In my run through of all the Columbo episodes, there will be darknesses and there will be lights. Today we have one of the brightest lights as we step back in time to 15 September, 1971. It’s one of the pivotal events in televisual history. It was the night Murder by the Book first aired.
So grab two bottles of Champers, $15,000 in cash, and let’s take a ride with Jack Cassidy to his lakeside cabin south of San Diego…
Dramatis personae
Lieutenant Columbo: Peter Falk
Ken Franklin: Jack Cassidy
Jim Ferris: Martin Milner
Lily La Sanka: Barbara Colby
Joanna Ferris: Rosemary Forsyth
Directed by: Steven Spielberg
Produced by: Richard Levinson and William Link
Score by: Billy Goldenberg
Written by: Steven Bochco
Episode synopsis – Columbo Murder by the Book
Along with Jim Ferris, womaniser Ken Franklin is one half of one of the word’s hottest mystery writing duo, with a string of best selling ‘Mrs Melville’ mysteries to their name. Unfortunately for Ken, Jim wants to try his hand at solo work. And because Jim really does all the writing, Ken has a problem on his hands if he wants to maintain his playboy lifestyle (which he most certainly does).
After ‘playfully’ intruding on Jim as he finishes the final Melville novel, Ken convinces his partner to accompany him on a trip south to his lakeside cabin. He gets Jim down to his car, and then returns upstairs and trashes the office to give the impression it has been ransacked by person or persons unknown.
Upon reaching the cabin (via a stop at La Sanka’s grocery store), Ken makes Jim ring loving wife, Joanna, to tell her he’s working late at the office. While the two are mid-conversation, Ken shoots Jim, triggering a terrified Joanna to contact the police to let them know her husband has been shot. And, naturally, Lieutenant Columbo is one of the cops called in.
After taking a shaken Joanna back home, Columbo encounters Ken, who has dashed to her aid after hearing the news. The Lieutenant is suspicious straight away. At this time of crisis, why did Ken choose to take hours driving back to LA rather than taking a flight? The detective’s suspicions increase after Ken later plants Jim’s body on his own front lawn. Ken calls Columbo to alert him, yet he still took the time to open his mail afterwards. “Bills are distracting,” says a knowing Columbo as he exits for the night, rocking Ken’s bravado.
While Ken tries to convince Columbo that Jim was the subject of a professional hit due to researching East Coast crimelords for a supposed new book, the suave writer’s plans take another nosedive when Lily La Sanka, the flirtatious widow who runs the grocery store near Ken’s cabin, makes an unwelcome appearance in LA.
She knows Ken is involved in Jim’s death because she saw him in Ken’s car when they stopped at her store en route to the cabin. Now Lily wants $15,000 to buy her silence. But she also wants a piece of Ken himself! So arming himself with Champagne and a bagful of cash, he agrees to a dinner date chez La Sanka on his next trip down south (NB – not a euphemism).
At his most charming, the devilish Ken woos Lily with fine wine and the promise of romance at a cosy dinner for two. He hands over the $15,000. As Lily counts the cash, Ken sneaks up behind with an empty bottle and (presumably, as the tasteful editing shows no violence) bludgeons her to death. He reclaims his money, then rows out into the middle of the lake in Lily’s boat and jetisons her body before swimming home.
All in all, things are starting to look pretty good for Ken. But he hasn’t reckoned on a house call from the Lieutenant at his cabin the next day. In a classic unsettling move, Columbo is in the vicinity ostensibly to assess the area for a getaway with Mrs Columbo. They’ve both heard about the death of Miss La Sanka that morning, although Ken claims not to really know her. Then comes the clincher: Columbo asks what folk do for fun round there at night. Ken assures him there’s no nightlife, “Just sleep and crickets”. That’s funny, muses the detective as he exits. I rang last night to tell you I was coming and there was no one home….
“Hard evidence eludes Columbo until a conversation with Joanna about Jim’s writing habits presents him with his lightbulb moment.”
Columbo’s case is getting stronger: Ken wasn’t home on the night of the La Sanka murder. Ken had given Lily a signed book, proving he knew her. Columbo found a Champagne cork at Lily’s house and had seen Ken packing Champagne for his trip. He knows Ken withdrew $15,000 and replaced it all later. He knows Franklin stands to make $250,000 from the insurance policy on Jim’s life, and that he hasn’t done any of the writing on the books for years. But hard evidence eludes him, until a conversation with Joanna about Jim’s writing habits presents him with his lightbulb moment.
Jim wrote everything down, every little story idea he and Ken ever cooked up, and stashed it somewhere for future reference. Columbo examines every scrap of paper in Jim’s old office, finds what he needs, and confronts Franklin there, telling him he’s under arrest. The second murder of that witness, that was sloppy, Columbo tells him. That was your idea. But the first murder, that was brilliant. That can only have been thought up by a great mystery writer like Jim Ferris. And the whole plot and alibi, in Jim’s handwriting, is now in Columbo’s possession. It’ll be enough for a conviction.
A stunned Franklin recovers from the shock with an ironic smile. Amazingly, the first murder was all his idea – “The only good one I ever had,” he says. He’s marched out of the office to head downtown, leaving the camera zoomed in on a rather sinister portrait of Mrs Melville as credits roll…
Best moment
The episode intro. An amazingly stylish sequence, matching rich visuals with the sound of the pounding typewriter of a writer lost in a world of his own. So begins one of the best episodes of one of the best seasons of the best TV show of all time. It’s an intro so arresting, it still has the power to amaze nearly 50 years later.
My opinion on Murder by the Book
After the hype generated by the successful series pilot Ransom for a Dead Man, series creators and now producers Dick Levinson and William Link had to hit the ground running with Season 1. They did more than that. They absolutely aced it. From its first moments, Murder by the Book is genre-defining.
The episode features many of the great elements that would make Columbo the best detective drama of all time: a wickedly clever crime; a near-perfect alibi; and an epic confrontation between two supremely contrasting leading stars. Interestingly, Murder by the Book was the second episode from the season to be filmed (behind Death Lends a Hand) but it was so impressive that it was bumped it up to open the season at the last minute. I think that was the right decision. No episode deserved the honour of raising the curtain on Season 1 more.
Needless to say, Peter Falk entirely succeeds in portraying the noble qualities we will come to love about the Columbo character. Just look at his sensitive handling of Joanna Ferris at a time of crisis: he conveys a human warmth to the role that audiences can’t help but respond to. Falk was hitting the right notes in Ransom for a Dead Man. He’s moved up another notch here.
Yet despite that, he remains some way short of having mastered the character. Falk’s characterisation would continue to evolve throughout Season 1 and the same can be said of the writing. Legendary screenwriter Steven Bochco (of Hill Street Blues and NYPD Blue fame) wrote the teleplay for Murder by the Book and it’s a belter of a story. However, at this early stage in the Lieutenant’s screen career his personality had not been firmly established and his modus operandi as a detective was yet to be locked in.
As a result, some of his swiftly reached deductions seem a bit of a stretch and he’s also much less circumspect, unsettling Franklin with his observations in a more direct fashion than will later become the norm. A case in point would be when Columbo blows Franklin’s aura of security after the body of partner Jim was found on his front lawn. While ringing the police to inform them of the traumatic event, Franklin made the mistake of opening his mail – an act Columbo knowingly comments on, leaving Franklin in a troubled state of mind.
In future seasons, the Lieutenant would generally soften such moments to leave more doubt in the mind of the killer as to how much trouble they were in – an approach that works better for Columbo’s personality. His directness here in no way hampers viewer enjoyment, though, and Falk’s performance still has the power to mesmerise.
A good proportion of this enjoyment can be attributed to the scintillating chemistry between Falk and Jack Cassidy. To me, Jack is the ultimate Columbo baddie and he’s perfectly cast here as Ken Franklin; a man for whom writing is far too much effort but promoting the books – and his own self-interests – on TV, in print, and at cosy dinners with beautiful young ladies is second nature. One suspects there’s plenty of Cassidy in Franklin, just as there is plenty of Falk in Columbo.
