Both Jessica and Todd notice this, and Todd excuses himself. Edmund walks up and congratulates Jessica, saying that her talk was a triumph.

This interests me more than it would most people, I think, because I was quite young when I first saw this and didn’t know to take it as exaggeration. A line from Tom Francis’ parody script for an episode of Murder, She Wrote might help to explain:

JESSICA’S LOVELY FRIEND:
It’s so lovely to see you Jessica! How is your book tour going?

JESSICA:
Very well, thank you. I am a literary titan known to over 75% of humanity and my work is to everyone’s taste.

When I was less than a decade old, I thought that this was an entirely realistic characterization of a novelist’s popularity. Further cementing this was how much the family I grew up in loved books; my mother, in particular, had a fierce love of (good) novels and so this kind of general love for an author just seemed realistic to me. It was only much later that I realized that, with incredibly rare exceptions, this isn’t even slightly realistic. J.K. Rowling may have had success like this, and maybe a few authors like Stephen King or Tom Clancy did. Jessica doesn’t seem nearly as exceptional as they are, though. For one thing, she’s in the mystery genre. It’s popular, but it’s only back in the golden age when someone might be literary-titan-popular in the mystery genre. And that was mostly just Agatha Christie.

I guess part of the problem is that we see Jessica too closely and she’s portrayed as too normal. She never has to deal with being famous, or with being popular; she only gets the benefits of it when it’s relevant. She never concerns herself with what people like in her books; she just writes whatever she likes and everyone loves it. She doesn’t even promote her books. There are no writers in this universe who are not as popular as her. None of this is really a criticism of Murder, She Wrote—Jessica’s being a writer was not really the point of the show. It’s just interesting for me to consider what led me as a child to conclude that this was normal for successful authors and thus the yardstick by which to measure one’s own success as a novelist. And to be clear, I’m not trying to blame Murder, She Wrote. It wasn’t a children’s show and children get all sorts of strange ideas when they watch stuff made for grown-ups. It’s mostly just interesting to see how sub-ten-year-old me misunderstood structures in the writing that were mostly there as excuses to get Jessica involved in the mystery or access to clues.

Anyway, I have a great deal of trouble believing that this talk was a triumph; very few lectures in the history of the world have been triumphs and I simply can’t believe that one which ends with play-acting a scene in which a character mistakenly accuses another of murder and then Jessica points out what’s wrong with the accusation and part of the class figures out who the murderer is with no analysis as to why could be a triumph of anything, whatever exactly the lecture was supposed to be about. (How to write murder mysteries, how to make money with murder mysteries, how to enjoy reading murder mysteries—we’re just never told what the basic subject of the lecture was.)

She asks Edmund about their dinner appointment but he has to beg off because of a faculty meeting. The idea of a same-day emergency faculty meeting is completely absurd. This could easily have been written as Jessica asking if they could do dinner and him saying that he couldn’t, or even explaining that he wasn’t able to get the faculty meeting moved because everyone’s schedules conflicted and they couldn’t find an alternate date. This is just sloppy because the writers were lazy. I suspect that part of this is that they expected that in a TV show no one would pay attention anyway, but at some point people should do their craft well just for the sake of doing it well. God sees a thing done well, even if 99% of the audience doesn’t.

The scene then shifts to Jessica getting home, where David is sitting on a couch reading a book. I wouldn’t normally bother with a screenshot of the book, but this one is very interesting:

Of course, this being television in the 1980s, everything has to be huge to be visible on most TVs. As I’ve discussed elsewhere, the resolution of less expensive TVs wasn’t great and a lot of people had to deal with static due to atmospheric conditions since the TV signals were all broadcast over radio waves. So details like the back cover being entirely a picture of Jessica rather than text meant to sell the book works to make sure that everyone understands that this is Jessica’s book. The fact that it saves trouble writing a back cover that most people wouldn’t have been able to read is purely secondary, I’m sure.

Anyway, it has to be said that The Corpse Danced at Midnight is one of the all-time great titles for a murder mystery. It’s richly suggestive and just sounds great to say. I do fear that it would be very hard to pay off in a book, so it’s good that we never get read selections from the novel or a plot synopsis, but man is it a great title.

Borrowing from the fact that I have actually seen this episode before, the character of David makes my skin crawl every time he’s on screen and he’s supposed to. The actor does a great job of making him both charming and impatient for reciprocation in a way that makes him seem predatory. This is particularly good at setting him up as a suspect in the murder of whoever it is who’s going to get killed, but it does make him an unpleasant character to watch and so I’m going to summarize the parts with him more briefly than usual.

He finished the work hours ago and doesn’t explain what he’s still doing around. He then invites Jessica to dinner, which she declines since she’s uninterested in college student food. He suggests something much fancier, and when Jessica asks if he can afford that he replies, “no, but you can.”

Somehow this results in Jessica taking David to dinner, where he romances her.

