Billed as a celebratory special to mark Columbo’s 25th anniversary (more about that later), A Trace of Murder saw the Lieutenant rise Phoenix-like from the ashes of the Strange Bedfellows debacle of two years earlier.
Airing on May 15, 1997, A Trace of Murder granted Peter Falk’s wife Shera Danese her sixth series appearance and biggest to date as she played one half of a pair of murderous lovers who offed an innocent pencil neck in order to frame her boorish husband for a crime he didn’t commit.
If that sounds like pretty formulaic stuff, take heart! Her partner in crime (David Rasche) is a police forensics expert and a colleague of Columbo’s, offering the potentially delicious twist of a murderer actually having sufficient expertise to baffle the wily Lieutenant.
But is A Trace of Murder something to get excited about, or is it yet another disappointment in a revival era that has seen more misses than hits? Let’s get in amongst the cat hair and carpet fibres and have a very close look…
Dramatis personae
Lieutenant Columbo: Peter Falk
Cathleen Calvert: Shera Danese
Patrick Kinsley: David Rasche
Clifford Calvert: Barry Corbin
Howard Seltzer: Raye Birk
Tracy Rose: Donna Bullock
Officer Will: Will Nye
Harry Jenkins: Franklin Cover
Harriet Jenkins: Alice Backes
Stuart March: Dion Anderson
Barney: John Finnegan
Directed by: Vince McEveety
Written by: Charles Kipps
Score by: Dick DeBenedictis
Episode synopsis – Columbo A Trace of Murder
Cathleen Calvert, peevish wife of jillionaire business mogul Clifford, wants out the loveless marriage – but is unwilling to commit to a divorce that would seriously limit her cashflow. As a result, she easily convinces lover and LAPD forensics expert Patrick Kinsley to join forces with her in a murderous scheme that will get Clifford out of the picture without cramping her style.
Clifford is being sued by weedy finance broker Harry Seltzer, who claims he was duped into investing based on fraudulent financial information. After the pair publicly row at a swanky dinner, Clifford gleefully decks his rival in front of a sea of witnesses. This known animosity makes Clifford the perfect fall guy when Cathleen and Kinsley conspire to eliminate poor Mr Seltzer.
Timing the murder to occur when Clifford is driving between office and a family friend’s wedding, Kinsley inveigles his way into Seltzer’s house under the pretence that he must borrow his phone to ring his ailing daughter in hospital. After ascertaining that no one else is at the property, Kinsley guns Seltzer down using a .38 calibre pistol Cathleen swiped from Clifford’s desk drawer.
He then snips off the end of one of Clifford’s trademark Cuban cigars with his ever-present Swiss army knife and leaves it in an ashtray before whipping out a DUSTBUSTER mini-vac and hoovering up some cat hairs and fibres from the carpet around the corpse. These he places in a plastic tub and gets the heck out of there – wiping his prints off the phone and setting the house alarm system to PANIC mode as he makes good his escape. A police officer is on the scene within minutes – his opening of the door allowing Seltzer’s aggressively furry cat to bolt away in terror.
Meanwhile, across town, Cathleen and Clifford are enduring one another’s presence at the wedding when she excuses herself to get some fresh air. The wily dame is actually collecting a cannister of cat hair that lover boy Kinsley secreted into her car before vanishing into the night. Back inside, Cathleen convinces Clifford to share a slow dance and discreetly rubs the cat hairs and carpet fibres all over the back of his jacket in a manoeuvre that will place her bad-tempered husband at the scene of the Seltzer killing.
Naturally enough, one Lieutenant Columbo is amongst the officers investigating said murder – and he’s in high spirits, handing out bananas to his fellow cops like candy at Halloween. It is here that he meets Kinsley for the first time, the murderer present under his guise as head of the LAPD’s Forensics Unit. There’s an immediate fly in the ointment of his perfect murder plan, though. The cigar end that he left plain as day in the ashtray is nowhere to be seen! He can’t effectively frame Clifford without that, can he?
Columbo, on the other hand, is more concerned at the whereabouts of Seltzer’s missing moggy. He instructs bungling Officer Will to find the beast that he was responsible for freeing, sternly telling him: “That cat could be the only witness to this terrible crime. I WANT THAT CAT!” Quite how the Lieutenant plans to pump the feline for information on the killer’s identity is a mystery never solved.
Leaving Kinsley to his forensic snooping, Columbo departs to break the news of Seltzer’s death to his lawyer, Tracy Rose. She spills the beans on Seltzer’s law suit against Clifford Calvert and – lo and behold – the Lieutenant’s first suspect is handed to him on a platter. Naturally he heads straight to Calvert HQ, meeting Cathleen, who summons big Clifford from his hungover bed.
The swaggering southerner is absolutely unconcerned by Seltzer’s death, indeed claiming it to be the “best news I’ve heard in a long time.” But the smirk soon falls from his face when Columbo questions him ab out his whereabouts at the time of the killing. Clifford explains that was on the road – although he did stop off at a convenience store to buy some throat lozenges on the way. His mood plummets further when Columbo asks to see his gun. Upon checking his desk drawer, the gun is conspicuous by its absence! The fiery Clifford is already between a rock and a hard place.
Checking up on Clifford’s movements, Columbo swings by the Jenkins household, where oddball couple Harry and Harriet (AKA Captain Combover and Chipmunk Girl) confirm that he had attended their daughter’s wedding the night before, as claimed. After having a glance through the amazingly amateurish-looking official wedding photos, Columbo keeps hold of some happy snaps of the Calverts for future reference. He’s then sent on his way with a basket of apples left over from the big day.
Continuing the theme of Columbo joyously sharing fruit with his co-workers, the Lieutenant drops into the forensics lab to share the wealth. It’s here that he gets his first glimpse of Kinsley’s pocket knife when the man makes overtures to peel the apple before eating it. Columbo shares his intel on Clifford, making Kinsley extra desperate to uncover the whereabouts of the missing cigar end at Seltzer’s house to further hammer home his love rival’s likely guilt. However, it’s still nowhere to be seen when he revisits the crime scene.