Smooth, charming and utterly callous, Franklin is the antithesis of the scruffy, earthy, unrefined Lieutenant. The contrast between the two zings in every scene they share – especially as the episode progresses and Franklin moves from a smug sense of superiority towards outright annoyance as the detective continues to shadow his every move. Robert Culp and Patrick McGoohan deservedly hold special places in the hearts of all Columbo fans but, for me, neither holds a candle to Jack.
“Words can’t describe how delightful I find it to watch Jack Cassidy in this episode. He’s the ultimate Columbo baddie.”
The support cast performances are stronger across the board than we saw in the pilot episodes. As Jim Ferris, Martin Milner oozes likability and we really feel for him when Ken pulls the trigger. Barbara Colby brings the tragic figure of Lily La Sanka to life. Here’s a woman so lonely and desperate that she’s willing to risk everything for a doomed romance with someone she suspects of murder. Rosemary Forsyth, meanwhile, capably portrays the anguish of Joanna Ferris at the loss of her husband, as well hinting at her inner steel and rational mind. It’s a shame her career never took off as much as it might.
Billy Goldenberg provides the score, which is at once distinctive, sinister and suspenseful. Goldenberg’s contribution to Ransom for a Dead Man did much to elevate the episode to cinematic levels and he’s at his creative best again. He even synthesised typewriter sound effects to include in the episode’s haunting main theme. The guy’s a genius, as this short clip attests to…
Impressive as all that is, I still marvel that Steven Spielberg actually directed this. Despite his tender years (he was 24 at the time), there’s no doubt that we were witnessing a master at work. The first long shot of Franklin’s Mercedes cruising through the LA streets, before the camera draws back to reveal Ferris hard at work on the typewriter, grabs us and we’re never let go. We become part of the action through long, continuous scenes and extreme close ups, while the numerous POV shots help make everything seems as large as life on the small screen. In essence, the viewer becomes an eyewitness.
Outstanding use of shadows and light on faces, the predominant use of locations rather than sets, and a bright visual style also help to set Murder by the Book apart from standard TV fare. Just consider the restaurant scene where Franklin woos Lily La Sanka. The bright red backdrop offers a clue to Lily’s bloody fate, while positioning Franklin firmly as a devilish figure. Wonderful stuff.
Similarly adroit is Spielberg’s handling of Lily’s death. As Ken slips up behind her and raises the Champagne bottle to bludgeon the life out of her, we are shown Lily turn to the camera and let out a terrified scream – but we hear only music as the scene fades out. A homage to Hitchcock, Spielberg had to fight to keep his vision of the scene intact and volume free but, as with just about every production decision made here, it was the right move.
Incredible as it seems now given his legendary status, Falk had to approve the choice of Spielberg, who was very much an unknown quantity at the time. Falk was a tough critic, too, who had power of veto over directors he didn’t rate. Yet after a meeting between the two, the series star was sufficiently impressed to give the new kid on the Universal lot the thumbs-up. The rest is history. Lucky us.
Murder by the Book isn’t quite perfect, though. The gotcha, in particular, is weak compared to all that comes before it. The central premise of the show was to establish a perfect crime, then have Columbo solve it by figuring out the perfect clue. I don’t think we’re rewarded with a perfect clue here. I say, so what if Jim wrote the original murder plot down? As smooth an operator as Ken Franklin could come up with a hundred plausible explanations for that in a heartbeat. I don’t see him confessing on trivia like that.
“Murder by the Book sets out one hell of a statement of intent for the series, which is why it remains such compelling viewing to this day.”
It’s not a fatal flaw, but when compared to truly great Columbo gotchas like those in Suitable for Framing or Candidate for Crime, the episode definitely ends on something of an anti-climax. But that’s not the fault of Falk, Cassidy or Spielberg, who did everything in their power to maximise the episode’s potential.
And because it’s so iconic and so masterful in so many ways, this is the single episode I would recommend a newcomer to the show begin with. After that, they’ll be hooked because Murder by the Book sets out one hell of a statement of intent for the series, which is why it remains such compelling viewing to this day.
Did you know?
The real-life fate of Barbara Colby was as tragic as that of Lily La Sanka. In July 1975, after finishing teaching an acting class, Barbara was gunned down while walking to her car, in an apparently motiveless crime, and died at the scene. She was just 36.
Although some suspects were picked up, nothing was tied to them and the crime has never been solved. You can read more details about this very sad story here.
How I rate ’em so far
Like a new Mrs Melville novel, Murder by the Book leaps to the top of the standings! You can read the previous episode reviews by clicking on their titles below.
- Murder by the Book
- Prescription: Murder
- Ransom for a Dead Man
Where does Murder by the Book rank in your list of favourites? Vote for your number one episode in the Columbo best episode poll here.
Thanks, as ever, for reading. I’ll be back soon with a review of another Columbo epic: Death Lends a Hand.
Contribute to this site’s upkeep from just $3
Read my thoughts on the 5 best moments from Murder by the Book here
Loved that scene, at the play, when Jack Cassidy and his young girlfriend emerged into the crowd…Mrs. Lasanka screams, “YOOOO HOOO!!! OVER HEEERE!!!”, flailing all around. Hilarious and great acting!
Always enjoy this classic, although there are some plot holes or questionable parts. My biggest complaint was Ken and Jim driving that far and Ken stops at the store knowing full well he was supposed to be alone per the store owner or any other potential witnesses. How did he surmise that Jim wouldn’t want to get out to come into the store as well? Who wouldn’t want to get out and stretch their legs out, check out the quaint little store and potentially use the restroom if possible? And how does Ken just assume nobody else would see Jim with him – especially in an area so small and nosy? It is crazy risky for such a well thought out plan. Best thing would have been for Ken to drop Jim off first and then run back out, or better yet, wait until after the murder to go shopping if he had to be seen.
One of
The kitchen scene doesn’t really make sense. Columbo explains that the secret of a good omelet is “No eggs, just milk”, but then, what is he cracking all these eggs for?
Falk misspoke the line. In the script, it’s “just eggs, no milk.” Watch Rosemary Forsyth’s reaction.
Ah, I see. And they decided to use that take anyway?
Must have caught it, if at all, after the scene wrapped. Someone is supposed to follow the script to flag these kinds of things. Oops.
Can’t it just have been that they liked the joke? I’m not sure Peter Falk misspoke that line… it’s more probable he changed it on purpose, as a joke. Never mind he’s cracking all those eggs, of course there’s no omelet without eggs; as a joke it still works.
Maybe Columbo just gets nervous and flustered any time he’s dealing with eggs. A similar thing happened in “Double Shock” when he was on the set of the cooking show, separating the yolks from all those eggs, and all he could manage to come up with in response to any question was to repeatedly say, “Uhh!”
A traumatic experience with eggs from his childhood, more than likely.
What is it with eggs and Columbo? Has no problem breaking a hardboiled egg on a tire iron that was used to bash the brains of a poor nurse. Then he throws away the shells and contaminates a murder scene. Jeeze Lieutenant, you didn’t have to be a slob all the time!
Doubt it. This was the second series episode filmed. The core of the character was being established. This wasn’t the time to portray Columbo as goofy. Or, if it was intended to show Columbo’s funny side, Rosemary Forsyth would have laughed, not worked hard to suppress a laugh.
Besides, if Falk intentionally switched the line for some legitimate creative reason, I think we’d’ve heard that anecdote discussed somewhere in Columbo lore in the last 52 years. It wasn’t.
You’re making an convincing argument, especially backed up by Columbologist’s remark about the dubbing. Yet the remark “no milk just eggs” seems such an entirely obvious and (therefore) meaningless remark (I mean, I’ve made plenty of omelets in my life but not one containing milk) that I can totally imagine Peter Falk changing the line in the spur of the moment – which would also account for Rosemary Foresyth surpressing her laugh.
“It’s like deja vu all over again,” to quote Yogi Berra (an especially apt line when talking about MBTB.) This discussion of eggs and Peter Falk automatically brings to mind all the old “Frank Columbo” stuff. Because both come down to the same thing: the Gospel of Columbo. The implicit view that nothing ever appearing in a Columbo episode could have been a mistake. That nothing could have been a slip of the tongue that no one noticed at the time (or a prop man’s error that no one noticed at the time). If it reached the TV screen, it must be canon. (Hey, let’s start a discussion under “Blueprint for Murder” how Elliot Markham’s use of a “Frank Columbo” ID card as his personal driver’s license was a purposefully designed ploy to impersonate a police officer in order to rid himself of the highway patrolman.)