As they’re about to leave, and as Jessica tells David that it’s a very nice car he drives and replies that it’s a reflection of the man, Lt. Andrews of the Seattle police walks up and asks David if he would mind coming down to police headquarters because they would like to ask him some questions about the murder of Allison Brevard several nights ago. When David says that he does mind going to police headquarters, Lt. Andrews asks if he would like to come voluntarily or if he would prefer to be placed under arrest, and on that bombshell we go to commercial.

When we get back from commercial break David and Jessica are walking out of the police station. David assures her that it was routine questioning but Jessica objects that two hours is not routine questioning. David says that they are questioning everyone who knew Allison Brevard and he was number 48 on a list of 50. Apparently she surprised a burglar and was killed in a struggle; there were black wool fibers under her fingernails, presumably from the murderer’s sweater.

Here, by the way, is the car he drives:

A reflection of the man, indeed. He assures Jessica that it’s nothing to be concerned about and drives off. They’re followed by what I assume is an unmarked police car.

The next day Jessica goes to the police station and runs into Lt. Andrews, who she was looking for. He’s amused when she says that David said that it was merely routine questioning, but stops being amused when she says that of course it wasn’t, since he’d soon run out of unmarked police cars if he put surveillance on every casual suspect.

He says that she looks like a nice lady and warns her to stay away from David. She’s surprised that he thinks that she’s romantically interested in David and explains she’s only been in the city two days and hired him as a secretary. Notwithstanding, she doesn’t think that he’s a killer. There’s some arguing back and forth in which it comes out that David had been seeing Allison Brevard for several months and she’s the one who gave him the car. After some more bickering, Lt. Andrews angrily drives off, saying that he doesn’t know why David killed Allison, guys like that play by their own rules.

Jessica goes back to her hotel room, where she is surprised and disconcerted to discover David. He gets to the typewriter and asks if she’s ready to start and she says that they should skip today. He explains about Allison Brevard—he has a story where everything she gave him was innocent, largely paid back, and the extent of their relationship was that he found her company delightful, but that’s it. (Jessica doesn’t know about the photos of him on her nightstand, so she doesn’t ask and he offers no explanation about that.) Jessica is noncommittal and still wants to skip today. When asked about the next day, she says that she’s not sure. He asks if he should call first and she says yes. As he leaves, she asks him to never let himself into her room like that again. He replies, “Word of honor.” It is, of course, very doubtful that his word of honor is worth anything.

In the next scene she’s talking with Edmund. When they get back to his office David is waiting to talk to him. He says that he knows that the police have been to see him and he wants to assure the Dean that he had nothing to do with Allison Brevard’s death. Edmund says he’s relieved to hear it, but it’s a pity that he doesn’t have an alibi for the time of the murder. David protests that he was home, alone, studying all night. He asks for the benefit of the doubt and Jessica says that he has it as far as she’s concerned. Tonight, she’s going to do a ton of writing so the next day he’s going to have scads of typing to do.

I really wonder how that’s supposed to work, given that Jessica notoriously composes on a typewriter herself. I don’t think that we’re supposed to ask what she’s doing with a secretary given that she never uses one at home. Nor are we supposed to ask why David would bother to talk to assure the Dean of Students at a large university that he had nothing to do with the murder. It’s not like they’re going to have a personal relationship, or even have met before unless David had been in trouble.

Anyway, David thanks her and leaves, and Edmund says that that was a mistake. Jessica says that while David is obviously something of a con man and perhaps a liar, she doesn’t think that he’s a killer. If he had killed Allison, surely he would have set himself up with some kind of alibi?

In the next scene Jessica receives a phone call from the pretty girl who waved at Professor Lowery after Jessica’s triumphal lecture. She’s in a bar and says that she’s an anonymous friend of David Tolliver’s and she can prove he had nothing to do with the death of Allison Brevard. She is, supposedly, taking a hell of a chance just making the phone call and doesn’t want to give her name, but she will meet Jessica at 10pm tonight at an abandoned warehouse by the docks, number 33.

When she hangs up an angry looking man walks up and asks her who she was talking to, and if it was “that man” again.

It turns out that his name is Jack, her name is Lila, and they’re still married, though from the sound of it, not for long. They fight, then the scene ends.

That night, despite protesting that she had no intention of meeting anyone anywhere, Jessica shows up, alone, at the abandoned warehouse in a taxicab. As Jessica enters the dark warehouse, a car, off in the distance, starts up and drives away as very ominous music plays. We get more ominous music as Jessica walks through the abandoned warehouse filled with stacked boxes until she finds the body of Lila. Actually, I got a little head of myself. Lila is still alive when Jessica finds her, walking towards Jessica with a very surprised look on her face, but then she falls down dead and we see the bloody wound in her back.

And on that bombshell, the screen fades to black and we go to commercial break.

When we come back, after a few seconds of walking around to make sure that the viewer who stayed behind called to everyone else that the commercials are over and the show is back on, Lt. Andrews tells a detective named Lou to go pick up David and find out where he’s been for the last few hours. He then hands Jessica a cup of coffee and asks if she heard anything. Jessica thinks that Lt. Andrews isn’t making sense in thinking that David did it since this would mean killing his alibi. Lt. Andrews counters that David may not have had an alibi, got the girl to say that he did, then killed her so she couldn’t say otherwise. Jessica is impressed by this theory, but unfortunately for Lt. Andrews Lou comes back and says that the surveillance team say that David’s been home all night and never left.