Columbo also shows up, seeking an update on the missing cat that the cretinous Officer Will has finally collared through copious repeating of “kitty, kitty, kitty” and lengthy vigils around local bird baths. The creature is Kinsley’s saviour, as its attempts to grab at an item under a doorway reveal the cigar end, which looks like a perfect match for the ones favoured by our mate Clifford.
As Kinsley investigates the cigar at the lab, Columbo pays another visit to his chief suspect. As luck would have it, the detective is able to pocket the butt of a cigar from Clifford’s ashtray, which is certain to be of vital import later on. Kinsley, meanwhile, proves that the crime scene cigar is of the same type smoked by Clifford, enabling the LAPD to secure a warrant to search the whole property. One of the crucial items confiscated is the suit Clifford wore to the wedding – complete with its zillion cat hairs. It seems crystal clear that Clifford was at Seltzer’s house. Things are looking pretty rosy for the smirking Cathleen!
Columbo’s dutiful investigations into Clifford’s alibi, however, threaten to derail her hopes of a quick victory. A receipt from a convenience store (confirmed by video footage) shows that Clifford did indeed stop for cough drops as he claimed – a mere 10 minutes or so after Seltzer’s death. This bothers the Lieutenant, because to get to the store meant a southerly detour for Clifford, who was resolutely driving north to get to the wedding. Kinsley’s suggestion that Clifford may have been in shock after his heinous act and not known what he was doing fails to convince the detective.
In a bid to widen his search parameters, Columbo sets up a meeting with Cathleen for the following day – and invites Kinsley along lest his forensic psychology skillz come in handy. It is there that Kinsley makes a major mistake. Despite supposedly not knowing Cathleen, he slides a tray of artificial sweetener to her with her cup of coffee – sending Columbo into a state of near delirium in the process. This error is compounded minutes later when Kinsley opens the front door of the police car for Cathleen, rather than the customary back door. It’s as if he knew she suffered from car sickness when in the back seat. HOLY JAMOLIES, Columbo muses once he’s left alone: these two must know each other!
This realisation blows the case wide open. Columbo now has to prove that Clifford couldn’t have killed Seltzer before the Assistant District Attorney has him up in front of a jury. He visits Clifford again, and the two discuss the V-shaped cigar cutter that Clifford always uses on his Cubans. The cigar end at Seltzer’s home is not a match – perhaps it was cut using Kinsley’s pocket knife? Columbo also gets a second look at the Jenkins wedding photos and what he finds will absolutely turn the tables on Kinsley and Cathleen.
The following morning sees Columbo meet Kinsley at the criminal courts building, where the latter is stunned to hear that the case against Clifford is set to be dropped. Columbo produces extra wedding photos that show cat hair on Clifford’s back at 8.30pm on the night of the Seltzer killing – but none on his back at 7pm as he stood chatting to a fellow guest outside the church. Clifford can no longer be placed at the scene of the crime. Instead, it looks like his wife has set him up by planting cat hair on his suit jacket.
As Kinsley digests this stunning revelation, Columbo (who has surreptitiously borrowed the other man’s pocket knife) beetles across the road to speak to Cathleen, who has just arrived under police escort. The detective enquires whether she and Kinsley had a prior relationship, which she denies. Then why is he trying to implicate you in this case by showing me these photos, Columbo asks, producing the wedding photos he just used to so unnerve Kinsley.
Playing Cathleen like a fiddle, Columbo convinces her that Kinsley is attempting to stitch her up for the framing of Clifford. As well as the photos, Columbo also produces the pocket knife from an evidence bag, suggesting that Kinsley gave it to him claiming it has fibres on it that match the carpet from a foreign car of the type Cathleen herself drives. Police know that the knife was used to clip the end of one of Clifford’s cigars – the clear insinuation being that Cathleen herself could be the murderer.
Fuming at her apparent betrayal at Kinsley’s hands, Cathleen suggests she may be able to positively identify the knife and would be willing to speak to the DA on the phone there and then to get herself off the hook. Columbo pootles back over to Kinsley. The cat’s out of the bag on his prior relationship with Cathleen, he says, and the Lieutenant is pretty confident that he’ll find microscopic traces of cigar tobacco on the pocket knife, which will strongly indicate Kinsley killed Seltzer. In Columbo’s own atypical words: “You are in deep manure, Pat,” – a sentiment emphasised as the two men watch a sour-faced Cathleen march off to meet with the DA and presumably shovel a load of sh*t on her lover’s plate.
That ought to be the end, but instead we’re ‘treated’ to a rambling epilogue at Barney’s Beanery, where a TV newscast informs us that both Kinsley and Cathleen are in custody and blaming the other for the murder of Howard Seltzer. Columbo enters and spends many minutes explaining to Barney and some random busboy every single step of his investigative journey before credits finally roll…
My memories of A Trace of Murder
Like many of its latter day stablemates, A Trace of Murder is one of those Columbo instalments I haven’t watch for what seems like an eternity in order to view it with fresh eyes for this review. It’s an episode I have seen only rarely but have a vague feeling of unease about it – something I attribute to Shera Danese having such a prominent role in it after too many lacklustre appearances in the series already.
While I’m not a Shera hater by any means, I do find her to be a wearisome presence in anything other than very small parts, making her lead role in A Trace of Murder one reason why I’ve tended to steer clear of selecting it from the DVD boxset. That aside, little stands tall in the memory other than the cat-hair-on-jacket clue, which seems clever on paper, and Barry Corbin’s boisterous turn as the cigar-chomping, 10-gallon hat-wearing force of nature that is Clifford Calvert.
Curiously, I retain almost no recollection of David Rasche’s appearance as Pat Kinsley – despite him having the episode’s most crucial role. My memory tells me that he lacks the panache and stature to be considered a great Columbo villain, but I’m prepared to be proven wrong as I end my years-long abstinence from tuning into the series’ 66th adventure…
Episode analysis
A Trace of Murder is a peculiar entry into the Columbo canon, springing onto screens more than two years after the previous episode, Strange Bedfellows, and marking the series’ first obvious attempt to compete with modern police procedurals by placing a strong focus on forensics rather than a lone wolf detective’s hunches and deductions.