Newsflash! Columbo was made by human beings, with all ordinary human fallibilities. Moreover, Columbo — especially Season One, which had an immovable wrap date, when Falk had to start rehearsals for Neil Simon’s “Prisoner of Second Avenue” on Broadway — was made under considerable time pressure. A smattering of little mistakes was inevitable. Even the most esteemed productions have a list of “Goofs” on IMDb. It’s not sacrilegious to acknowledge these errors.
I get your point and it’s reasonable. But, IMO, also like saying a Beatles song on a record isn’t “canon,” even if we know or learn that mistakes or unintended sounds are on there. It’s been recorded and released, so if there are parts that don’t look or sound right (off-key singing, words that don’t match the lyric sheets), those recorded songs ARE “canon;” we can’t say they are not, even if Ringo says today that those elements were unintentional or missed in the mixing and pressing of the record. Just my opinion. But I love the lively discussions here!
I would distinguish between errors that were deliberately retained and those discovered too late to fix. So a studio recording of a new song, which is played back immediately and a decision made whether or not to re-record it, is different from a live performance that can’t be fixed once it’s over. I remember the LP of Simon and Garfunkel’s famous 1981 Central Park concert. Garfunkel sang an incorrect line in “Bridge Over Troubled Waters.” That didn’t retroactively rewrite Simon’s lyric. The mistake was uncorrectable.
Then there’s the situation where an artist, over time, makes multiple recordings of the same song, one of which contains mistakes. Both can’t be “canon.” Only one version can be “canon.” The other is an “oops.”
Goofs in filming often aren’t discovered until the film is edited. Then you have two choices: reshoot or let it go. In all likelihood, reshooting here would not have been possible. Falk was gone. The sets were gone. Etc. You’re stuck with the mistake. But it’s still a mistake. You hope no one notices. If someone does, it’s nothing worth trying to justify.
Having been a recording engineer and artist myself, I can say for sure that errors or mistakes absolutely do unintentionally get into the released product.
No doubt. But do subsequent cover artists then feel obligated to duplicate those mistakes?
I kind of see where you are coming from… but it is not really fair to put this entire generalization on one particular point that I’d consider could perhaps not have been a mistake. Of course I know plenty of mistakes were made when filming Columbo, as have been made with any series, as you point out. I am not a devotee to that so called Gospel of Columbo. I am just saying that it’s POSSIBLE (as Columbo would have put it) that this time it may not have been a mistake.
Possible, in that anything is possible, but not probable. Meaning — to me, at least — that it requires more than pure speculation to posit that an inexplicable word juxtaposition, that furthermore serves no dramatic purpose, was deliberate. Maybe Glenn Stewart, our best Columbo detective, will track down Rosemary Forsyth or Steven Spielberg for the definitive answer.
When I reach Spielberg, my question won’t be about Columbo – it will be, “1941…what were you thinking?!?”
In the German dubbing, they chose to let Columbo speak the correct line.
Well, that’s saying something.
It’s easy to second-guess things, but I can’t help imagining Jim being a little insistent about meeting Lilly the moment Ken tells him about her, which would wreck Ken’s plans right away. Forgetting any other reason, it might be one more chance to impress a Ferris and Franklin fan in person, which would be a pretty sentimental thing since the team is breaking up.
I mention this a lot on COLUMBO sites, but I always wonder why Ken doesn’t just string Lilly along for a while, since she’s obviously as interested in him as the money.
And as Ray Flemming says about Joan Hudson, he could always arrange an “accident” much later. Maybe it would wind up being “sloppy” (as Columbo says about the one he DOES arrange), but it might be less suspicious because of the length of time that’s gone by.
(Of course, staying with Lilly would keep him away from “Vogue reporters” and characters played by “Prices Is Right” models, and who knows how many others, so he’d definitely resent that.)
Couldn’t agree more…
An amazing piece of television, to be sure, and wonderfully directed.
If I were forced to name a weakness, it would be the writing. Franklin is a little *too* arrogant, Sanka not quite grounded enough, and the final clue isn’t really definitive enough. It’s a thrill when it’s revealed! Understanding the reason for Ferris’s “Deja Vu” is chilling and seeing Franklin’s arrogance shatter against Columbo’s competence, to the point that he’s talking to Columbo like he’s his therapist about at the end, is very satisfying, but it still feels like Columbo succeeds only by breaking Franklin, and not because of the clue itself.
What I enjoy most about this episode is seeing a Kid Spielberg in his playground, having the most splendid time with his toys. You can feel the joy in it, the youthful exuberance, the raw, new, clever little ideas on shot composition, how they can be framed and executed. It smacks of a budding legend, for sure, even if you didn’t know who it was going to be, or, if you didn’t know who it was – It’s got such STYLE, a unique breath.
One of my favorite shots is the champagne in the cabin scene, where the camera follows the glass from our villain, over to the clink, over to our victim, back to the clink, and back to the villain. Then, of course, the uncut cooking scene in the kitchen. It lends a realism to the scene that would otherwise be less so if it were simply cuts.
All in all an engaging episode, plot flaws be damned. Visually arresting and never becomes stale.
When Ken is in the rowing boat chucking the empty bottles overboard he is handling them with bare hands and they are covered in finger prints !!
What an iconic episode – one of the most impressive TV episodes of all time!
It has significant weaknesses in the “murder plot” department, but is full of style and life! I never tire of it.
There are so many little scenes that give insight into the characters and make them human! And the cinematography is amazing …
Fully agree, this is a excellent beginning to the series with a film noir feel. Cassidy was a superb pairing with Falk so no wonder he was the killer in two more episodes. This is one of the gold standards for the series.
Yes! It feels like film noir!
To me – in this case especially – it is not so much about plot-driven details but the general excellence of the dialogue, acting, atmosphere and aesthetics.
If most prosexutors are dumb enough to look at suxh glaring evidencw of murder and call it ‘flimsy’, then you’re right. If Ken Franklim can get away with such evidence, then literally anybidy can get away with murder as long as they don’t do it im front of a thousand pepple in broad daylight. And even then they probably would still get away with it.
The cynicism that some display here, including the original post, towards the final ‘gotcha’ evidence is rather astonishing. I really hope that the judges who sit over this case do not suffer the same lack of logical perception. It’s also rather funny, having read several of the other reviews, how the truly weak and flimsy ‘gotcha’ evidences (like the one in Publish or Perish, for example) are approved of as ‘good’ and ‘damning’ by the review, while the truly strong and damning ones like this one are sneered upon as ‘weak’. Perhaps this just goes to show that not everyone is suited to potentially practice in the law profession.
So let’s look at the final nailing evidence: Columbo produces a scrap of paper handwritten by Franklin’s dead partner that describes the very murder scenario of his own death. The paper was found (among hundreds of other scraps of paper) in the very office that he shared with his partner, a man who had very strong motives to kill him and who could very easily have seen the paper itself. When you add to this all the other circumstantial evidence against Franklin, it would be an incredibly ridiculous jury that lets him go, and a profound breach of justice.
Some people here seem to forget that there was much more that was written on the paper than what Columbo read out aloud. He specifically asked Franklin “do you want me to continue?” to which the latter, who could see the paper, said “no, don’t bother.” And it’s very likely that the extra details include the killer driving back to his home with the body (as opposed to going by plane) and dumping the body in front of his own house and telling the police that that the body was meant to scare/threaten him.
The bottom line is: what are the chances that the supposed ‘hitmen’ just *happened* to kill Jimmy in such a fashion that matched the exact scenario of the plot he wrote on that scrap of paper: shoot him while he is on the phone telling his wife that he is in the office and will be late? What are the chances of that? Virtually zero. The only defense that a clever defense attorney could try would be to say that the hitmen probably saw the scrap of paper when they came to Jim’s office and then they decided to stage the very scenario written on it so as to frame his partner. Thus, they forced Jim to call his wife and tell her that he is in his office so that they could fire the shot while he was doing so. But why would Jim go along with it when he knows they’re going to kill him anyway, unless he was being tortured? And even then, the stress of torture and duress would have shown in his voice – his wife would have picked it up. He wouldn’t sound like he is just casually and amicably telling her he’ll be late.