The scene then shifts to the police station where David, in a magnificent sweater, is saying that he told Lila to not call Jessica because of her jealous husband.

Sweaters in the 1980s were amazing things. Anyway, David claims that he and Lila had been seeing each other off and on and it was finally turning into something, which is why the talk of him and Allison Brevard was so much nonsense. This, of course, presupposes that David was the kind of man to not string an old rich woman along for gifts while also seeing a young, attractive woman for her body. Which he clearly was.

The next day Jessica goes to see Edmund but he’s not in. Amelia is quite cold to her and she takes the opportunity to tell Amelia that she’s not competition. She and Edmund are old friends, but that’s it. Amelia tries to demur but Jessica points out it would take a blind person to not see Amelia’s feelings for Edmund. She asks Amelia to let her be an ally and thinks that all Edmund needs is a nudge, and encourages Amelia to give it. Amelia thanks her and says that she’s sorry about David Tolliver, she’s always liked him. Jessica advises her to not write him off just yet; she thinks he’s innocent.

Jessica then goes to see Lila’s husband (now widower). In the course of Jessica impolitely grilling him, it comes out that David and Lila were just friends. There’s also a great exchange where he says, “You ask a lot of questions,” and Jessica replies, “I’m nosy.” He then asks her if it isn’t time for her to be in class, she looks at her watch, and runs off. How on earth he knew when her lecture was, I have no idea, and I doubt that the writers do, either. This is especially weird because he’s the kind of guy to say, generically, “Don’t you have somewhere else to be?” which would have served just as well.

At the lecture, Jessica says that she wants to do something a bit different. Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of the murderer. This is, of course, highly necessary for someone who wants to write decent murder mysteries, but in this case it’s just a ploy for her to thinly veil grilling professor Lowery. I guess this is supposed to make Jessica look clever but it really just makes her look cruel. If she had any decency, she’d have waited for a private moment to do this.

When she gets home she gets a note from David that she got a phone call saying that professor Lowery wants to meet her at 9pm—it’s urgent and confidential. That night at 9pm, as she’s going through the dark, abandoned building, taking the stairs because the elevator is out of order, a shadowy figure at the top of the stairs pushes her down.

This is another scene which shows up in the opening credits. It looks cool, which is a good way to mask the switch to a stunt double to get pushed down the stairs. At the bottom of the stairs Jessica is groggy, but hears David’s voice, then sees him, but blurry, and passes out. We cut to an ambulance, where David is with her as she’s being taken to the hospital. David heard about her thing with Lowery after he left the note and she was gone by the time he got back to the apartment, so he went to follow her. He got to the English building just as she screamed. He didn’t see who pushed Jessica—he didn’t see anyone.

In the hospital room, Edmund and Lt. Andrews show up. Edmund accuses David of having attacked Jessica and he denies it. He swears that he didn’t do it. Edmund asks if he’s telling the truth, just as he’s telling the truth when he said that he was with Lila the night that Allison Brevard was murdered. When David protests that he was, Edmund replies, “No, young man, she was not with you. Because that night she was with me.” And after a few startled reaction shots, on that bombshell we fade to black and go to commercial.

The next day Jessica is with Edmund at breakfast. He summarizes. A few months ago Lila came looking for a job and Todd Lowery needed a teaching assistant so he put her in touch. (This isn’t at all how teaching assistantships work, but whatever.) After a while Lila wanted to get out of the affair but Todd wouldn’t let her—whatever that means. In an affair with a married man, it’s not the married man who has the power in the relationship. No one considers this, though. Edmund thinks that Todd Lowery is more subtle than Lila’s husband, but just as dangerous. She came to Edmund for help and somehow this turned sexual. Eventually they met at the Lumberjack Inn, which is out of town and not exactly a campus hangout. They were there on the night Allison Brevard was killed. He remembers because they were almost run off of the road by a speeding car. It was almost as if the driver were trying to threaten them, or to warn them. When queried, he doesn’t remember the color; something dark like blue or black. He was confident that they weren’t followed. Lila was so scared of her husband she was always watching to make sure that they weren’t followed.

Incidentally, he pays the check for breakfast and the camera draws our attention to the fact that he paid by credit card.

Here in the year of our Lord 2024 this would hardly be worth mentioning, but it was far more unusual back in 1984. Incidentally, I love the generic credit card, “BankMaster”. Very similar to MasterCard at the time, but just different enough for legal reasons. Incidentally, this suggests he was very likely to put the hotel bill on his credit card, which means that Amelia would have seen it. It was established early on that she read his credit card bills very carefully. Anyway, Edmund says that his affair with Lila was foolish but that it did serve a useful purpose, which is to expose David Tolliver for the liar and the killer that he is. Jessica doesn’t question the liar part but it doesn’t escape her notice that this is hardly proof that David killed Allison Brevard.