It was also promoted as a special episode to mark the 25th anniversary of the series’ first airing – a weird claim when Trace actually debuted 26 years after Season 1 commenced in 1971, and 29 years after Peter Falk’s 1968 Columbo bow in Prescription: Murder. This shaky grasp of basic mathematics aside, Trace of Murder feels like an attempt to reset the long-running series that had badly lost its way since returning to screens in 1989.
As is usual for an episode that twists the familiar Columbo formula, there’s merit in the concept of having a forensics-heavy plotline. Episode writer Charles Kipps (his only Columbo credit) had impressed the production team with his handling of forensic storylines in The Cosby Mysteries and was drafted in to push the show (and the Lieutenant) some distance towards the cutting-edge of TV police investigations.
Once again, though, the whole is lesser than the sum of its parts, with some clever ideas nullified by how easily they fall apart under closer scrutiny, a propensity towards signposting every crucial clue in a ham-fisted fashion and some seriously overblown acting. As a supposed celebration of the series, A Trace of Murder is all too often a distinctly underwhelming experience.
We may as well start by examining that most crucial aspect of many a Columbo episode: the cast. For Trace of Murder to really feel like a commemoration of everything good about the show’s proud history, one might have expected at least one blockbuster name to headline alongside Peter Falk. Alas, it was not to be. David Rasche and Barry Corbin may be dependable pros in whatever roles they’re cast in, but they’re not names likely to set viewers’ pulses racing.
Shera Danese just cannot be trusted to produce the goods in a central role.
And as for Shera Danese? Well, we might as well address the elephant in the room nice and early: she’s an actress with an extremely limited range and is awful in this. One dimensional and melodramatic with synthetic movements and a perpetually sour expression, she’s a pain to watch and there can’t have been a rational reason to cast her in such a large role beyond her being married to Peter Falk.
Perfectly capable in smaller parts (such as Eve Plummer in Murder Under Glass), Danese just cannot be trusted to produce the goods in a central role. She does little more than pout and stand around with a hand on her hip like a petulant schoolgirl. Hundreds of actresses could have done a better job – including many for whom the role of Cathleen Calvert could have been career changing. In Danese’s hands, though, Cathleen feels like a vanity project – right down to the array of stunning ensembles (14 different costumes if my count is correct) she appears in throughout the episode.
Cast opposite Danese as her partner in crime Patrick Kinsley, David Rasche is perfectly tolerable in the role of the slightly nerdy forensics expert but he’s unconvincing as a lover to such a shallow, demanding and cash-obsessed animal as Cathleen. Being neither particularly debonair or handsome, I just can’t believe Kinsley would ever have caught Cathleen’s eye in the first place. Indeed, he’s such an inconspicuous-looking fella that he’d have been a much better choice to play Graham McVeigh in Strange Bedfellows – a role for which George Wendt was hopelessly miscast.
These unremarkable qualities lie at the heart of the problem I have with the Kinsley/Cathleen relationship. Their love affair never feels authentic. She’s a gold digger with a fixation for living the high life and spending oodles of her husband’s cash. He’s a well-mannered Average Joe who drives a family car and wears jackets with patches on the elbows. These two don’t move in the same social circles and live in vastly different worlds. How would they ever have met, let alone ended up as lovers?
It’s an issue that could have been succinctly addressed in the script. Perhaps they were college sweethearts who who met again by chance while she was unhappily married to Clifford, and acted on long-buried impulses to rekindle their romance? But without a good reason for her to be so attracted to a man so below her social status, I simply cannot buy into their relationship.
The writing of the Kinsley character also misses the mark in a number of areas, which contributes to him being a lesser villain – even by ‘new Columbo’ standards. We are shown that he is an intelligent and practical man, a leader in the field of forensics who never leaves home without his Swiss Army Knife – yet he buys into Cathleen’s idea of murdering Howard Seltzer and framing Clifford in a heartbeat, even widening his eyes at the suggestion as if it’s the work of a genius. The plan, as it plays out, is as holey as a Swiss cheese, and heavily reliant on the maybes of Selzer being home alone at a specific time on a specific day.
Are we supposed to believe that the lure of Cathleen’s svelte physique and the promise of a share in Clifford’s millions once he’s in jail would convince this practical and sensible man to kill an innocent pawn – especially when it would go against his oath to protect and to serve? And how does he ever conceive he’ll be able to maintain her affections once Clifford is out of the way? Again, I find it impossible to buy into. Perhaps if Kinsley displayed a ruthless arrogance about proving his own excellence in the field (like Drs Mayfield and Collier in the Columbo’s classic era) it might come across more believably. He never does.
Not only that, if he is the forensics ace his position at the LAPD suggests (the guy taught at the academy, for Pete’s sake, so is held in high esteem in the corridors of power), he ought to have avoided some of the amateurish errors he commits throughout. If I were planning to frame a known cigar smoker, I’d know damn sure exactly how they cut off the end in order to make the false evidence seem genuine. Yet Kinsley, for all his forensics know-how, doesn’t think twice about hacking the end off with his pocket knife’s scissors attachment. Of course a detective will notice that discrepancy!
We’re also told that Kinsley is a forensic psychologist, which ought to have honed his ability to create accurate personality and behavioural descriptions of others. Yet he entirely misreads Columbo, allowing himself to be stupidly duped at episode’s end, and evidently has no true understanding of Cathleen, whom he fawns over until the last moment when he believes she’s betrayed him. At this point, he seems to finally see her as the conniving type who will push him under the bus to stay out of jail. Why didn’t you see it earlier, eh, Pat? We viewers sure did…
The crowning turd is Kinsley’s inability to master his subconscious urges that reveal to Columbo that he has a prior relationship with Cathleen – and indeed must know her very well. His passing her the sweetener bowl to go with her coffee and automatically offering her the front seat of the police car to combat her motion sickness are convenient to the plot, but further serve to underscore the weakness of the character writing. These are the sort of errors criminals make, but it’s much less plausible when a forensic psychologist is making them.