Furthermore, there was no sign that any gunshots were fired in the office. No gunpowder, no cartridges, no blood…nothing. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that Jim was in his office when the shot was fired other than just the mere fact that he told his wife that he was. But that is where the scrap of paper comes in. The scrap of paper shows that he wasn’t necessarily in his office at the time because he could have just lied to his wife under the persuasion of someone else – as he probably did. And thus it messes up Ken’s only alibi. In fact, it blows it to smithereens.
Like I said, it would be a remarkably ludicrous (or corrupt) jury that let’s Ken Franklin off in the face of such evidence and such motive. And one just hopes that the jurors do not suffer the same kind of bizarre lack of perception of plain logic and commonsense as displayed in this article and some of the comments.
Most prosecutors wouldn’t even touch this case on this flimsy evidence.
Brilliant argument. On second thoughts, you would do much better to elaborate on why you think the evidence is “flimsy” instead of responding childishly to things you don’t understand.
By the way, I have far more faith in the intelligence and judgement of most prosecutors than I do in that of many of the people that have commented here.
Nathan, might I suggest that you could make your points without the invective. That’s kinda the way we do things here on the Blog.
Nathan, i was a cop (Police Officer and Detective) in Cincinnati Ohio for 21 years and a Military Police Officer in the U.S. Army prior. My experience with these situations found that unless there is good forensic evidence or a witness (or if they are dumb enough to confess) the prosecutors just don’t have time for the case. Hope this helps big guy. Shout out to Glenn.
In real life, there would certainly have been forensic evidence (lots of it) pinning Franklin, (especially after his vehicle and resort home are later inspected). But we are operating within the universe of the story, and thus by its own assumptions or limitations. And that is irrespective of whatever intellectually lazy policies prosecutors may or may not operate by in real life.
For me, there are 4 key ingredients to a good Columbo episode:
1) The murder is well planned and makes us believe the killer can’t possibly lose.
2) Columbo steps in and sees details that suggest the killer’s guilt.
3) Columbo and the killer have a very entertaining battle of wits throughout.
4) Columbo nails the killer with that undeniable piece of evidence.
As for #1, in Murder by the Book, Ken’s plan always struck me as odd and baffling. I could never understand the benefit of committing the murder live over the phone for an ear witness, even if the witness believes it is happening at her husband’s office in LA though it’s actually happening in Big Bear. From the start, it seemed to me as if there were gaping holes in this plan that were sure to be exposed by lesser detectives than Columbo.
As for #2, we clearly see the flaws of the murder plan come to light. The police (without Columbo’s involvement) point out that there is no sign of a murder in the office, which would all but destroy the purpose of Ken’s plan. It MUST have happened somewhere else. Upon dumping the body in the middle of his lawn, Ken calls police and Columbo immediately questions Ken’s decision not to fly to LA and notices that he opened his mail today right after learning of the shooting over the phone–both of these are timing questions made possible by his decision to commit the murder live on the phone.
As for #3, this episode struggles because whereas previous villains had shown Columbo respect and went along with his hunches, Ken right off bosses Columbo around about the motive of the murder, very actively leading the discussion all while showing very clear contempt for Columbo. It seems as if Columbo is perpetually trying to stand eye to eye with Ken but never succeeds. To make matters worse, Columbo is fruitlessly following Ken except for the day that Ken decides to kill a blackmailing witness. Columbo sure picked the wrong day to give Ken a break.
It’s well understood that this episode falters on #4 though it had an opportunity to fare better here. A story idea written by Jim (not Ken) on a slip of paper closes the case (the episode should have been titled Murder by the Slip of Paper). The really unconvincing thing is that moments after Ken threatens to sue Columbo for liebel, a story idea written by another man that vaguely resembles a plot that Columbo has yet to even prove causes him to buckle and confess. I think a better idea would have been for Columbo to have learned that Ken had been long working on a solo manuscript but was unable to complete it and Columbo finds the murder plot within that. At least then the plot would be his own writing and the episode would live up to its title. The really odd thing is that physical forensic evidence plays no part whatsoever in this episode. None. The previous three episodes produced placed significant emphasis on physical evidence.
The fact that the murder took place at the cabin brought in the character of LaSanka into the plot, with her crucial roles as witness, blackmailer, and second victim.
Ever wonder why the final credits (and IMDb) identify Lynnette Mettey’s character — the woman who interviews Franklin in his home — as “Gloria Jr.”? The answer is in Steven Bochco’s original script, where he describes this character as: “a very attractive lady-reporter-from-Harper’s-or-Vogue type, who is probably Gloria Steinham’s younger sister.” Hence, Gloria Jr.
I’m still wondering where Spock’s wife supposedly appeared in “Double Exposure” all these years later!
Where? On the cutting room floor. In his book “Shooting Columbo,” David Koenig gives a detailed account of the scenes deleted from “Double Exposure” when the producers decided to shorten the episode from two hours to 90 minutes. These cuts removed Tanya Baker as an on-stage character, reducing her to someone whose name is mention but is never seen. In the two-hour version, Arlene Martel evidently was in one scene with Robert Culp, at the end of which Kepple paid Tanya to leave town. Snip, snip.
Robert Culp and Arlene Martel are nearly perfect together in the OUTER LIMITS episode “Demon With A Glass Hand.”
Which makes that even more of a crime.
In “Murder By the Book” and “Publish or Perish”, Jack Cassidy’s character killed his golden goose. To me, that’s a truly senseless motive, not what you would expect from someone cold and logical.
Some months ago when I began watching the entire anthology of Columbo episodes on the Sundance Network, I thought quite highly of this episode. CP”s high praise for this episode also set high expectations for the next time I would see it.
That next time would come today, and this time the episode was a letdown. This is solely because none of the clues or the gotcha that Columbo present to Ken prove that he was the murderer. As others have noted, Ken would have hired a good trial attorney and been found not guilty because all the evidence was merely circumstantial.
Many of the later episodes have great gotchas that would also stand up in court; I guess the weak gotcha in today’s viewing made more of an impact on me then it did to CP. I do agree with CP that the directing and the score and other production features are great. I noticed the typewriter sound effect in the score throughout the episode which was a nice touch.
I also respectfully question CP’s recommending this episode to someone as a typical Colombo episode. Besides the uncharacteristically weak gotcha, this episode has none of the typical mannerisms Columbo became famous for. I don’t remember any scene with a “Just one more thing”, or searching through his raincoat for a scrap of paper, or repeatedly irritating the prime suspect by wasting his time/testing his patience, etc.
Finally, I did not see the importance to the plot of Columbo encouraging Jim’s widow’s stream-of-consciousness to help him discover conclusive proof that Ken did it; hadn’t Columbo already found the note Jim had written which matched Ken’s alibi?
Really enjoying this site, CP, and your great insight into each episode.
A friend complained (much like COLUMBOPHILE) about some of the padding in this episode, noting how pointless it seemed when Lily gushed over something as mundane as strawberries, regardless of how tarted up the service might have been. Back in the ’70s fruit still had seasons; we weren’t flying it around the world all year ’round. Fresh, edible strawberries out of season were quite the luxury. Even today they’re primarily hand-picked. In wine terms, where some fruit was a $5 bottle of Aldi plonk, strawberries were a Château Lafite Rothschild. But back then, grapes, melons… even citrus out of season was luxury.
I enjoy seeing the early days of Spielberg’s shots and style, but Cassidy? I can’t tell whether his somewhat hammy performance was just Cassidy’s style, truly bad direction, or Spielberg’s inability to put a lid on him. A good example is when “Franklin” surmises that the murder was a mob hit to send a warning, complete with finger gun and click. Falk’s performance is fantastic in that segment but I find Cassidy unbearable, though not nearly as bad as Shatner’s Lieutenant Lucerne (“Fade in to a Murder”).
It’s an excellent episode thankfully devoid of most ’70s cheese, especially that awful warbling “Here comes the spooky/eerie/scary part!” sound which ain’t a theramin. I agree with ranking in the top ten though I believe “A Friend in Deed” was better.