Jessica then goes and pays a visit to professor Lowery. He asks how she’s doing and says that he had nothing to do with the phone call, which Jessica says she was already sure was the case. He thanks her for her little charade the day before because it knocked sense into him and he was up all night talking with his wife and next week they’re going to go on vacation together and try to patch things up. (This is an unusual university indeed if professors can just take vacations in the middle of a semester.) Jessica is delighted for him. She asks the color of his car by way of lying that she saw a student nick his blue sedan, but his wife dropped him off this morning and they drive a yellow station wagon.

On her way across campus she’s accosted by Lt. Andrews, who tells her that David has been released. The burglary division got some leads on the jewels that were stolen from Allison Brevard. They backtracked these through a fence to a “three-time loser who was on parole.” This tree-time loser gave a complete confession to the murder.

When Jessica gets back to her hotel room, David is there, waiting for her.

Andrew Stevens, who played David, is an impressive actor. He combines so many things, here, but more than anything looks amazingly like a shark about to eat her.

Jessica is not pleased to see him having let himself in when she wasn’t there. They fight a bit, but at one point he protests that the note really was because he got a call and the person who called asked him to take a message, said it was urgent. This catches Jessica’s attention. He said, “Person” not Lowery, or even “he”. This suggests something to Jessica.

Jessica then goes to Edmund’s office. He’s not there, only Amelia is, and Jessica tells her that she needs to speak to Edmund as soon as possible. She just got back from talking with Lt. Andrews, who is going to get a warrant for Edmund’s arrest for the murder of Lila Shroeder. He has no alibi. She tries to trick Amelia into acknowledging she knew about Edmund and Lila but Amelia feigns ignorance. She does get Amelia to admit that she drives a dark blue car but she denies knowing where the Lumberjack Inn is.

Jessica stops trying to get Lila to confess and starts presenting evidence. She tells Amelia that she’s lying. She had to know about the Lumberjack Inn because she pays Edmund’s credit card bills. When she first met Amelia she was confronting Edmund about a charge on his credit card bill. She then asks why Amelia called her hotel with a disguised voice, luring her to Lowery’s office. Was it to kill her?

Amelia says no, she just wanted to frighten her. That’s why she dressed in black, to make her think it was David. The police were satisfied but Jessica just wouldn’t let it alone. She then recounts the night of the murder—she had come to confront Lila but Lila was just leaving when she got there so she followed her, all the way into the warehouse. Lila spotted her and laughed. She knew why Amelia was there and threatened to tell Edmund. Amelia flew into a rage, grabbed a longshoreman’s hook, and lashed out at Lila, apparently after Lila turned her back to Amelia for some reason. Her story is interrupted by spotting Edmund, who had silently walked up.

Edmund quietly says, “Amelia, for God’s sake… why?” Amelia almost whispers back, “because I love you.” Edmund is stunned and says, “I had no idea.” Amelia replies, “No. None at all.”

It almost looks like they’re going to go to closing credits but instead the scene shifts to the Seattle airport. As Jessica is looking at postcards David shows up with a stuffed bear for her. There’s some back and forth where he tries to push for a relationship and Jessica turns him down. He has the wits to try to part amicably and says, “even casual acquaintances find a way to say goodbye.” So Jessica says, “Goodbye, David. And I do wish you well.” He replies, “And I, you. You know, I was enjoying the writing. Send me a copy of the book when it’s finished?” She replies, “I may do better. You may end up being a character.” He laughs at this and asks, “And what would I be? A victim? A Suspect? Killer?”

Jessica replies, solemnly, “I don’t know. I haven’t made up my mind yet.” She then turns and leaves. As she walks off David’s smile is replaced by an angry stare and we go to credits.

The actor who played David Tolliver did a masterful job making him look like a manipulative psychopath (in the clinical sense). And, structurally, it was very interesting to run two concurrent mysteries—one, the mystery of David Tolliver and whether he killed Allison Brevard; the other the mystery of who killed Lila Shroeder. The only real problem with this is that a manipulative psychopath makes my skin crawl and I can barely stand to watch the scenes with David in them. In some cases I resorted to skipping a few seconds at a time with subtitles on.

I’ve got to say, that as much as the episode did have its plot holes, it had an interesting structure which suggests answers for at least some of the plot holes. For example, how did David Tolliver hear of the job posting before everyone else? Amelia thinking of Jessica as a rival and wanting to do her harm explains this beautifully. If she knew David Tolliver would try to prey on Jessica, tipping him off about the job posting—and perhaps not even making the posting public until Jessica had time to say that it was filled—makes perfect sense. It also deepens Amelia’s character nicely.

Another example of something that the structure solves is the weird fact of Allison Brevard having pictures of David on her nightstand but him being completely unmoved by her murder. At first that helps to make it look like he’s guilty, but since he’s a psychopath who tries to seduce older women, it explains both that he was successful with her and also why he was unmoved by her death despite not being involved—psychopaths, by definition, don’t have feelings like that. Further, it makes sense why he would downplay his relationship with Allison so much rather than acting shaken up by her tragic loss—he had moved on to trying to seduce Jessica and the last thing that you want, when trying to convince someone that you’ve fallen in love with them, is another recent lover.