As a final thought on the crime itself, it’s a very small matter but does anyone else find it laughable how much cat hair is applied to Clifford’s back at the wedding? Cathleen rubs about 10,000,000 hairs (and carpet fibres) on the jacket, so wouldn’t police find it odd that there would be no hairs on the front of the jacket, or on his trousers? Maybe they believed Clifford rolled on his back in glee after slaying Seltzer, waving his legs in the air before vaulting upright and going on his way?
With A Trace of Murder’s lead antagonists decidedly deficient in a number of areas, the episode really needed the rest of the cast to step it up and deliver the goods to help off-set this. Luckily Barry Corbin gives his all as the unlikeable, misogynistic and crude Clifford Calvert. It’s hardly a subtle performance, as he seems to have been directed to dial up every angry cowboy stereotype to 11, but Corbin at least injects some energy into an episode that sorely needs it.
Unfortunately the same cannot be said for Raye Birke’s Howard Seltzer, who is a genuine contender for least developed victim in the series’ history. Other than seeing him decked by Clifford for standing his ground during an argument in the opening scene, and later reluctantly admitting Kinsley to his home prior to his shooting, we get to know him not one jot, making it difficult to give a hoot about him one way or another when he meets his maker. This highlights yet another shortcoming in this episode: there’s just no one to care about beyond Columbo himself.
By this stage in his televisual career, however, Columbo ain’t the man he used to be – and the Lieutenant we encounter in A Trace of Murder is not a vintage version. From his shambling entrance at the crime scene where he hands out bananas to his co-workers, to his overblown reactions and idiotic facial expressions as crucial realisations dawn on him throughout, Columbo arguably hasn’t been this annoying to watch since Last Salute to the Commodore more than 20 years earlier.
Interestingly, author David Koenig describes the Columbo portrayal in this episode as being “borderline senile” – a harsh assessment, but one it’s not hard to agree with when closely scrutinising Falk’s performance. For many years we’ve seen Columbo’s colleagues find frustration in his meandering style and absent mindedness when lost in his own investigative world. However, they’ve stopped short of labelling him as “goofy” and “wacky”, as Kinsley does when discussing the detective with Cathleen.
It’s easy to see why he’d think this. Kinsley’s interactions with Columbo have included watching him lobbing apples around the forensics lab and howling for a uniformed officer to track down Seltzer’s missing cat as the only potential witness to his death. Later, after noticing Kinsley push the bowl of artificial sweeteners toward Cathleen at the restaurant, Columbo cuts himself off in mid-flow and wanders off to the restroom with a stunned look on his face. Upon his return, he excuses himself as feeling under the weather, cancels the meeting and lets out a BURP! At this stage, I’m near screaming in rage at how Falk has allowed his most cherished creation to lapse into such a state of ignominy.
Incredibly, worse is to follow. After being dropped off at police HQ, Columbo, talking to himself, has his epiphany moment as he realises Kinsley and Cathleen have a prior relationship. How Falk manifests this realisation is so over-elaborate and hammy that I can’t understand why no one in the production team stopped him. It suggests to me (not for the first time since the 1989 revival) that the viewer is considered too stupid to pick up on the clues and their meaning, and requires this kind of visual cue to know that something significant has happened. I don’t claim to have a sky high IQ (my application to join the Sigma Society was declined), but this sort of presentation is patronising and infuriating. See for yourself…
The above clip is the worst example of the ‘significance signposting’ in evidence, but there’s plenty more to go around. If you were to play a drinking game in which two fingers of booze had to be consumed every time a vital clue or important realisation was clumsily signalled to the viewer, you’d be comatose before the hour mark elapsed. Yet A Trace of Murder continues to hold viewer intelligence in contempt right until its final moments.
Following on from the episode’s utterly forgettable gotcha scene comes more than six minutes of Columbo explaining to the viewer (via Barney and some rando) all the aspects of the case that bothered him, and how he tied things together to close the case. Allegedly added in by Falk to disguise the relative weakness of the gotcha, it’s copsplaining for idiots, or for those who skipped every scene featuring Shera and hence had no clue what had happened throughout the episode. For the viewer of average intelligence and above, this goliath soliloquy is almost entirely redundant. Its only saving grace is the presence of John Finnegan as Barney – perhaps the only really triumphal hark back to Columbo’s golden age Trace of Murder can muster.
If all this angst is making me sound like a Columbo hater, please be assured that I take no pleasure from savaging a series that has brought me so much pleasure. Trace is, however, an episode that hides its virtues so well that you could be forgiven for missing them entirely. It does have its moments, though, and the concept of planting the cat hair-evidence on Clifford’s back to place him at the crime scene was a good one. It was, however, undermined by Clifford’s decision to buy cough drops from a convenience store that would have taken him out of his way had he really stopped off to kill Seltzer on his to the wedding – an incident that only serves to emphasise how feeble and inflexible Cathleen and Kinsley’s murder plot was.
Giving Columbo a corrupt colleague with the smarts to genuinely outmanoeuvre him is another construct worthy of praise. Kinsley’s manipulation of the evidence, and his wisdom in revealing findings to the Lieutenant in an unhurried manner, could have made for gripping drama had he demonstrated more acumen and common sense when giving himself so carelessly away. Ultimately he was rendered just another Columbo villain when he could have been top tier with stronger writing.
If there is such a thing as a moment to treasure in A Trace of Murder, it comes in the form of a low-key aside Columbo makes to Kinsley right around the 61-minute mark. When inviting his colleague to attend a meeting with Cathleen the next day (to utilise his psychology abilities), Columbo ends the exchange by saying “You and me together, Pat. Three eyes are better than one,” in the process addressing one of the age-old fan questions: does Columbo have only one eye, just as Peter Falk does?
It’s a topic that many a fan will have engaged in (I even wrote an article about it for this blog many moons ago), but whether you’re of the opinion this confirms Columbo to be a uniclops, or merely consider it a little in-joke, it’s an important moment because it’s giving the knowledgeable audience a lovely, subtle Easter Egg without dumbing anything down.
