The Red Herring Exposed - A Clue Analysis (Part 12, The End)

Loose Thread #3, The Beatnik Preacher/Police Chief

Much like how your local police department is a small potatoes version of the FBI, the Beatnik Chief's appearance is a small potatoes version of the J. Edgar Hoover call.

What we are told: The Beatnik shows up somewhere in the second half of the movie, during Wadsworth's manic explanation of events, as a door to door evangelist. He is warning the group, specifically Mrs. Peacock, that Armageddon is at hand, that their souls are in danger and that now is the time to repent. He has a flyer that he is trying to show them. Peacock slams the door in his face.

What we find out: That the Beatnik is in fact the chief of police. He only comes back into the movie once Green shoots Wadsworth and opens the door to let the cops in. He asks "Whodunnit?" Green tells him they all did and the movie ends. Quite anticlimactic.

From a logic and storytelling point of view, the Beatnik visit serves no logical purpose. The only reason I can think of as to why the Chief of police, of all people, would do that is to theoretically tell the undercover Green that the local police were on the scene and ready to spring when notified. The whole stuff about Armageddon and Repenting could have been various kinds of code to get a message of some kind to Green.

But why on earth would that be necessary? This movie takes place in the 50's, there was no high tech surveillance going on. There would be nothing to prevent the cops from hiding in the woods around the house to stage the arrest. They should have just told Green they would be there and to act accordingly. To that extent, Green does nothing different really once the Beatnik appears. Its just a fun interlude. Furthering the logic problem is how Wadsworth reacts, or doesn't, in this case. Again, everybody in the movie is either an informant, a blackmailer or a victim, carefully invited by Wadsworth to execute his plan. The house was chosen because it was so in the middle of nowhere that Wadsworth believes he can kill a bunch of people, stack them in the basement and then leave quietly one at a time, without getting caught. The implication of an utter stranger appearing at the door to do some bible thumping should have sent off a million alarms in Wadsworth's head. But like the Hoover call, it seems to have no impact on Wadsworth or his plan.

What I think this actually is though, is a scene that was only in there to help facilitate a fake ending. In the real ending Green lets the cops in to arrest everybody but ending #2, the Peacock ending, is different. In the Peacock ending the Beatnik appears and leaves as before but after that Wadsworth solves the crime and exposes Peacock as the murderer. They sing "For She's a Jolly Good Fellow" and Peacock leaves. At this point, the Beatnik has his big scene where he strolls out of the bushes, hits his catchphrase, "Oh Mrs. Peacock, the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!" he drops the flyer, pulls the gun, the spotlights flood on and Peacock gets arrested! Beatnik does a Doc Holliday gun spin into the holster and informs Watson that they got her. Very exciting stuff indeed.

Even in this fake ending it makes even less sense that he would ring the bell as Wadsworth had complete control over the house and surrounding yard, he could have let the cops hide hours or days before the guests got there so there would be no reason for the Chief to get him a message. Oh well, I think the writers just decided that the movie needed more things to happen and for some other people to show up, no harm, no foul.

A final point about the Beatnik Cop. He looks nothing like a beatnik, anti-materialistic, bongo drumming hippie that I think of when I hear Beatnik. In fact, he looks exactly like the Chief of Police. I have no idea why Peacock calls him a beatnik. He was offering a kind of hellfire preaching, warning of God's Wrath as described in the Book of Revelations. Peacock must be hard core if she considers that Beatnik.

And finally, the local cops are useless. Numerous people get killed while they were standing around, having the boss call in to ruin things and knocking on the door to make sure people are suspicious. Maybe they could argue that they couldn't see what was happening inside but they let the poor Singing Telegram girl walk right up to the door and get shot. And then did nada. Just an observation.

The Karen of Sports

We've all seen the videos of Karens' on the internet. The details vary from person to person but the basic structure is usually someone who enjoys a fairly spoiled life absolutely melting down because someone else dared to try and exist in the same world as them without showing the proper amount of respect or deference. Some of the videos are racist, sometimes sexist, frequently classist and always a display of unhinged narcissistic lunacy.

And while most of the videos online are of middle aged white women melting down like Nancy Pelosi if she doesn't have her breakfast gin, sadly we all know from life experience that the Karen behavior transcends race or nationality.

