Post by Nalkarj on Nov 16, 2017 22:02:46 GMT
Larcen26 said:
Well, I wasn't really trying to claim it as a negative; I was simply trying to explain to deembastille that this is a major reason why you and I (and she) may be uncertain about it, and that uncertainty is not because of not seeing the movie (a conclusion that I am surprised she reached) but rather because it's build into the story. That's all I was trying to say.
Still, now that you mention it...
It's a gimmicky concept, but I kinda-sorta like gimmicks (in niche-mystery terms, Ellery Queen's The Greek Coffin Mystery and Anthony Berkeley's The Poisoned Chocolates Case are structured in the same way: one set-up, multiple solutions), so I'm more than happy to let it slide.
My problem with it is that a mystery needs clues--real clues, substantial clues, clues that make some kind of effort for the reader/viewer to find them and puzzle it out. This is less of a problem with Murder by Death because, as you wrote previously, "it's not meant to [have clues]." (The problem there is that it all becomes a shaggy dog story and is ultimately about nothing; it has severe story problems, but I still find it funny. Humor--subjective, y'know? )
With Clue, on the other hand, it is actively attempting to replicate the form and function of a murder-mystery--in other words, as (again) you've put it, it's "... a comedy within a mystery... that elevates the tropes to a comedic degree." (Heh--this is something I've argued re: Mark of the Vampire!) As it's trying to do that, it is far more important that it understand and respond to the murder-mystery format--including cluing. It can make fun of cluing, or anything, but it has to deal with it.
Because of the three endings gimmick in Clue, the set-up does not have clues to one single solution; different clues are used to point to different possibilities. And, yes, that's clever, but it avoids the form and function that Clue is aiming for. Ultimately, you need to have an answer to a mystery, or else it's just a--here we go again--shaggy dog story.
(Contrast this with "Mr. Burns," which deeply understands the format, gives us a variety of false solution, and then reveals the true one to which about half-a-dozen different clues pointed. It's pretty darn ingenious.)
And the fact that the title card for Solution C reads "And here's what really happened" shows that they were aiming for a real true solution after the false ones, but the fact that the clues could apply to the other two means that the 3rd one doesn't have the impact it needs. It needs to be clearly substantiated, and in mysteries that substantiation process happens by cluing.
Gee, aren't you happy you asked? Again, just my 2¢; while this is a major concern plotting-wise, I wouldn't mind so much if I found Clue funnier.
You seem to consider that a negative...
I find it brilliant that they set up a story with multiple possible endings where absolutely nothing in the film contradicts those three options.
I find it brilliant that they set up a story with multiple possible endings where absolutely nothing in the film contradicts those three options.
Still, now that you mention it...
It's a gimmicky concept, but I kinda-sorta like gimmicks (in niche-mystery terms, Ellery Queen's The Greek Coffin Mystery and Anthony Berkeley's The Poisoned Chocolates Case are structured in the same way: one set-up, multiple solutions), so I'm more than happy to let it slide.
My problem with it is that a mystery needs clues--real clues, substantial clues, clues that make some kind of effort for the reader/viewer to find them and puzzle it out. This is less of a problem with Murder by Death because, as you wrote previously, "it's not meant to [have clues]." (The problem there is that it all becomes a shaggy dog story and is ultimately about nothing; it has severe story problems, but I still find it funny. Humor--subjective, y'know? )
With Clue, on the other hand, it is actively attempting to replicate the form and function of a murder-mystery--in other words, as (again) you've put it, it's "... a comedy within a mystery... that elevates the tropes to a comedic degree." (Heh--this is something I've argued re: Mark of the Vampire!) As it's trying to do that, it is far more important that it understand and respond to the murder-mystery format--including cluing. It can make fun of cluing, or anything, but it has to deal with it.
Because of the three endings gimmick in Clue, the set-up does not have clues to one single solution; different clues are used to point to different possibilities. And, yes, that's clever, but it avoids the form and function that Clue is aiming for. Ultimately, you need to have an answer to a mystery, or else it's just a--here we go again--shaggy dog story.
(Contrast this with "Mr. Burns," which deeply understands the format, gives us a variety of false solution, and then reveals the true one to which about half-a-dozen different clues pointed. It's pretty darn ingenious.)
And the fact that the title card for Solution C reads "And here's what really happened" shows that they were aiming for a real true solution after the false ones, but the fact that the clues could apply to the other two means that the 3rd one doesn't have the impact it needs. It needs to be clearly substantiated, and in mysteries that substantiation process happens by cluing.
Gee, aren't you happy you asked? Again, just my 2¢; while this is a major concern plotting-wise, I wouldn't mind so much if I found Clue funnier.