If A Trace of Murder had credited the viewer with a little more nous and slipped in a few more nods to the 70s era episodes (perhaps a reference to a classic case or two, or Columbo dissing the Mrs Columbo spin-off) it could have been an episode much more worthy of acclaim. As it is, Trace of Murder is a discouraging outing more notable for showcasing how far the series has fallen from its imperious heights than it is in celebrating its enduring greatness.
Did you know?
By playing one half of the murderous duo here, Shera Danese became just the second actor to star as both a victim (as Geraldine Ferguson in 1994’s Undercover) and central villain in different Columbo episodes. The only other actor to share this honour was Robert Vaughn, who was the killer in Troubled Waters and one of the killed in Last Salute to the Commodore.
How I rate ’em
A tepid outing that ends up being nowhere near as clever in execution as it needed to be, A Trace of Murder slots in towards the foot of the standings – although it’s a darn sight more bearable than any of the episodes below it.
To read my reviews of any of the other revival Columbo episodes up to this point, simply click the links in the list below. You can see how I rank all the ‘classic era’ episodes here.
- Columbo Goes to College — top tier new Columbo episodes —
- Agenda for Murder
- Death Hits the Jackpot
- Columbo Cries Wolf
- It’s All in the Game
- Rest in Peace, Mrs Columbo
- Columbo Goes to the Guillotine — 2nd tier starts here —
- Sex & The Married Detective
- Caution: Murder Can Be Hazardous to Your Health
- Butterfly in Shades of Grey
- A Bird in the Hand…
- Murder, A Self Portrait
- Columbo and the Murder of a Rock Star — 3rd tier starts here —
- Murder, Smoke & Shadows
- Uneasy Lies the Crown
- A Trace of Murder
- Strange Bedfellows — 4th tier starts here —
- No Time to Die
- Grand Deceptions
- Undercover
- Murder in Malibu
Here’s where I hand things over to you, dear readers! From some recent social media interactions, I was surprised to note a groundswell of goodwill towards this episode so I’d love to know where you stand on it. A worthy celebration of the series, or a damp squib? And what are your feelings about Shera Danese earning yet another plum role? Sing out in the comments section below.
It’s time for me to split. I thank you for your time and look forward to reconvening our conversations in due course when I review 1998’s Ashes to Ashes – conspicuous for bringing Patrick McGoohan back into the fold for a record-breaking fourth appearance as a Columbo killer. Be seeing you…
Contribute to the upkeep of this site – from just $3
With the small exception of the “explanation epilogue”, I find this episode to be one of the best. The plot is totally unique, even for Columbo. Of the newer episodes only the university murder might be a bit better. Of the old ones, I would choose the second pilot “Ransom for a dead man” and “Troubled Waters” as the very best ones. I’m not a fan of “Undercover” and “No time to die” as they leave the Colombo style , not just the Columbo plot.
Wow, I love this site! So glad I found it, so cool to find others who think as I do about this great series. I am one who has always LOVED SHERA DANESE in every episode that she’s appeared, she brings so much to it, convincingly, authentically sassy and always gorgeous, exquisite taste in fashion, whether total classic tailored look or gaudy and flashy, she pulls off both with good flair. This is one of my favorite episodes, but that’s not saying much because I like almost all of them, the only ones I dislike are Last Salute to the Commodore and Strange Bedfellows (Wendt was entirely too too too conspicuous, of COURSE folks would remember seeing him!!). I am commenting here to stick up for Shera! The only regular player who brought me more joy to see in an episode was Vito Scotti, he ALWAYS brought so much to an episode even when he had just a bit part. Thanks for this site! So much fun to read, such a great escape.
I like this episode. It’s fun. Shera plays a role that feels like it was written for her. It has the guy from Northern Exposure in it. There’s references to cats in bags. Hey it works for me. Except that long drawn out explanation at the end. And complete lack of continuity when it comes to Columbo’s favourite chili restaurant (which in the previous episode was a very white cafe with plastic chairs but is now some kind of brew pub. Seriously, there’s fermentation vessels in the background.)
But the thing that gets me, provides the question I need an answer for, is simple. Why on earth is there a fancy gift-wrapped basket of apples at a wedding? Seriously? Am I missing something on that one?
Do I note a detection of jealousy here towards the Mrs.??? No one likes nepotism but I found Shera Danese to be very good. She holds her own in every episode. She is gorgeous, sexy and fits the parts. She also deserves to make your top 10 beautiful women on Columbo list. Trace of Murder was one of my favorites even if the story seemed a bit ludicrous but then it’s TV so it’s allowed. My favorite scene was when Lt. Columbo realizes the two lovers know each other. I think it was well done for a show that was coming up on season 13. Not many can keep up with that.
So true, it is extremely hard to keep up to expectations after that many seasons. And yes, despite the faults, Trace is a very entertaining episode.
I found another actor who played both a central suspect and victim! Dean Stockwell! He was a suspect in Troubled Waters and got the block in Most Dangerous Game
In thinking about the factoid that Shera Danese and Robert Vaughn were the only two performers to play both a central villain and a victim in different episodes, I can actually think of one other! Wilfrid Hyde-White who played Tanner in Dagger of the Mind also played one of the suspects in Last Salute to the Commodore. Though I don’t know if he was technically a “central villain” in Last Salute, he certainly was one of the suspects that Columbo was questioning in the ‘tisnt’ scene and was certainly a heightened suspect (as was everyone else) after Vaugn’s character’s murder.
This episode was troubling from the beginning. Why would a police forensic expert Patrick Kinsley (David Rashe) risk career and jail time on the vague promise that his girlfriend-lover Cathleen Calvert (Shera Danese) would share the wealth after framing her rich husband for murder? There is no way anyone from ritzy Bel Air, California would let a complete stranger into their home. Cliff Calvert, the husband, portrayed by Barry Corbin kept the episode interesting. Columbo was good, but at times seemed confused. The cat was good. The ending was good when Colombo turned the two love birds on each other. I did like the episode, but the pacing at times was slow. Not the best Columbo, but Corbin and Falk made the episode watchable.