In the dinner scene, it’s not clear how Lily La Sanka recognized the man in Franklin’s car as Jim Ferris, a shy man that she’d never met who apparently stayed out of the limelight. Maybe she seen a photo of him on a book jacket? Or did she only figure that out after his murder upon seeing his photo in the newspapers?
There was a picture of Ken and Jim on a cover of Time magazine (or similar) framed in his office, so I imagine he was still very well known, even if he left most of the press work to Ken.
The paper almost certainly
would have printed Jim’s
picture in the article that “so confused” Lily.
Ken makes it easy for her to connect the
dots by making a long phone call from her
shop. Giving her more than enough time
to see who was riding in his car with him.
I wonder if the strength of the circumstantial evidence alone would jury have convicted Ken?
After all they never showed if they could find the murder weapon for the first murder. In the second murder too there was nothing to connect Ken directly to that murder.
No fingerprints, no murder weapon though certainly a strong circumstantial evidence.
The point is could a clever defence attorney create a reasonable doubt here? May be ..
So in that case one would find a hung jury and the judge would have had to acquit Ken .. Aw just thinking aloud .. 🙂
I think in real life, you’re right, a clever defence lawyer could have created a reasonable doubt in the jury’s mind and in all likelihood Ken would have walked a free man from court; however, this is the world of Columbo, and they never get past the dogged and determined detective(!), which, I guess, is why he’s been around for so long. One thing that often crosses my mind is that with someone with the track record for catching criminals that he has, that he’s never risen above the rank of Lieutenant! But then, I guess, he’s so needed on the ground to catch the bad guys, that the Force can’t afford to promote him and lose their best man in this regard.
Columbo has risen above lieutenant in the police force, but unfortunately his real first name was “Lieutenant” so there was always confusion. I know, it’s been mentioned that his badge reads “Frank Columbo” in a few early episodes but the producers (and Falk himself) always said that was NOT canon so we have no other choice than call him Lieutenant Columbo.
Thanks for clearing that up; I feel slightly more ‘unconfused’ now!
You want to know what the irony is?
This is an excellent episode, but not at the very
top. It’s not vintage Columbo, in the sense of having
a very clever, hard to trap villain with a brilliant alibi.
Ken Franklin’s idea for an alibi, at the heart of this
episode, is actually pretty dumb. Like the villain himself,
who seems to get more of a kick out of initially confusing
police, than actually getting away with murder.
For starters, police would never trust a scene of the murder
if the body wasn’t found there. That the only location known came
from someone very likely with a gun being held on them before
being shot, makes it worthless.
The only questions from the Lieutenant’s viewpoint, are WHO
would think it was such a great alibi, and WHY?
Enter Ken Franklin, with an unlikely list of mafia suspects, and even
the audacity to dump his partner’s dead body on his own lawn.
So much for WHO.
Next the lieutenant works out that the murder took place at Ken’s
cottage with Lily as an eyewitness. He has a good case against
Ken there if he can prove that the cottage is where his partner
was shot.
But by now, Columbo has also worked out the WHY. Ken’s weak alibi
must have been Mrs. Melville plot idea of theirs, though not in any of
their books. So he complements this alibi as “brilliant”, before springing
his ‘evidence’.
Like the murderer in the later episode, Negative Reaction,
he uses the killer’s belief in the infallibility of their alibi to get them
to incriminate themself. The real irony is that there are many ways
to explain the dead man’s call besides a plot written on a scrap of
paper, which Columbo might’ve planted. So Ken needn’t have
confessed.
While not regular Columbo, the episode’s cinematic style makes it
well above par. Watching the Cassidy character as he gleefully
commits one absurd criminal act after another is pure delight.
Rating 9/10
My rating increased due to
inflation. No really, it was a
bit churlish of me to dock half-a-point
because the killer wasn’t so bright, or
the trail of clues being so obvious.
Final rating: 9.5/10
One of the best episodes in the series.
I’m now rolling the penalty of 0.5 I levied
for the title ‘telegraphing’ the gotcha, thus
ruining the surprise, an essential gotcha
element.
I realize that Ken, in giving Columbo the
stack of complete Mrs. Melville novels, is
satisfying the detective (and the audience)
that the murderer wasn’t following one of
their mystery novel plots.
Of course it probably occurred to the
Lieutenant that only the killer would do this.
Still, it eliminates the idea that the episode’s
title gives away the gotcha. Even though, as
it turns out, the killer’s method WAS written
down on a scrap of paper.
Final Adjusted Rating: 10/10
“Telegraphing” the gotcha deserves extra credit, assuming you didn’t get the telegram the first time you saw the episode. It’s very rewarding, in retrospect, to see the clues you missed. Did anyone perceive the significance of Jim Ferris’ “deja vu” speech on first viewing MBTB? Or the significance of Sylvia Danziger forgetting to pack Hayden’s golf gloves in “Troubled Waters”? Or director Sam Wanamaker’s shots of the mysterious red magic marker in the opening of “Bye Bye”? Did you read “Negative Reaction” and realize immediately that Galesko would get caught grabbing for a negative? Or that Col. Rumford would incriminate himself with what he spotted “By Dawn’s Early Light”? Undoubtedly, first-time viewers missed all of these. And that’s what makes their inclusion deserving of extra credit.
Great camera work, decent writing, excellent acting. There are so many subtle moments in this, even some not called out in the main review. The way Columbo appears by the drinking fountain — it’s almost sixth sense like — you half expect to find out Columbo is actually a ghost who appears at crime scenes to solve them. He makes the comment about having been in the room where the victim’s wife was being interrogated, but not having been noticed — that’s the writer telling us at the series start how Columbo operates, under the radar until he’s got a real lead. he does this same routine again at the investigation of the grocery store owner’s drowning. Back at the drinking fountain, he is kind to the wife because 1. nothing in her affect doesn’t match the known information and 2. he needs inside a lot more information, but as the previous detectives demonstrated, hammering her with questions was not going to work. Oh, and that exchange with the murderer about opening the mail “You were in shock, and bills, they can be distracting” but that wary tired look that said “I know you are going to dance, but we both now know you killed your partner.”
The murderer plan was far from iron tight, but that’s ok, the murder was mostly arrogant, only a little clever.
I would have loved if at the end, the scrap of paper would have turned out to have been a ruse just to elicit a confession. 1: Columbo uses ruses all the time and 2. it would have been fitting retribution for that completely lazy organized crime red herring. I mean, the gall of that hogwash! I also would have liked it if the victim would have laughed at his killer, thinking it to be a return of the same prank from before, realizing at the last second this time was real.
Did they ever actually do the typewriter analysis of that list?And they never executed a search warrant for the gun — murder weapon is kind of a big thing to not spend any time on.
The one thing though, that stands out to me, is Columbo disclosing his suspicions to the wife. Most of the time, Columbo does not share his “hand” with another character. it’s useful here, at the start of the series, because it allows us to see how confident he is in current direction, which from now on we will know is there all the time, even if we don’t get to see it.
It’s absolute classic Columbo. My wife and I watch an episode a week on DVD, and watch them in order. It’s one of the best. Cassidy was a great villain in all 3 of his episodes. He was a pretty terrible guy himself in real life, which probably helps him morph into a killer. This is one of the best.
I watched this again recently and two things happened in the first five minutes that were a bit weird. Ken misspelled ‘”J’accuse” and he was typing ALL IN CAPITALS. Surely no editor would have accepted that?
Uppercase in typed manuscripts,
is a notice to the printer person
to use italic type. Nowadays, a writer would just
highlight the word and select italics.
My mistake. All uppercase is
accepted as someone shouting
the phrase or word. Underlining, means the writer
wants it in italics.
They have proofreaders, don’t they?
I had to share this, and this board seemed the most appropriate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWtiYXPEbqs
I guarantee a chuckle.
Rewatching this episode last night made me realize how ballsy (and foolish) Ken’s plan was.
-Jim could just have easily told Ken “No, I don’t want to go to your cabin.”
-Jim could have said “Oh, a quaint little general store, I think I’ll pop in and look around”
-Jim could have called his wife from the office before he left, explaining the situation truthfully.
-Despite being the weekend, there could have easily been other people at the office building, or a security guard perhaps that could have noticed Jim leaving with Ken.
