“1+1+2+1…”

If it wasn’t playfully obvious from the title, the author of this smallish (compared to “Culture Corner”) post was rewatching for the millionth time (kidding, only for the 11th time…I think) the absolutely brilliant and timeless movie – Clue (1985).

Unfortunately, the author cannot rant about the movie without spoiling everything, so this post is mostly a strong, passionate, slightly aggressive suggestion to the reader to watch it if one hasn’t already and to rewatch it if one has. And since I cannot sum-up/review the movie without ranting, I will simply mention a few fun facts and some strategies one can implement while watching the film.

Most forms of entertainment, like TV shows, films, plays, and books – will, as a rule, try to provide you with enough information that might help you solve a murder/mystery. If they don’t – they are not worth your time because they are trying to shock you enough that you won’t remember the inconsistencies in the deductions, making it seem like the mystery was incredibly hard and intelligent when in reality it was just lazily written. For example, if one goes back and checks one will most likely either go “How was I supposed to know the grandmother slept with a Chinese man in her youth, secretly gave birth, and then gave the baby up for adoption – if you haven’t mentioned/alluded to it even once in the book,” or “but you said that the shoe was black, not brown, meaning it was the butler who did it not the gardener.” If that happens – that means the writer was either lazy or just isn’t able to write a good mystery without pulling the rug from under one’s feet (and not in a good way). If an author provides their readers with all the information needed to solve a mystery/murder and either confirms their suspicions or manages to one-up them (however, if one goes back and checks all the facts it totally makes sense) – then you got yourself a great mystery writer and a book worth reading or movie worth watching.

To summarize the above lecture: when trying to figure out who killed who, with what and where, some words to live by, or at least keep in mind are Nothing exists until or unless it is observed (William S. Burroughs). Meaning, most probably if it wasn’t shown, wasn’t mentioned, or cannot be easily deduced – it, more often than not, didn’t happen.

Another strategy one might consider to incorporate when investigating (fictional) murders/mysteries is best summed up by a quote from a brilliant show called Columbo and that quote is – One more thing… Any self-respecting mystery reader, writer, watcher or involved fictional character must keep asking questions, even if he/she/it is sure of the answer. One never knows where and what “one more thing” could lead to.

And that concludes the strategy section. On to something more interesting – fun facts.

 

Did you know one of the most famous lines in the film was improvised, despite Jonathan Lynn’s (the director) strict rules about keeping to the script?

 

 

Did you know Carrie Fisher was the first choice for the role of Miss Scarlett?

Did you know the color of the cars in the movie matches the names of the characters?

Did you know there may have been another ending?

Did you know Tim Curry wasn’t the first choice for the role of Wadsworth?

Did you know that originally three more weapons were supposed to be added into the game Cluedo when it was being patented but in the end were not (poison, a bomb & a hypodermic syringe)?

And *SPOILER WARNING* did you know that I have no idea how anyone but Wadsworth could’ve killed the cop in the library, since there are no secret passageways to/from that location and Wadsworth was the only one who had the key after he had locked the cop in for the second time after the phone call?

Anyways, hopefully, this post nudged you to (re)watch what I consider a timeless classic and figure out who killed where, with what and who. And if it didn’t, well…

 

-L.L.L.

 

P.S. more facts about the film can be found by clicking here.