If you’re looking for realism I don’t think Columbo is the place to be lol. it’s easy watching, a tv equivalent of Andy Williams or Donny and Marie -which is not a bad thing. I do agree that the stories have to stack up though. On rare occasions we are asked to put too much faith in the Lt’s insight and this episode serves up some prime examples of this as other contributors have mentioned. 👍🏼
Right. But for Columbo’s 25th Anniversary, this episode seemed to be missing something. Rashe seemed disinterested in his part and lines. The lack luster storyline. Maybe I expected more. I did enjoy watching the episode.
“I did enjoy watching the episode.” Same here, when judged on their own merits I don’t think there’s any episode that’s unwatchable, some just aren’t as entertaining as others. 👍🏼
I agree. There are no unwatchable Columbo episodes.
And there are some you’re far less inclined to rewatch.
The first anniversary of anything occurs the year following the original event. So yes, the 25th anniversary of “Columbo’s” first airing would air 26 years later. Also, I was expecting a reference to “The Jeffersons,” where Franklin Cover played Tom Willis for some 10 seasons.
Yes, all this angst is making you indeed sound like a Columbo 90’s series hater!😉😅
You raise a lot of good points (flaws) in the episode analyses but your harsh, long rant against Shera Danese makes you partial and miss a lot of very nice and entertaining clues (like the role of the lost cast in the disappearance of the cigar bud… That makes Rashe suspicious) or the “smart” plot to incriminate the husband for a murder he didn’t commit . It was well played by Barry Corbin and makes this episode a very entertaining one, in the verge of the 70s series!
I am not a fan of Shera Danese but she was credible in this role as a greedy trophy wife and her falling for the handsome David Rasche sounds very plausible…
For me the biggest departure from the “Columbo formula” was:
1. to take the forensic expert along to interview a suspect.
2. Not suspect the (a) killer until late in the episode.
Even as a forensic psychologic expert… Columbo character is always the one to break and explain the killer’s psychology… and would not to rely on an expert he never met before…
Entertaining episode, I like David Rasche, if You’re not too critical Danese is totally okay and the case is quite nice.
The end seems to me as if it were made for TV let the advertisement slowly creep in…maybe, that’s the only negative point for me here.
I have just rewatched this episode and think that it is quite okay and above average by ABC standards. Of course, nothing too much to write home about – but I absolutely love Barry Corbin as Clifford!
That man is so charismatic and entertaining to watch, he could make anything great – or at least a little bit greater than it would be without him. But maybe that’s just my Northern Exposure fandom talking 🙂
David Rasche’s Kinsley is quite adequate, he could easily have been much less interesting! I even think that Shera Danese somewhat works in this specific episode (not a big fan of her in others). And Mr. Pahpshmir as the victim 😉
All in all, quite acceptable for its era.
Agree, Barry Corbin made this episode fairly enjoyable despite it’s faults.
“If all this angst is making me sound like a Columbo hater”
It does, honestly.
I’d say this is a middling episode. Bigger stars would have been nicer, but David Rasche is a good actor. Shera Danese…isn’t, but she certainly looks good.
I was surprised that Columbophile pans the heck out of this episode but does not mention what struck me as the one huge plot hole. Why does Columbo take David Rasche along with him to question Shera Danese? Why? Why? Why? Of course we know that the actual reason is that he has to, so that he can observe him passing her the artificial sweetener and realize that they know each other. But what on earth leads a homicide detective to enlist a forensic tech as his unofficial partner, and take him along to interview suspects? Nonsense. This episode would have worked better if they’d given Columbo an actual partner for once and made him the killer.
He takes Pat to the interview with Cathleen because he’s also a forensic psychologist (as stated by Columbo when he invites him) making him a supposed expert at reading people’s reactions and behaviour.
What i cant get past is putting the cup of coffe with cream in front of kathleen oppposite columbo it s such a blunder and seems so inconsistent with the well planned murder plot espeically ss they said the previous night you have to be absolutley convincing also has anybody noticed the coffee and cream thing was done before in cries wolf
Very average new episode for me
I noted below that this meeting is “conveniently contrived”. I could have also described it as a “writer contrivance”, something that that make little sense but moves the plot along to where the writer needs it to go. Even though Columbo needs no help at all in reading suspects for their reactions, the story needs to see him observe the two villains together, hence, the cheap shortcut to get there.
Alas, we’ll see more contrived situations in “Ashes to Ashes”, and I suspect that they are littered throughout 90s Columbo. It’s a mark of inexperienced and less skillful writers.
You are not a Shera hater but you keep dissing her. We all agree she’s not a Julia Roberts and that her being Peter Falk’s wife helped getting the parts. But I think she did her best there. Pity it wasn’t a great episode also because what could the scheming wife get from a ruined Clifford convicted for murder and maybe for financial crimes?
She gets “dissed” because she lowers the quality every episode she’s bee in (and to be frank, none of them have been vintage Columbo scripts!!)
Falk will have known full well, that there were better actors – but no doubt insisted on her having a part.
Can’t wait for you to review Ashes to Ashes. It’s like a gem amongst late 90’s Columbo episode which were, let’s be honest, mostly “meh”
Yes. It’s my joint 3rd favourite of the new ones (alongside ‘Caution! Murder..’ and ‘Ashes to Ashes’)
Whilst not in my Top 10, it’s up there with the ones I can watch again and again and again.
I’m more looking forward to our hosts review of ‘Murder with Too Many Notes’ – thank goodness that wasn’t the last one!!!
Ahah, yes, that’s supposed to be last-salute league, with possibly the worst gotcha ever, or non-gotcha, more like!
I sat there for 10 minutes, expecting the episode to restart and we’d get to the actual gotcha. LOL!!
Can’t wait to see what our host makes of it.
Billy Connolly is terrible in it as well. And in fairness he can act – but here he just hams it up terribly as though he auditioning for a remake of ‘Dagger of the Mind. Fitting, as that’s easily the worst Columbo episode!!