That said, there are things which have no obvious explanation, such as why Jessica wanted a secretary at all given that she famously composed her novels on her typewriter or why she just accepted David rather than interviewing anyone else.

I have a bunch of questions about Lila, too. For one thing, what on earth qualified her to be a teaching assistant for Todd Lowery? Teaching assistants are normally grad students who work as teaching assistants (in their field) in order to pay for grad school. We have zero indication that Lila has a degree in English, and while being young and married to an ex-olympian-hopeful doesn’t rule it out, it hardly makes it more likely, either. But that’s not an arrangement that will pay her in cash—teaching assistantships are pair for by remitting tuition for grad school. Setting that aside, how on earth did she just show up to the office of the Dean of Students, and why did he know about an opening for a teaching assistant? The Dean of Students isn’t Dean of the college. He’s Dean of students. Setting that aside, how did she start an affair with Edmund when she went to him for help in breaking off an affair with Todd Lowery? “I’m trying to get out of a sexual relationship with a controlling older man” is not exactly sexy. Setting that aside, given that she had broken off the affair with Lowery and had started an affair with Edmund, why did she show up after Jessica’s first lecture and to make eyes at Todd Lowery?

Also—and this one is not at the level of plot hole—how on earth were Lila and David friends? People can happen to be friends and in a TV murder mystery we have to be ready to accept some level of coincidence, but it would be nice to have some sort of backstory explaning how the wife of a swim jock and a grad student studying unspecified studies when he’s not romancing older women ever ran into each other.

Obviously, we’re not going to get answer to those questions, so it is what it is. Leaving those things aside, I do really like the plot construction that the manipulative psychopath turns out to be totally innocent of all of the crimes in the story. He seems sinister, of course, and is the sort of person who certainly could have committed the crimes. But he didn’t need to, and in the end, didn’t. There’s a nice kind of commentary in this on human nature, that we want evil to be perpetrated by someone easily recognized as evil, when in reality evil is often done by people who look very innocent.

Not literally by fifty year old secretaries with longshoreman’s hooks, of course. In the 1980s it would have been the extremely rare fifty year old female secretary (i.e. office worker) who had the upper body strength to kill someone with a hook. It’s a great tool for lifting things but an incredibly awkward weapon, making it require far more strength than a purpose-build weapon would need, and given that they were not, generally, needle-sharp, it would require quite a lot of force to plunge it deep into a human body through clothing. (In the 1980s, an older female office worker would almost certainly never have stepped foot in a gym with dumbbells or the kind of strength training equipment necessary to develop the upper body strength required to kill a person with a longshoreman’s hook.) This isn’t as bad as the episode where the victim was killed with a tuning fork through a sweater by a middle-aged woman whose arms weren’t much thicker than the tuning fork, but it’s still well outside the realm of the probable.

But if fifty year old female secretaries very rarely kill people in a way that a twenty five year old male dock worker would find difficult, they do sometimes hate people enough to do it if they could (and get away with it). In reality they’re far more likely to use poison, and far more likely still to use passive-aggressive techniques like reputation destruction, but nice people can wish to do great evil and sometimes go fairly far in their attempts to make it real while staying safe. This is the fundamental truth that this episode gets at. If evil were limited to obvious psychopaths like David Tolliver then we’d all be safe because people like him are pretty easy to spot. He was very smooth, but not subtle. Amelia was subtle.

Next week we’re back in Cabot Cove for Hit, Run, and Homicide.

Errol Flynn’s Autobiography

I recently bought a copy of Errol Flynn’s autobiography. Supposedly he wanted to title it “In Like Me” (in reference to the famous phrase, “in like Flynn”) but his publishers insisted on a different title:

My Wicked, Wicked Ways is not a promising title, but I suppose it probably was more likely to sell more copies.

I’ve skimmed portions of it and I’m not likely to read the whole thing. From everything I can tell, Errol Flynn was not a good man and to some degree he was realistic about this. He did agree to the title—and not ironically, as far as I can tell. This is always sad. As Leon Bloy said, “The only real sadness, the only real failure, the only great tragedy in life, is not to become a saint.” It can still be interesting when the man who is (so far) a failure in life has insight and can tell you with precision where he as gone wrong. That makes it all the sadder, in one sense at least, but it rewards you for the reading. When the bad man doesn’t see where he went wrong and wants your sympathy—this is merely sad and nothing else.

At the close of the book he answers the question of where he is now. He just turned fifty and bought himself a birthday present—a house in the Caribbean. The final words are written sitting on his porch there, looking out at the sea he loved so much. And the final line is:

The second half-century looms up, but I don’t feel the night coming on.

Less than four months later, he would die of a heart attack with cirrhosis of the liver listed as a contributory factor on his death certificate and this book would be published posthumously.


