|
|
Post by Salzmank on Feb 22, 2017 1:16:30 GMT
Mason is one of my favorites too, although all the "Well, this is the one case you can't win, Perry!" gets a little tedious after about a dozen episodes! I've always greatly appreciated clever whodunit plotting (the "puzzle plot"), even when I do guess whodunit, and Perry Mason has surprisingly clever plots, with good suspects, clues, and alibis. I was watching one the other day--I think it was "The Case of the Weary Watchdog," starring Keye Luke of all people--and I was really surprised with the writers' ingenuity. In particular, there's a rather brilliant alibi. Perhaps I simply grew used to years of Murder, She Wrote and its ilk, which tend (with a few exceptions) to present just about no clues to the viewer and then give no ingenuity in the solution (though Columbo, despite its "inverted" format, always had clever plots). The few detective shows nowadays that play fair? Actually, Death in Paradise is the only one I can think of right now! Truly, Salzmank, and there was also that strange, formal, reassuring quality to Perry. Some fans have described it as "kabuki-like", and that does sum it up nicely. To put it in more words: it's not the destination that matters so much when watching PM as the quality of the ride; the scenery, the twists and turns of the roads. The tale mattered less than how it was told, though the Big Reveal was certainly part of the show's appeal as well. It wasn't just "a good ride". I've noticed that the formal aspects of Perry are less in evidence in the early seasons, especially the first three. They evolved. Viewer mail was a likely factor. The five regulars became a team, of sorts, and viewers loved watching them play. No, you're absolutely right, and I agree that there's a reassuring quality to it. Actually, a lot of mystery shows and books have that quality; maybe it's something about restoring justice at the end, making things right with the world? (Though that was not the case certainly in many of Ellery Queen's masterpieces, or in late Agatha Christie.) It's the same sort of thing with the other program I mentioned, Death in Paradise; the high-falutin', hoity-toity critics, nearly to a man, think it's garbage, but tons of people, myself included, love it, and part of that is due to the partnership amongst the lead players. My only concern with Perry (and it's a very minor one, a mere caveat) was that it comes off as mighty silly to have (usually) Burger say, "Here's the one case you can't win, Perry." I mean, you know (I know, I know, there were a few exceptions) he's going to win it, and Burger never realizes, "Gee, maybe I should keep my big trap shut after losing so many cases to Perry!" It's a minor, silly thing, but I also have to stifle laughter at that moment. It's got nothing to do with the characters, including Burger, who, I agree, are great. There's a parallel to The X-Files, of all things, here. I'm pretty much a newbie regarding the show, having watched only the first season--I'd never watched it before because I've never been a sci-fi guy, but a friend recommended it because of my fascination with unsolved mysteries, and I've got to say I love it so far. I think Gillian Anderson, who plays Scully, is an excellent actress--but the writers (in this first season at least) keep having her say, "Oh, come on, Mulder, you can't honestly believe that," etc., etc. I know she's the skeptic, but it's bothersome because in the last episode she just saw "x" (ghost, alien, monster, demon, etc.), and she comes away a little humbled by the "x"--yet in the very next episode she forgets all about that! It has nothing to do with Miss Anderson or even Scully's character and everything to do with the writers. Is that clear, or have I just confused the point even more? |
|