It was rather hammy, though I come in expecting a little cheese from Connolly. Nearly all Colombo murderers show themselves to be arrogant, but only some partly justify that self-assuredness by aptly recognizing the Lt as a formidable foe (e.g., Ransom, Double Ex, Try and Catch) or are predisposed to keeping their guard up (cops, lawyers, pols, international spies).
Then you have killers who just can’t get over how dumb and pathetic the detective assigned to the case is. What luck! They stick their head waaaaay out to get a close-up look at Colombo’s court jestering … only to have it promptly chopped off. Connolly is this type.
I find both approaches entertaining. A major element of the show’s shtick is prey who thinks itself a predator laughing in the face of a predator it underestimates as prey. So I don’t mind the occasional blowhard villain.
That said, Notes isn’t a good episode for many many reasons.
I would call this an average Columbo episode with mostly the typical problems of average Columbo episodes. Quite a lot of Columbos leave us with no one to care about — focusing nearly exclusively on Columbo and the murderer in scene after scene. I’ve always preferred the episodes where there are interesting side characters to follow. Likewise, quite a lot of Columbos make too much out of trivial observations. Honestly, I’ve seen people at restaurants push the artificial sweetener bowl toward slender women at the table — an annoying assumption some people make. It also can be difficult to tell from a distance what someone approaching a car might or might not be saying to someone at the car — esp. when facing the other way — such as “I would prefer to sit up front, please.” I would have liked to see something much more convincing, but I feel that way about many Columbo episodes. IMO, Shera Danese did a perfectly decent job playing a golddigger who likes the high life. It was appropriate for Shera to wear all those glamorous outfits — exactly what a good-looking woman who likes money would do. I enjoyed seeing her turned out lavishly. It’s the kind of thing we saw a lot of in the early Columbos, but went missing in later, more low-budget episodes. Mind you, I don’t compare Shera to the likes of Faye Dunaway, but she was fine for this role. I think David Rasche’s role was the real problem. It was apparently poorly written. We needed to see how and why a forensic scientist would get involved with this high-flying woman AND agree to a risky and cold-hearted murder. That’s a lot to ask — and the writing did nothing to justify it. As far as Rasche’s appearance, he’s quite handsome if you ask me — and not hard to imagine the Shera character being attracted to him. It’s true the episode needed editing, but again that’s been a common problem with Columbos. Were there things to like? Yes. Loved Barry Corbin’s rendering of Mr. Calvert. Loved Shera’s parade of gorgeous outfits. Loved the cat. As a cat owner, I can attest that it’s EASY to end up with cat hair all over everything. What’s hard is keeping it OFF your best clothes long enough to escape the house. All it takes is backing up and brushing against the top of a chair the cat napped on — or setting your coat down on something before you put it on to leave. Particularly when it’s a Persian cat — as this one was — there’s long hair everywhere.
I actually had the same reaction as CP – though not as hilariously – why would it be all over his BACK?
Agree entirely with your view. Quite frankly, a competent director would have cut out at least 20/25 minutes & tightened up the script. It could have been something then. Also, they could have made it harder for Clifford to come up with that CCTV alibi.
A common problem with the ABC episodes. Almost all of them were too long and the caliber of the filler was all too often rock bottom.
I haven’t seen this one. It’s a pity that poor execution seems to have ruined a decent idea, as your barebones synopsis of the plot actually makes it sound quite good. I really like the premise of Columbo facing off against a police forensics specialist – somewhat reminiscent of ‘A Friend in Deed’, but with a more modern twist. What a shame.
Watch it if you can Debbie, for the fun of it without too critical an eye. Suspend the criticisms you’ve read below for the 90 mins. You might enjoy it as I have and others below. I thought Shera (Cathleen) was very good in it and Clifford was excellent – and how he slowly came around and warmed to the Lieutenant. And as a couple they were quite believable – Cathleen and Clifford.
Cheers 🙂
I just watched it on archive.org. I agree that the acting isn’t very good – the conversation between Kinsley and Seltzer struck me as particularly stilted and unconvincing. Surely a crime-scene expert like Kinsley would do some research first to make sure Howard would be alone in the house! And Columbo’s mugging over the cat… ugh.
That said, there were some bits I liked. Quite a few scenes got a chuckle out of me, such as Cathleen’s attempt to get her husband’s attention (“Clifford, the house is on fire. Clifford, they found the Lindbergh baby.”) And Columbo’s bananas at the start – I can totally imagine a bunch of jaded homicide cops acting that way at a murder scene!
Overall I did quite enjoy it, despite agreeing with Columbophile on pretty much all the weak points. It’s nice to see a more traditional episode after some of the ‘wacky’ departures in previous episodes.
That’s good to hear Debbie, and overall you enjoyed it despite the weak points. It’s not too bad is it? I’d never heard of archive.org – what an incredible collection!
It’s very entertaining. Actually Shera’s best Columbo, followed by Murder: A Self Portrait. Barry Corin(Modern Family, War Games, Urban Cowboy, among many credits) was great. Bride’s dad was Franklin Cover from The Jeffersons. Villain David Rasche was excellent, he often is a hard ass/comical heavy was convincing as professional.
Well, I typed up a lot of my thoughts about this episode, but somehow deleted them, so I will keep this brief.
I used to view this episode as one of a handful of “new” Columbo episodes I thought were good. However, after another recent viewing (and also reading CP’s comments) I have bumped this episode down a bit.
Some observations:
-the punch/argument scene looked staged
-Columbo definitely was acting like a characterization of Columbo
-ugghhh..the “telegraphed” slow-motion of clues
-the victim picked up a phone in the same room in his house as the murderer. I think it would have been cool if it was indeed the same phone line. Would have added a little suspense to the “pre-murder.”
-Speaking of suspense, when PK through the gun off the top of the bridge, it would have been a hoot if a boat went underneath at the same time and the gun landed on it’s deck.
-question….did PK and the wife know ahead of time about the cat hair? How did they know the victim had a cat?