According to the introduction, portions of the book are certainly fiction and some others likely to be so. Oddly, many of these parts are the more lurid stories, such as killing a man in New Guinea. The thing is very much played up—for example, before the first page there’s both lyrics from a song suggesting that young men sow their wild oats when young so they can be happy in their old age and quotes from the bible about how there is no peace but sorrow for the wicked.

Of course, the autobiography was actually written by a ghost writer by the name of Earl Conrad, so however far one trusts Errol Flynn—and I’m not sure that should be very far—there is no reason to trust Earl Conrad, whose only real motivation was to sell as many books as possible. And certainly this was the motivation of the editor, whoever that was. And of the original publisher.

The result is a book it is impossible to trust, which has no really good object anyway. Flynn was charismatic and everyone in his life used that to make money. He did, Hollywood did, and finally his publishers did. I suppose this is fitting, in a sense. He set no higher value on his life than to derive benefit from being liked and to enjoy those benefits as much as he could. Why should anyone else have set a higher value on it?

Which brings us back to the fact that the saddest thing in life is to not be a saint.

The Problem With Stopping Bullying

A little while ago, I was watching a Chris Williamson podcast with a guest who studies bullying. One interesting thing about it was the finding that bullying is primarily among popular people. Which makes sense, if you think about it, because they are actually a threat to the status of others and so putting them down can actually accomplish something. But the thing I found really curious was the discussion of how to get people to stop bullying, because both of them didn’t seem to notice that within a secular framework, this is basically impossible.

It’s impossible for the simple reason that bullying works. When you are vying for social status with other people, bullying can discourage them and get them to stop trying to be popular too, paving the way for you to be popular. This isn’t the thing one typically sees in movies where a big guy picks on some small kid. It’s not that that never happens, but it doesn’t usually happen like in the movies. That kind of thing really is just simple theft—you don’t threaten to beat a kid up for his lunch money because it brings you a warm glow of satisfaction or makes you popular with others, you do it because you want more money and don’t want to put in the effort to get it honestly. In movies, mostly the bullies are just externalized versions of a person’s own conscience, and pick on him for his vices or at least the things he doesn’t like about himself because Hollywood writers are bad people and their consciences frequently bother them so they want to externalize their conscience so that they can eventually beat it up to the cheers of onlookers.

In real life, bullying is primarily done among popular kids because they have something of value—social status. Bullying them makes them feel bad and retreat from the things that make them popular. This kind of bullying is covert—in real life you don’t get crowds cheering for you when you bully someone, so you have to do your best to keep anyone from knowing what you’re doing. (Or else tell them stories which justify what you’re doing as protecting yourself or, at the worst, justice for what was done to you.)

In this context, bullying works. You can, through bullying people, make them feel bad. People who feel bad are not as charismatic. They don’t always show up to parties. People stop liking them as much. When you’re around and as charismatic as ever, your popularity goes up.

Worse for the people who want to stop bullying, bullying is one of the more subtle activities human beings engage in. If you try to have any kind of official anti-bullying campaign, some of the first people to use it will be the bullies. They will accuse their victims of bullying them, or the more sophisticated ones will provoke their victims into some kind of retaliation then bring that retaliation to the anti-bullying authority to get the victim punished.

All of this is especially true of female bullies, since females tend to take advantage of other females’ extreme sensitivity to rejection by females. Skilled girls and women can be artists with this kind of subtle signaling which is virtually undetectable to anyone else.

For these and other reasons, bullying is something that authorities (for the most part) can’t directly stop. But what you can’t directly stop you may be able to indirectly stop—you can try to persuade people to not bully others. The problem with this is that bullying works. Asking people to not bully others amounts to asking them to forgo a benefit. Why should they do this?

Within a secular context, now that quasi-religious feelings for nations have been discredited and no one cares, the only viable way of getting people to change their behavior is to show them why it’s to their own benefit to do or not do whatever it is you want them to do or not do. Hence, with drugs, you clearly communicate all of the many side-effects of drug abuse. To try to stop kids from having children out of wedlock, you try to persuade them that having children will suck and tell them in detail about every STD you can think of.

But bullying works and, if the bully isn’t caught, it has no immediate side-effects for the bully. All you can do is to ask them to forgo a benefit to themselves for the sake of another. But the idea that you should love people who can’t give you anything is a religious proposition; it stands or falls on the truth of metaphysical propositions such as God loving us and creating us to love each other (where love is defined as willing the good of the other for his sake). That’s not exclusively a Christian idea, but it is very far from a universal idea.

Two Different Takes on The Same Tweet

I recently put up a tweet which said:

In case Twitter ever stops working, the text is:

It’s easy to not notice when people exercise self control and don’t say things, especially critical things.

It’s healthy for your relationships to develop the skill of noticing anyway and appreciating them for it.

Then, out of curiosity, I asked my friend Ed Latimore (who, at the time of this writing, has over 200,000 Twitter followers) how he’d have written that tweet. Here’s his response (published with permission, obviously):

It’s important to notice what people *don’t* say…

Especially when tempers run high and it’d be understandable if they said anything wild.

I found the differences to be quite interesting, which is why I’m sharing it.