It occurred to me while watching the World Cup that soccer is essentially the Karen of sports and that's why its so insufferable.

Sure soccer just as a sport is boring and pointless but its honestly no worse than baseball most of the time, cricket or hockey before the rule change. So why does soccer strike me as kind of unseemly?

It's because the players are all exactly like your neighborhood Karen. Soccer players are some of the most skilled, in shape athletes in the world yet when anyone else dares to try and compete with them they fall down, start screaming and throwing a temper tantrum until the referee comes over and shows them the proper amount of attention. The whole game has to stop for as long as it takes to calm these man-boys down. 

And much like society with the over-privileged women shrieking in the park, soccer enables and encourages this behavior. The tantrums, the screaming, the pouting; its all fake. They know its fake, the other team knows its fake, the referees know its fake, the announcers know its fake but what happens? Do these insufferable crybabies get reprimanded? Nope! The other team gets a foul, the baby gets their bottle and the game goes on, at least until another impotent narcissist gets offended, then we get to stop to watch another one-boy play about imaginary suffering. Watch any Ronaldo game where he doesn't get his way all the time for an example.

And the refs are just as bad in their own way. They clearly get intimidated by the more famous players and teams, so they take it out on the less imposing opposition. Imaginary fouls, quick or slow cards depending on who it is and of course, their maniacal manipulation of the clock. You would think even in the bizarre world of soccer and extra time; which is only necessary because the sport caters to mentally weak crybabies; that when the time ended, the game ended. But no. Even that arbitrary end of the game can be further extended or shortened, by the discretion of the referee. Based on what criteria? Basically if the referee feels like you're trying hard enough to score you can get extra time. But only if he deems you worthy. Its absurd. I saw numerous games in the knockout stage where some poor team is trying to stave off nine minutes of stoppage time for 20 minutes because the ref apparently wasn't impressed with their effort in clearing the zone.

Its a joke. Society has rightfully decided that the best course of action in dealing with these unhinged, middle aged infants is to publicly shame them. We should do the same with soccer. Try and reinstall a little dignity back into society. If Karens and Renaldos are going to be blessed with skills and opportunities the rest of the people could only dream about, they could at least act like they earned and deserve them.

The Red Herring Exposed - A Clue Analysis (Part 11)

 Loose Thread #2 - The call from J. Edgar Hoover

A bizarre aspect of the movie that is ignored by everyone in the movie.

What we are told: Prior to the surge killing of the Cop, Singing Telegram Girl and Yvette a call from FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover is answered by the off-duty cop right before he makes his own call for help.

What we find out: It was a fact a call from J. Edgar Hoover and it was intended for his undercover Agent, Mr. Green.

This entire element of the movie makes no sense, regardless of the ending. In the two false endings, Wadsworth is the undercover Agent trying to catch the blackmailer and killer. The call from Hoover comes and the Cop answers it and Wadsworth answers it as a representative of the house. All we see is after the call a slightly exasperated Wadsworth take a deep breath, then move on. If the call was for Wadsworth I suppose there could be a reason for Hoover to call with the expectation that Wadsworth would answer the phone, being the butler and all. But once the Cop answered why on Earth would Hoover just continue on and tell the Cop who he really was? No reason.

In the true ending it makes even less sense. Mr. Green is undercover and not in control of the household. Why on Earth would Hoover need to tell him something so badly that he would do it right in the middle of a sting operation where there is very little chance that Green would be able to answer the phone? There is no reason and the movie provides none. Green doesn't get the call and doesn't mention it again until he tells everyone at the end it was for him, in case his badge and gun wasn't enough to convince them he was an undercover Agent.

The call only really serves one function and that is to let the people watching the movie that something is not as it seems. Which we already knew due to the spy, blackmail, Boddy reveals. But I suppose this lets us in to the fact that there is a law enforcement element involved that we may not be hip to yet. The problem though is that while we get that info and do whatever with it, the people in the movie react to it in no way whatsoever. In the true ending, a call from Hoover should have immediately clued Wadsworth/Boddy into the fact that one of the guests was an undercover agent of some kind, or at least working with the Feds. Given that moments later Yvette is killed by White, the Cop by Scarlett and the Singing Telegram Girl by Wadsworth himself, the fact that Green is the only person in the house who hasn't killed anyone yet should have been proof positive that he was the mole. Frankly, Wadsworth should have known that already since all the guests had their informant in the house, besides Green. Wadsworth had the gun and the element of surprise and already had a house full of people being blackmailed who all just killed someone. He could have done anything with Green and pinned it on them. Or hid him in the basement. Or just fled. Anything. We don't know what the conversation was like between Wadsworth and Hoover but its impossible to imagine anything that could have been said that would have eased Wadsworth's mind. Wadsworth reacts by just doing . . . . . . . nothing. Nothing at all. 

