The Problem With "Everybody's a Suspect" - Macleans.ca
 

The Problem With “Everybody’s a Suspect”


 

This post is going to be shorter than the subject deserves, but I was reading this post about the possible killers on The Killing (I think I may have accidentally found out who the killer was in the original, but luckily the U.S. version may go differently) and thinking again about the issue so many murder mysteries have with characterization. It’s an issue that is forced on them by the format, and it’s as follows: when you have to create a world with a lot of potential murderers, you have to create a whole bunch of characters who “read” the same whether they turn out to be murderers or not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOKdrOxhmL4

A murder mystery needs potential suspects, but the trickiest part is not simply finding a reason why each of them might have wanted to kill the dead person, or leaving each one of them without a true alibi. It’s that every one of the suspects must be a plausible murderer, meaning that someone who would never kill anybody – which describes most of the people I have known in my life, even the meanest ones – is not a very useful part of the story. And all the suspects’ actions must make sense if they committed the crime, or if they didn’t. A lot of good drama is about creating very specific characteristics and motivations for characters. In a murder mystery, any potential killer has to be a somewhat vague character, because everything they do must be justified by two very different outcomes. It doesn’t even matter if the creator has already decided that this person isn’t the killer – unless it’s one of those early suspects who obviously didn’t do it. To make the mystery work, most suspects can’t be clearly innocent. So the result is a sort of choose-your-own-adventure characterization. It’s similar to those stories that pull Shocking Twists on you that reveal everything we knew about the character was a lie. That’s fine, and it can work, but it doesn’t make for deep characterization when you have to admit that characterization is so totally subordinate to the plot.

I think this is another reason why murder mystery procedurals, no matter how realistic they may be detail-for-detail, often seem to take place in a strange world that’s nothing like our own. They have to expand the number of potential murderers beyond what that number would be in most cases – not even because real people are so nice, but because real people are squeamish, or channel their rage into alcoholism, or just have alibis that won’t fall apart. The Killing feels a bit more realistic than most such shows because it spreads the mystery and the pool of murderers over a season, where the average mystery show packs several suspects into one 40-minute episode. But it still exists in that Agatha Christie world where the motive and the will to kill is potentially found in every single person. That works as a comment on human nature, but it is of necessity a very stylized portrayal of the world.

There are ways to populate a mystery with interesting characters even if they are suspects, of course. The Killing has several, and other shows use various tricks: one of them is to portray a suspect as a bad guy through and through, and then reveal that he wanted to commit the murder but just didn’t get the chance – so the writers don’t have to construct two completely separate characterizations for him. And I think this is one reason shows are so in love with pinning the murder on some minor character we met early on. It’s not great mystery storytelling, and founded on the belief that we don’t really care about solving it (which NCIS showrunner Shane Brennan, for one, has more or less admitted, saying that audiences care about moments and scenes, not about the plot). But it means they don’t have to work for a great length of screen time to construct a character who is completely believable as a murderer and a non-murderer.

And then there’s Twin Peaks, where the world was completely stylized and the creator didn’t really care who did it anyway. (Update: Or maybe that’s too glib – about not caring who did it, not about the stylization, I mean. See comments.) That’s why comparisons of any long-form mystery show to Twin Peaks are a bit of a, shall I say, red herring.

Finally, with all the murder mysteries on TV, you’d think someone would try finding a way to bring back a form where you don’t need as many plausible suspects – like a Columbo reboot. Granted those stories are very hard to write, but at least you only need two plausible murderers: one who did it, and the person the murderer tries to frame for it. And Columbo already suspects the real murderer from the get-go, allowing the episode to focus on building each guest character as a fixed, set character, not two completely separate characters.


 
Filed under:

The Problem With “Everybody’s a Suspect”

  1. No no no no no!

    Rewatch Twin Peaks, and you see so much work crafted around the identity of the killer — which was predetermined, but planned to never be revealed. We’re actually told twice — quite explicitly, if one is used to reading Lynch’s filmic language — not only whodunit, but how that character’s interactions with the show’s netherworld (and its inhabitants) played a part; one of those scenes is in the first half-hour of the pilot.

    Now that I’m through my rant, I loved the article and this family of topics.

    #hobbyhorse

    • Related: I’m most of the way through season two of The Rockford Files, and it’s been interesting watching them introduce and gently play with the usual structural elements, such as the car follows, the fights, the knocks on the head when entering a dark room, the unending line of fellows showing up at his door with a gun, etc.

      They definitely go full Christie on the whodunit aspect. Sometimes it’s one of the likely characters, but occasionally it’ll turn out to be the person who hired him, and once in a while even the main suspect all along turns out to be the guilty party.

    • That’s fair. I do need to re-watch, anyway.

      • It only becomes a disease if you find yourself rewatching it a couple of times a year for over a decade. (Not that I’d know anything about that.)

  2. You’ve reminded me of my “Murder, She Wrote” Crime Stoppers tool. From the list of guest stars at the top of the show, eliminate the victim(s), anyone who is shown to have a motive or opportunity within the first 50 mintes of the show, and anyone who is related to Jessica. There should be one person remaining; almost always, this is the murderer.

  3. If nothing else, thanks for the link to the SHOT IN THE DARK trailer–it’s almost as funny as the movie itself . . .