One obvious difference, of course, is that Ed’s version is more streamlined and easier to read. That’s partially because it’s a skill he’s worked hard at becoming good at and partially because complicated grammar is a weakness of mine. My first sentence involved a double-negative, while Ed rephrased to a single negative, which has an easier flow. The second sentence does flow more easily than the second sentence of mine, but more interesting is how much it diverges. In mine I had in mind the fairly tame, if quite common, case of people complaining or criticizing.

Ed went for the more vivid case of people being angry. The tradeoff is that this is less common—for most of us, anyway—but this makes sense to me as something that will grab attention better, which is important on Twitter since the dominant mode of reading is doomscrolling—or whatever the term for addictively scrolling while skimming to find things to interest one is. There is also an element of Ed’s brand on Twitter, which involves having grown up in the “hood” and in rough circumstances. I suspect that’s less that, though, and more about catching people’s attention.

There is still very much the same idea of noticing what a person prevents themselves from saying; one thing about the context of tempers running high is that it intrinsically suggests people doing what Dale Carnegie famously said most fools do (criticize, condemn, and complain). This does give the benefit of economy of speech, since in Ed’s version there’s no need to spend extra words. The use of “it’d be understandable if they said anything wild” also interests me because it requires imagination on the part of the reader. Exercising that imagination will predispose the reader to sympathy with the other (hypothetical) person. That’s something which was lacking in my version.

Ed’s version also makes greater use of cadence. There’s the emphasis on the word “don’t” followed by an ellipsis, indicating that the reader should take a moment to think about the implication of the sentence. Then there is the specific example; beginning it with the word “especially” serves to emphasize the first sentence as well as shape the the thoughts that the reader had on the first sentence. I can see how that would create greater sympathy between the reader and Ed, as well as making the reader feel greater ownership over the specifics that Ed then gives.

It’s very interesting to see skill at work.

A Funny Place for Advice

I was recently at a pharmacy where there was a small TV tucked into a corner displaying something I found rather odd:

If you have a hard time reading the text, it says:

Things To Remember When Lifting Weights
When doing squats, remember to keep your knees behind your toes at all times. You also want to make sure that your back is straight and strong and your head is faced forward.
—The Ginger Marie Blog

Those who are familiar with how to squat properly will know that the advice to always keep your knees behind your toes is a myth. Nothing bad happens if your knees go in front of your toes and many people need their knees to go in front of their toes to get full depth—especially olympic weightlifters who regularly bottom out their squat (so called “ass to grass” squatting). Like all lifting, it’s a bad idea to suddenly do it with near-maximal loads instead of working up to it, of course—but that’s true of all ways of doing all lifts. Walking up to a lift you’ve never done before and maxing out on it is a useful ingredient in maximizing your injury risk—though it should be born in mind that strength sports have pretty low injury risks compared to most other sports. But still, do work up to your maximal lift attempts. You’ll also lift more that way.

Also, does anyone really need to be told to keep their head facing forward when squatting? I’ve never seen anyone even attempt to look over their shoulder while squatting.

That’s not really why I bring this up, though. A pharmacy is a very strange place to get strength training advice in a corner overlayed on top of a picture of people on exercise bikes. To give a sense of how odd this is, imaging walking into a powerlifting gym and behind one of the machines is a TV which shows a picture of technicians putting someone into an MRI machine and the text on top says:

Things To Remember When Taking Medicine: When taking an antibiotic, always drink a large glass of whole milk with it, finish the antibiotics course unless otherwise directed by a doctor, and stand upright on the ground while taking it.

This, by the way, is the front page of The Ginger Marie Blog, as of the time I’m writing this post:

I do not say a word against Ms. Ginger Marie, but I must confess I’m curious as to why this particular site was chosen as the place from which to get advice on proper squat technique.

Though, to be fair to Ms. Marie, when I try searching the site for the word “squats” I don’t come up with anything. A google search for “The Ginger Marie Blog” and “squats” and “knees” also turns up no results, though that may not mean much since Google has been pretty bad for the last year or two. Still, it’s possible that the random TV in my local pharmacy is misattributing its dubious advice to Ms. Marie.

I wonder if we can blame AI for this? Perhaps a large language model mangled a quote from a publication like Marie Claire and then mangled the attribution, as well. This seems like the sort of thing that AI might do.

As dystopias go, this is a much nicer one than what most dystopian movies portray.

Chemistry Between Actors

Chemistry between actors—specifically romantic chemistry between a male and female actor—is a complex thing and for that reason often taken to be undefinable. While it is certainly too complex to put into precise words, this doesn’t mean that nothing profitable can be said about how to achieve “chemistry.” And we can do that by looking at the term we all use to describe it, “Chemistry,” because, as G.K. Chesterton once said

The phrases of the street are not only forcible but subtle: for a figure of speech can often get into a crack too small for a definition.

Chemistry is the study of how chemicals interact with each other, that is, how they react to each other. Some reactions are not that subtle, but most of the ones studied by chemists are. And this is the essence of “chemistry” between actors. It’s all about how they react to each other’s subtleties.