Even if you were inclined to believe that the Hoover call was a missed edit from one of the fake endings, the same logic applies. If Wadsworth was the undercover Agent and Peacock or Scarlett was the killer, the fact that the Cop announces to everyone that Hoover was calling the house would have clued the killer into the scam immediately. What actions that would have caused we can't say but it wouldn't have just been ignored. I think it likely that it would have made Wadsworth an immediate target since all the blackmail victims had proven that they would not have worked with the Feds and the whole operation was being orchestrated by Wadsworth. This whole business with the call was for the audience only.

Up next: The final part, the Beatnik Preacher loose thread

The Red Herring Exposed - A Clue Analysis (Part 10)

Loose Thread #1 - Who is Mr. Green?

One of the stranger aspects of the movie that gets lost in the shuffle of multiple endings and slightly different scenes is the true circumstances of our hero, Mr. Green.

What we are told: Green is a State Department employee that is being blackmailed because he is secretly gay and would lose his top secret clearance, and job, if it was exposed.

What we find out: He's a gun toting, super macho, married FBI Agent working to bring down Mr. Boddy and his ring of informants.

This setup doesn't make much sense. If we accept the scenario at face value, one of Mr. Boddy's spies (Yvette, the Cook, Cop, Butler, etc.) found out that Mr. Green was gay, got enough incriminating evidence on him that it would allow for blackmail, then informed Mr. Boddy who initiated the long term blackmail. But how could that happen? To get ironclad enough evidence to blackmail someone, you would think visual proof, probably photographic but maybe a honeypot scenario, would be needed. If Green is straight then that didn't happen. Secondly, how does Green impersonate a State Department agent if he works for the FBI? Presumably the evidence against Green would have been collected before he was aware it was happening, he would have had no reason to believe he needed an undercover job at the State Department to cover his FBI roots.

One scenario that seems to be hinted at in the film is that maybe Green is a stand in. When Wadsworth is answering doors he says something to the effect of "You must be Mr. Green" after seeing Green bumbling about. We know from the end that Green is not the awkward, uncoordinated dolt he portrays himself to be for most of the movie. Is it possible that some other State Department Agent is in fact gay, has in fact been blackmailed, and is in fact a doofus and that the Mr. Green we see on the screen is simply an FBI Agent impersonating a victim to bring down Boddy? It seems highly unlikely. Mr. Boddy simply has to know what the real Mr. Green looks like. The evidence for blackmail has to be physical and incontrovertible to be effective. If you couldn't tell who it was it wouldn't work. This movie takes place in 1954 too, there was no computer trickery that could create the evidence and its doubtful that Mr. Green was willing to go to Cruising levels of undercover to create it. 

So if the proof of blackmail couldn't be faked and Mr. Green couldn't be impersonating a real victim, how did he get pulled in close enough to Mr. Boddy's group to infiltrate the dinner? Remember, in theory, Mr. Boddy is so sure of his evidence against the dinner guests he thinks he can get them to murder people, then replace them as his spies.

The Answer:

One of Mr. Boddy's spies has to have turned against him and is working for the government. Mr. Green could not have instigated the blackmail against himself on his own. That would involve faking a gay lifestyle just hoping that one of Boddy's spies notice and try and exploit it. That may never happen. But if the Cook, Cop, Butler, Yvette, etc. turned informant for the government and started bringing false info on FBI Agent Green undercover as State Department Agent Green to Boddy, then it becomes much more plausible. While photographic evidence would still not exist, other plausible, first-person information could be created by Green and the informant that would convince Boddy's and bring Green into the fold.

So which informant could it be? Who knows. Given Yvette and Mrs. Scarlett's proximity to the sex trade, its possible that Yvette could be a first person witness to some faked gay prostitute and fake Green. The movie provides no Clue that I can see however.

Up Next: The J. Edgar Hoover Call