-Jim could have told his wife on the phone “Hi honey, I know I promised dinner but I’m with Ken right now, he wanted to make it up to me after our last argument” before Ken had the chance to pull the trigger.
-Jim could have said “No, Ken!” before being shot.
-Jim could have survived the shot long enough to say “Ken just shot me!”
-Passersby or other customers could have spotted Jim in Ken’s car.
-The phone records would have shown the call to Jim’s wife came from Ken’s Cabin and not the office. Ken had already told Jim’s wife that he was at the Cabin. Ken either doesn’t know this, or is taking the risk that the Police won’t check.
-Miss LaSanka could have blabbed to anyone who would listen that she was going to have dinner with her favorite, famous author.
-There could have been others at the dock or on the water night fishing or people enjoying a midnight stroll along the shore who might have noticed a very wet Ken Franklin emerging from the lake.
And so on. The clues Columbo picks up on aside, Ken is taking unbelievable chances that no one will detect his actions – repeatedly. All of the murderers in the series take *some* risks of being spotted. But we can “forgive” people like Brimmer (Death Lends a Hand) since the murder was not premeditated, or Santini (Now You See Him) who went to great lengths to both disguise himself but also establish an alibi, or even Gerard (Murder Under Glass) who cleverly committed the murder in such a way that he wasn’t even present during the actual death. The point is, almost all the other murderers try to limit their contact with their victim and be very sneaky when they do, trying to create a plausible alibi. Ken Franklin *tries* to create an alibi, (the phone call to Jim’s wife) but in doing so he actually incriminates himself further.
The only other murderers in the series that comes close to that level of arrogance, to my memory, are maybe Kay Freestone (Make me a Perfect Murder) and Alex Benedict (Etude in Black) but even in those cases I don’t think they took as many risks as Ken.
What a great final scene it could have been, if Columbo had counted up all these risks and if he had mentioned how unbelievably lucky Ken was to come through them all! Instead, Columbo praises and worships the “clever first murder”, which it wasn’t. The most implausible error in Ken’s plan is to assume that a professional killer would shoot his victim while it is making a phone call. Me, I am not a hitman, but even I could figure out that the person on the other end of the line would hear the shot and call the police immediately (just as Joanna did), and in no time the police would catch the killer while he is carrying the corpse out of the building, unless anyone else in the building would witness him by chance. I will never understand why so many fans rate an episode with such a manipulative script that high.
I constantly have to remind myself It’s just a TV show, and in TV shows silly disguises work, there are tons of abandoned places and empty wilderness near (or in) busy cities, non-murderers operate in nearly clock-like predictability, and anecdotal, flimsy, or evidence gathered illegally makes criminals break down and confess.
Nonetheless, it’s fun to nitpick.
And yes, the phone call during the murder…why?
I guess Ken really wasn’t a very good writer after all.
No he wasn’t and that’s the premise of the entire story.
Yes but remember, that at first Joanna
and the police both believed Jim was shot
at his office. The police would’ve been all over that
place in no time flat. But he was shot at Ken’s cottage.
If I could rewrite the script, I’d need to fill the logical hole and have Columbo say: “You know what bothers me, Mrs. Ferris? Why I have problems with your theory? I fail to understand, what were these killers thinking? Did they really expect, we wouldn’t rush to Jim’s office after you heard them shooting your husband? And even if they did believe they could get away before our arrival, how did they manage to escape almost instantly with your husband’s body without being seen by anyone in such broad daylight?”
I can’t get over Steven Bochco leaving out such an important thought.
Your point about the phone call: Ken DOES plan on the police checking the records but he’s sloppy there too because there’s no getting around the timing of the calls he sets up. Ken plans on Jim calling his wife from the cabin pretending he’s in the office, so that long distance call will be logged. To explain that record, that’s why Ken makes the call from the payphone so when the records are scrutinized and asked about the call from his cabin to the wife, she can corroborate she talked to Ken around that time. But the problem is, when she reports the gunshot, that call will be logged at the station. Let’s say, it was logged at 2:01pm. She’ll then say she was only talking to Jim for a minute, so the call initiated at 2pm. Now when Ken’s records are checked, it’s going to show the Jim call from his house at 2pm, which Ken was hoping would be explained by his call from the grocery store to her. So now it looks like Ken’s call and Jim’s call happened very close to each other which is possible but suspicious because it now looks like the calls are overlapping. But when asked she’s certainly going to remember talking to Ken a good ten or fifteen minutes before Jim, remember they had to drive a distance from the store to the cabin. Even if she’s fuzzy on that gap between calls, she’s certainly not going to testify that Ken’s call, Jim’s call and the police call all happened within a minute or two of each other. I don’t recall Columbo brought this up as evidence though.
I saw a pretty interesting article about the use of phone records in Columbo episodes, in the Feb 2021 archives.
Yes, it’s far from being the “perfect crime”.
And even if it was, wouldn’t the victim be very suspicious of the killer since they had already discussed the murder plan and he even wrote it down?
Jim had a deja-vu experience on the way up
to the cottage, but couldn’t explain it. Jim’s
falling for the trap, may’ve helped Columbo
conclude that it was a Ken Franklin writing
idea which he recycled.
In most of the chances that
you cited, they would have
been reason for Ken to abort his plan. Jim was the
relative unknown of the team, so probably would
be unnoticed by passersby. Finally, Lily would not
likely tell anyone about a meeting with someone
from whom she was getting a payoff.
I watched “Murder by the Book” again last night, and I noticed something that I hadn’t noticed before and it made the “gotcha” moment more satisfying. After Columbo reads the story idea, “A wants to kill B. Drives B to a remote house and has him call his wife. Tells her he working late at the office. Bang Bang”, but before Columbo says, “with this I think we have enough for a conviction”, he says, “Shall I read some more?” Indicating that there was more incriminating evidence. Maybe driving the body back to the city and dumping it in the lawn. Maybe trying to pin the murder on organized crime. Who knows, but it gives us a reason for Franklin to give up.
This is what I’ve been saying. He seems to have missed the part where Columbo said there was more details, and Franklin told him not to read any further. But I would also say that even with the one vague sentence that was read out by Columbo, it is already pretty incriminating when you add to it all the other circumstantial evidence (the money at the bank, him driving to LA instead of taking a plane, etc..) and the very strong motive that he has for killing Jim. With a good lawyer he could probably still get away with just those things, but when you add the remaining details on the paper, he’s pretty much finished.
I got into Columbo from watching this episode just to see one of Spielberg’s earliest works. It’s pretty incredible how much of his bag of tricks he used later on are in this. Lots of long takes (the cooking scene), slow creeping dolly shots, using wide angle lenses for closeups. The shot where Ken and Lily are having dinner at her house and the camera follows the glasses clinking reminded me of the drinking contest scene in Raiders. The whole thing looked very cinematic with the high contrast shots, quick pans. It’s pretty unbelievable that the rest of the episodes were very TV after this. Flat lighting, low contrast and shot very straight forward. It’s surprising the execs even ok’d such a style but it worked.
Name of the stunning brunette Jack Cassidy was with when Lily made a surprise appearance? Haven’t seen this episode in a while, but I think I remember her to be breathtaking, and one of the top sirens to appear on Columbo.
I found her.
Anitra Ford.
She was an original model on The Price is Right!
Big Bear Lake? That makes sense, but then why the talk of San Diego??
Maybe there weren’t any such idyllic locations south of San Diego?
Just found this site. Excellent reading. Whilst it is purely personal taste on who is Columbo’s greatest villain, I do tend to agree with the author that Jack Cassidy is hard to beat. If any of his 3 appearances appear on the USA TV channel I will watch it, in spite of the fact that after nearly 50 years I could probably turn down the sound and do the dialogue myself. Great TV.
I don’t know if
I could do a
Columbo episode. But I used to know every
line of The Maltese Falcon. It was also fun
doing the impressions of Lorre, Bogie, Astor
and Greenstreet.
The first Columbo episode and one of the best aired once more on telly yesterday. With the elite and homme noir Jack Cassidy at the centre of Columbo’s conundrum.