The art of chemistry, which is just faking attraction—the art of acting is, at its core, faking sincerity—consists of doing the things that people who are attracted to each other actually do. This is subtle, and is divisible into three main parts:

  1. Being extremely attentive to slight signals from the other
  2. Being very attentive to what slight signals one is giving to the other
  3. Being around the other person is just positive in its own right

Taking these in turn, the first of them consists of watching the other carefully. That’s not enough in acting, though, since we (the audience) can’t tell what’s going on in the character’s head. Which isn’t even what’s going on in the actor’s head, so even if we were telepathic it wouldn’t work. What the actor needs to do is to signal that he’s paying careful attention. That is done through reactions—mostly subtle—to the signals the other is giving. The reactions can be fake, but the paying attention can’t be. The actor needs to actually watch the other like a hawk and improvise appropriate sorts of minor reactions. A slight sign of interest should result in a slight indication of excitement or happiness. A slight sign of annoyance or frustration should result in a small sign of concern.

Of course, reactions are not necessarily linear. If the man is in a mood to flirt, the woman showing slight frustration might result in the man doubling-down on the frustrating behavior. The point isn’t the particular reaction, but that there is a reaction. (Some of this will be contained in the dialog, which is the job of the screenwriter, not the actors, but a great deal can be done with stance, facial expression, where the actor looks, etc.)

Another important part of this is that the actors do actually have to look at each other. You can’t be attentive to what is the focus of your attention without looking at it. This can be long, lingering looks; it can be sly, furtive looks stolen when there’s the least chance of them being observed. There’s a wide variety in how to do it, but it must actually get done, and it needs to be connected to the actions which follow it.

The second item—being very attentive to what slight signals one is giving the other—will typically manifest itself in a certain amount of awkwardness, though that’s by no means the only possible approach. It’s somewhat inevitable that people who are preoccupied will take very slightly longer to respond to everything. The feeling of extra care being taken in phrasing, at least some of the time is very helpful to communicate this, too. It will get more subtle the older the characters are, of course, since experience simply helps one execute better. Teenagers can stumble over their words; people in their thirties should have only slight delays if we’re to think of them as adults and not old children.

The third item—being around the other person is positive in its own right—needs to manifest in at least a slight uplift in all reactions to everything. If you’ve got a pitbull clamped onto your leg, it’s still better to have a pitbull clamped onto your leg with the love of your life around than when he’s not there. It’s not that people ignore everything—again, you can at best kind of get away with that in teenage puppy love—but that there is some improvement needs to be evident. This is going to be particularly hard to pull off because it means remembering to (slightly) lower the reactions in all scenes without the love interest, but without that the effect won’t be communicated to the audience.

These three things, if done, will go a long way to giving two actors “chemistry”. It’s not easy, but then there is a reason why people are impressed with good actors.

Debunking Determinism

Since so many people who commented on my video about how determinism doesn’t exclude God, it excludes human beings seemed to want this video, instead, here’s a video debunking determinism.

This is my first time using a teleprompter (way less work than recording the audio, editing it, then finding images and editing them into the video), and I’m curious how well this works as a format.

Here’s Determinism Doesn’t Exclude God, It Excludes Human Beings:

Frustrations Can Be Very Frustrating

I’ve been trying to work out a way to use a teleprompter to be able to read scripts for my YouTube channel without having to do any editing. (My traditional scripted videos, which use an audio track with pictures meant for illustration is extremely time-consuming and I just don’t have the time right now.) I’m trying the teleprompter because I’ve found that if you can see a human being speaking, it’s not a big deal if they occasionally correct themselves, but it feels really weird for that if it’s a disembodied voice.

Unfortunately, when it comes to figuring out how to read a script off of a teleprompter, there’s no substitute for actually trying the thing and seeing how it goes. Which means I’ve had various takes of five to twenty minutes that were no good and had to be thrown out. In several cases these got junked by having the teleprompter settings off (too slow/wrong font size) or the AI teleprompter which uses speech recognition to advance the words losing track and giving up. In some cases, it was finding all of the settings on my laptop to have it stop going to sleep automatically. And in one case I had a complete take where I accidentally left something in frame which ruined the take.

All of this was very, deeply frustrating. I lost hours to this stuff at a time in my life when minutes are precious.

But that’s just how life goes, sometimes.

If you spend enough time doing creative work to do anything worthwhile, you’re going to encounter frustrations and wastes of time. For this reason, a man’s ability to make worthwhile creative things is only partially determined by his skill. That’s necessary, of course, but it’s not enough on its own. Equally necessary is the ability to not give up in the face of great frustration.

This is, of course, the lesson of the tortoise and the hare. If life is thought of as a race, it is won, not by whoever happens to be fastest at the moment, but by those who do not give up.

This is also why forgiveness is such a critical skill, particularly being able to forgive oneself. It does matter greatly how often one stumbles and falls so long as one gets up every time. Indeed, the man who gives up the first time he falls will fall only once—and will not finish the race.

It’s also the same idea as Woody Allen’s quip that “80 percent of success is showing up.” It’s not so much showing up the first time that’s hard, but showing up all the time.