There was one scene that, as there usually is in the show, that didn’t sit right. Midway through Columbo tiurned up unannounced at chez Cassidy down in the lakes. Of course he isn’t chastised like he should be by the cool Cassidy. There follows more snidey questions about Cassidys night life down here. Cassidy replies oh none, just sleep and crickets. Thus being tricked by rain coat man. Columbo then goes on to say I’m sorry to bother you like this unannounced but I rang you last night to tell you I was coming. But there was no one home! Ha ha Cassidy just sucked it up without any reply. When the obvious one, well I was asleep, would have fitted Columbo’s original question! Lame. And while we are at this, Columbo’s modus operandi is to arrive announced at all scenes in all episodes. As the smooth operator JC already knew. So that shouldn’t have washed without being called out. So there’s that.
Anyway long live Columbo and all the many repeats on speed dial around the world. Gives us all plenty to ponder in these dark days of 2020.
We often forget that Columbo takes his “victims” by surprise.
Indeed, Ken Franklin (Jack Cassidy) could have answered he slept, if he had been prepared for that observation (which is n’t even a question). But he wasn’t. He didn’t expect Columbo to come so soon, and he didn’t expect the observation.
The same reason holds for several ‘gotcha’scenes in the series. The murderers can have arguments, and they certainly will have at the court, but they don’t when Columbo corners them.
There’s some excellent directorial flourishes here. The soon-to-be murderer knocks on the door of his partner and pulls a gun- excellent, but we can clearly see that there are no bullets in the chamber of the revolver. The partner comments on this a moment later and we thought we were so clever for noticing it but it was a plot device. Then later, as the writer is calling his wife, in the background Jack Cassidy turns away and he is doing something- a lesser director would have included a shot of bullets being pressed into the revolver in closeup but Spielberg knew exactly what his audience was looking at and what they were thinking, he knew it wasn’t necessary and he was right.
I think his purpose was to
build suspense. The audience
is wondering, is he loading the gun or what?
They get the answer soon enough. But you’re
right, only an amateur would show the bullets.
A great episode all around. It’s definitely in the top 5 for me too. Thank you for pointing out Spielberg’s great use of light and shadows. I remember being struck by the light/dark contrasts during Columbo’s entrance scene at the water fountain–superb!
I hadn’t specifically noticed the red background in the restaurant scene, but it is a marvelous use of color to foreshadow Lily’s fate and highlight Ken’s devilishness.
On a bit of a wonk-ish sidenote: During my latest re-watching of this episode, I noticed that they use the same stock police chatter background in both body-discovery scenes. I’m sure that I’m not the first one to point this out. There may even be a comment about it in this thread. What really stuck in my head was the woman’s voice saying, “…MP’s have been notified…” I suppose it was just laziness in post-production, but I think it’s a fun little quirk.
If you notice at about the 3 minute mark when Cassidy opens a bottle of champagne, the cork explodes from the bottle just as he takes off the foil, but we never hear it land. He really could have injured himself right there.
I thought the scene when they went for dinner was a little freaky even though great, it kind of un-nerved me the way the camera was used. Really enjoyed the write up.
I also liked the eerie look
of using a fish-eye lens
for the closeups. Exaggerating their expressions,
and really making it look like Lily’s doing a deal
with the devil. Which she really was, a lot more
than she had reason to believe.
The fish eye camera lens thing, was a recurrent trope in many thrillers in the 1970’s, but, agreed, it did add to the eeriness of the episode, and, of course, the director (of the episode) was a young Steven Spielberg. All told, with the acting and directing talent involved in this episode, it couldn’t fail. I believe it did go on to win at least one prestigious award at the time and is my favourite Columbo episode by some way. In fact all three of Jack Cassidy’s appearances (in Columbo) are among the best the series had to offer – in my opinion.
It should have been obvious to anyone that the murder didn’t take place in the office (since when do writers work in high-rise offices anyway?) because (1) there was no blood, no gunpowder, no bullets and no bullet marks in the office, (2) what kind of hit-man takes the body away with him, especially from the upper stories of a tower block and (3) no phone call at the appropriate time.
Just one more thing, as they say – why does Columbo say the second murder was sloppy? He can’t get Franklin on that at all; we can’t even be sure he is likely to be charged with it.
As you illustrated correctly, the first murder isn’t any less sloppy than the second one. That’s why Columbo chooses to get Franklin on the first one, although he doesn’t have more substantial proof about the first one than he has about the second one. Columbo can call himself lucky that the episode’s running time is up, so Franklin has to confess. Traces of Jim’s body in Ken’s trunk would have been more solid proof.
The proof is in the timing of the phone calls, an angle dropped from the script. Comparing phone records would have shown that Joanna received the call from the cabin within the same minute she called the police. Joanna would also confirm that she spoke to Ken at least 20 minutes to a half hour before Jim called. So if Jim was the last person she spoke to before calling the police, it stands to reason he was calling her from the cabin. Phone companies are very good about the time and duration of long-distance calls.
A search of the cabin would then have turned up some blood. I mean, Ken had to carry a dead body from the sofa to his car. But there’s rarely any blood evidence in Columbo: don’t get me started on “Lady in Waiting.”
I couldn’t have explained it any better. This is one of the episodes that don’t ignore the possibility of checking with the phone company, yet it fails in taking full advantage of it.
Blood evidence was not a no-go in Season 1. Look at “Blueprint for Murder”, where Goldie fakes blood on the hat.
I spontaneously remember blood evidence later in “Sex and the Married Detective”, “Columbo Cries Wolf” and “Agenda for Murder”.
Fun fact: Nonetheless, “blood” in “Columbo” is mentioned three times in translated episode titles in my country:
1) “Wine is Thicker Than Blood” (German title of “Any Old Port in a Storm”)
2) “Blood Red Dust” (German title of “A Matter of Honor”)
3) “Blood Marriage” (German title of “No Time to Die”)
I too am a great fan of this episode, especially with its arty camera angles, haunting music and Jack Cassidy’s debonair, wonderfully arrogant and highly amusing portrayal of the charming but evil Ken Franklin.
While I love the opening sequence as much as you do, I did spot two little goofs in it, which I’m surprised that Spielberg overlooked. (1) When Ken drives into the car park on his way to see Jim, his car passes underneath a sign that says “EXIT ONLY” as it enters the building. Is this an oversight, or just Franklin’s arrogance? I’d like to think it was the latter, but suspect the former!
(2) The misprint on Jim’s typewriter: he types “J’ACUSE” with one C, but the correct French spelling is “J’ACCUSE”. Would a best-selling author make a mistake like that? And if I wanted to be hyper-picky, I’d point out that he’s inconsistent in his punctuation. He types a comma before the closing inverted commas (“J’ACUSE,”), but in the next line, he types the full stop after the closing inverted commas (“YOUR WET UMBRELLA GAVE YOU AWAY”.)
If you look at the titles of the Mrs Melville books on the shelves in the office, they’re rather humdrum for best-selling murder mysteries: “Mrs Melville in London”, “Escape”, “Adventure”, “Mrs Melville’s Favorite Murder” (does she actually like the act of murder?!), “Mrs Melville in Court” and – bizarrely – “Death of Mrs Melville”! Similarly, the brand of champagne that Ken seems to take everywhere with him has an uninspired and rather silly name: “Champagne de France”. Where else could champagne come from but France? It’s a protected name of origin.
When Ken gives Columbo an armful of Mrs Melville books to read, he gives him 10 books, including 2 copies of “Mrs Melville in London” and 3 copies of “Mrs Melville’s Favorite Murder”. And when Columbo brings the books back to Ken at his home, he is carrying not 10 but 14 of them!
There are also continuity glitches in the scene where Columbo buys Mr Tucker (the insurance broker) a hot dog at the famous “Tail o’ the Pup” hotdog stand, which I gather featured in several other TV shows. Differently-shaped tiny nibbles appear in just the bun of Mr Tucker’s hot dog but not the sausage, and this happens despite the fact that he never even puts it in his mouth.
But I guess only the pickiest of diehard fans would be interested in those sorts of details! I just find them amusing. As for the ending: yes, Jim’s scribbled story idea in the office certainly does not prove that Jim was in San Diego like Columbo says it does, so it’s disappointing as a key piece of evidence. And the irony of the idea being Ken’s originally means that Columbo’s successful solution of the case is based on a mistake: his wrong assumption that the idea for the murder had to be Jim’s. I don’t like the idea of Columbo cracking the case based on a mistake, and he can’t prove that Jim’s call to his wife came from the cabin and not the office.
I have to confess that I don’t find Jim Ferris a particularly likeable character, just naive in not seeing what’s around the corner when Ken asks him to lie to his wife on the phone. And that naivety is strange given that his sleuthing mind enables him to see through Ken’s practical joke with the gun right away in the opening scene. Odd. And Franklin’s plan depends on Jim only making his call to Joanna after arriving at the cabin. What if he had wanted to call her from the office before setting off with Ken? That would have wrecked everything.
Still, it’s one of my absolute favourite episodes with extremely classy camerawork, great music as you say, an entertaining script (especially Ken Franklin’s lines, which Cassidy delivers with real panache) and some very funny moments. I love the arrogance of Ken Franklin’s request for a drink from Joanna after he drives to her house from his cabin in San Diego, having just murdered her husband! Wouldn’t Jim’s body still have been in the boot of his car at that point? And Columbo was still inside the Ferris house. Franklin really is brazen!
If I ever make it to California, I will make a point of going on a pilgrimage to Big Bear Lake where Ken Franklin’s cabin is – what a marvellous view! Maybe I’ll check with some of the local real estate people whether I can rent a cabin for the season…
Did you pick up on the scene where Franklin gives Ms. La Sanka an autographed copy of “Prescription Murder” in her store?
Yes. I don’t think that one is in Jim and Ken’s office or among the books that Ken gives Columbo, interestingly.
I noticed that! Nice little in reference to the first pilot episode? 🙂
“Would a best-selling author make a mistake like that?” Absolutely. That’s why they need copyeditors (of which I am one). Being a creative writer doesn’t necessarily mean having a masterful grasp of grammar, spelling, and punctuation. But I did wonder why Jim was typing in ALL CAPITALS.
Ex-act-ly! Thank you for clarifying that. All the nitpicking about the “mistakes” got on my nerves. Of course they would have had proofreaders at the editor’s.
was Ken’s body in his trunk the whole time he was with Johanna and Columbo? Yipes, that takes nerves of steal!
Yes it was! No wonder he immediately asked Joanna for a nerve-calming drink!
Wouldn’t it have been a good idea for Columbo to look for traces of Jim in Ken’s trunk, maybe some hairs that he might have lost? Self confident as Ken appears, he wouldn’t have felt the need to clean his trunk. A missed opportunity to really nail Ken with real evidence, because the proof Columbo has against him in the end is rather weak.
Perhaps the police or DA will investigate the trunk further after the arrest.
All of Jack Cassidy’s “Columbia” killers had nerves of steel, especially Stefan Mueller. This episode is yet another in which Columbo appears to have insufficient evidence for a murder charge. The sole surviving (a potential blackmailer has been killed off, effectively albeit without that much finesse) piece of evidence appears to be that the murder resembles the plotline of a similar murder that the victim had typed up yearlier. (I forgot to mention that victim and killer were a pair of murder mystery novelists.) THIS IS EVIDENCE OF A CAPITAL CRIME??
It was also still in the trunk when Ken took Columbo to the office where he showed him the paper and then sent Columbo off with ten of his books!
Believe it or not,
Columbo works
that one out too. He was puzzled enough
to ask Franklin why he drove down, not
flew. After Jim’s body turns up on Franklin’s
lawn, it finally made sense.
The Columbo having a problem not flying always bothered me. I think the cabin was near San Diego. Driving would almost be the same time to LA factoring in going to the airport, waiting for the departure time, flying to LA, getting a cab. Even if it was like an hour faster, most people wouldn’t think twice just to do the simple thing and drive.
I agree. I’m not sure what lake it’s supposed to be (I think the scenes were filmed around Big Bear Lake, which is closer to Los Angeles, but they clearly state San Diego, so I guess it’s just a fictional lake). In any case, having lived in both L.A. and San Diego, I can say with certainty that driving from one to the other really doesn’t take much longer than taking a flight. And I drove and flew in the pre-911 days when security was less time consuming.
I would actually think it far stranger to take a flight under those circumstances. After all, with your own car you can drive to the different fishing areas, go out to dinner, pick up groceries (admittedly, also to move a corpse) etc.
So it’s one of the rare cases where Ken Franklin is 100% correct: How much time *does* one save really? Answer: not much at all. Plus one would be at the mercy of taxis in what we are to believe is a sparsely populated lake town.
I think Columbo meant
Ken flying to LA, but leaving his car at
the San Diego airport.
Flying in the early 70s was a lot less hassle. You were stuck with the official (regulated) scheduled times but delays were few.
The first words in this first episode are “Who is it?”.
A good question in a crime series.
But a question that doesn’t quite match the Columbo series, where we normally always know who it is. I wonder why Jim opened the door after his question remained without reply. He could have opened the door to let a professional killer in.
For quite a while I thought that the victim’s wife was in on it as she and Franklin seem very close…
He calls her early (to set up his alibi) and says he will “see her soon” even though he is no longer partner with her husband.
They meet and embrace warmly (before Franklin knows Columbo is there) and he calls her “love” later in the scene.
Later when Columbo is making his case against Franklin the victim’s wife defends him, strange behavior if she wants her beloved husband killer brought to justice.
You were spotting another weak element in this far from flawless script. But if Joanna was in on it, Columbo would have caught her in the end – otherwise it would be an even weaker episode.
I think the reason for her defending Franklin is that, at that time, she just can’t see how he could have killed her husband. Not to mention the fact that she has known Ken for years and whom, I ask you, of your personal friends, colleques, aquaintances, would you suspect of murder? I can see where you’re coming from, but I don’t think it is a weak element in the script, just a natural reaction.
To add to Zacharycat’s post: That would have been something, for the victim’s wife to be in on it in this one. It would have made for an entirely different episode. That such a plot can work is proved by 90’s ‘Death hits the jackpot’.
It also seemed a little odd to me that Ken would have called his partner’s wife to tell her he and her husband had “made up” after their disagreement. Wouldn’t that have been something for Jim to have told her himself? But she doesn’t seem surprised by it. And in the actual murder scene, I also wondered what might have happened if Jim had said Ken’s name when he saw the gun aimed at him.
No episode of Columbo or indeed any TV show is perfect, but I do think this episode is strong enough to be the pilot (episode) of the series, with the quality of the acting cast, storyline and Steven Spielberg behind the camera. I hadn’t thought about the fact Ken had called Jim’s wife to inform her of their supposed reconciliation but I guess this is a necessary factor for him setting up his alibi. I suppose if Jim had called out Ken’s name, the games up; however, I guess Ken was banking on Jim being so shocked by the situation that he’d be dumbfounded, which is how it played out.
Actually, this was the killer trying to be clever.He knew that in the end, the phone history would show a call from his cabin to the victim’s house. He called on a somewhat innocuous topic, the victim’s wife files the call under “unremarkable” or pointless. When The police later ask her about the call, she will remember it, but not think anything of it, giving the police no reason to worry about it either.
As another commenter pointed out, the telephone record pard of the plan has flaws in it. One is the missing call — the one from the office to the house — it’s not listed. The second is that the call from the cabin to the house is at the wrong time, and it’s at the time that the fatal call is supposed to have occurred.
Well, if the call from the office to Jim’s home was local, there would not have been a record of it, anyway.
It was to cover up the call
Jim makes from Ken’s cabin,
as police will assume that the phone call Jim
makes is the one Ken made to her from the
shop only minutes before. Which was a station
to station, prepaid call, and has no record. Thus
they will conclude that the fatal phone call was a
local one.
True, the two calls are not precisely the same time,
but phone records may not be that accurate to
begin with. The only time known for sure is when
Jim’s wife phones the police shortly after.
Colby was shot to death and Cassidy burned to death. Horrible endings for such accomplished people.
I agree with the assessment of that the dramatic flat lining of the ‘gotcha’ moment but only to the extent that Columbo did tell us that his case of circumstantial evidence was deep but it needed a nudge to push the chances of conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that’s what Ken understood too after Columbo rattled off the laundry list of circumstantial evidence at the climax. It was just ‘one more thing’ that made the case unassailable.