-This was my 4th viewing….and I should have picked up previously on the sound of the camera flashing at the wedding at the exact moment where the life was planting the cat hair on CC’s jacket. It was so telgraphed.
-Columbo treating bananas and red apples like they are delicacies.
-I liked when Columbo kept putting CC’s Godiva chocolates in his pocket. Who hasn’t done something like that or at least thought of it!
-Was Falk overacting or being serious with Will about “Get me that cat!” Yuck.
Watching three men call out “Here, kitty kitty!” Gross.
-Can somebody explain about the missing cigar bud? Did the cat have it?
Midway through I thought the tables turned when Cathleen said “Lt., my husband did not kill Howard Seltzer!” And Columbo says “I never said he did, ma’am.” I liked that.
LOVED when Clifford snaps back at Columbo: “You wanna know where I bought cough drops?!”
-I like when Columbo says he’ll take a dozen protein bars from the minimart.
-Did anyone notice Falk’s pinky looked severely burned in a scene toward the end of the episode?
-We could have done without the burp.
I also liked when he bought 12 protein bars, and also the fact the clerk kept correcting columbo cause he kept saying it was a snack! This isn’t the only time also where columbo rewards such a person by buying more of his stuff when they give him useful information which helps solve the case, for example in undercover he gives mcnelly 60 dollars cause she gave him 2 pieces of the puzzle.
One thing I did like is that Columbo – unusually for him – didn’t pick up on Patrick as a suspect until quite late in the episode. Makes for an interesting contrast to ‘A Friend in Deed’, where it feels like he’s on to Halperin almost immediately. But it would really be absurd to instantly start suspecting his own colleague in this scenario.
I have to say that for this viewer it’s the cat that steals the show.
I was surprised about the amount of criticism of the Patrick Kinsley character in the review and comments. He may not have much wealth and prestige, but he has plenty of charm and self-discipline, and he could give lessons to other Columbo villains in terms of sheer effectiveness. Kinsley fooled the great detective quite well and for a long period of time. That is tough to do.
And even at the end, Columbo really doesn’t have much evidence against him. There’s the testimony of Cathleen, but even if she fully cooperates and is believed, she probably doesn’t know key details, like how Kinsley got into the Seltzer home. Kinsley and Setzer didn’t know each other, and the alarm records indicate that Seltzer was killed by someone he trusted. The other evidence is the unconfirmed possibility that traces of tobacco are on Kinsley’s knife. Columbo, though, had been filching Clifford’s cigar butts and putting them in his pocket, giving the defense an alternate way of explaining how tobacco traces ended up on the knife.
Arguably the most frustrating of all the new episodes, because the plot and planning, intelligence of the killer – should have yielded a far better episode.
Problem is that it seems to be have been directed as some kind of comedy thriller, i.e. reminds me of the worst Columbo episode – Dagger of the mind.
Fortunately, better is to come. 2 of the remaining 3 episodes are better than average ‘new’ ones (clue, it certainly isn’t the one starring Billy Connolly in!!!
You were never so dead center right as you are in this installment. This was a major example of “Columbo playing Columbo”, with Peter Falk winking insufferably at the camera. From the bananas to the drawn out explanation at the end, I felt like this script could have been clever in 30 minutes, perhaps an hour, but never the length it was.
Might as well talk about the elephant in the room, i.e., Shera Danese. I am trying to remember, and I believe this is her last role? My personal feeling is that this is the one that finally did her in, where her weaknesses were too big to hide. My own feeling is that Falk looked at this as a vanity show, where he’d put it together himself without the valued help he had over the years, and simply there was no formula.
The show’s best element is Barry Corbin. He was playing his best role, a grizzled old Texan. But you have to admit, he does it with panache. The scene where he shows Columbo the proper way to cut the back of a cigar was well done. You can feel as his character that he was given the same lesson as he rose up through the ranks. Whenever he was on screen I got energy and he was the best element. I wish there could have been a final scene where he gets to vent.
As for David Rasche, I feel like he was wasted by a bad script. His presence came as a real surprise as the forensics investigator. But they wasted it on sloppiness in the script, making mistakes that no forensics investigator would ever make.
The ultimate failure was Peter Falk’s. With the right script and a dedicated director, one willing to tell Falk to go back to Columbo instead of Columbo playing Columbo, it might have been a good show. It may have lead to those other shows Peter Falk was hoping to do. As it was, it was a noted flop, confirmed by the fact we never saw Danese again. I’m sure there was someone telling him that if he wanted one more shot, it has to be without his main squeeze.
Thanks for a very good analysis. I have nothing to add but my own feelings. I’ve watched this once and it was enough.
Is it something I fail to understand or the basic premise of the plot just doesn’t make sense? I mean how is railroading Clifford for murder helps Shera’s character to achieve her goal, i.e. get rid of him and have control of his money?
It’s not that he is going to be shot at dawn right after the trial even if found guilty, these things can take decades and all this time Clifford will keep all the right to dispose of his fortune as he sees fit.
The way their relationship is presented I just can’t imagine Clifford leaving all his money to her no strings attached in case of his death let alone allowing her to make any business decisions while he is incarcerated. Psychologically the most obvious thing you would expect him to do is to go Beau Williamson’s route from “Blueprint for murder”, that is to set up a trust that would provide his wife/potential widow with comfortable enough living standard but nothing really fancy, while actual control of his money would be in the hands of his business managers.
Terrific point. I’m embarrassed that I never thought of it. In “Suitable for Framing,” framing Aunt Edna made sense as her conviction would cause Rudy’s bequest to skip Edna and allow Dale to inherit. Other attempted frames were a vehicle to deflect guilt (e.g., “Troubled Waters”), even where this extra step wasn’t truly necessary. But here, all a murder conviction provides is cause for a divorce. It doesn’t grant Cathleen anything that a divorce would deny her.
You raise some good questions. I think once hubby is charged with murder, wifey divorces him and takes her half of the fortune (perhaps skirting show-cause or prenup stipulations). In that context, wealth + freedom was a passable motive.
It does make you wonder how long Shera and Rasche’s characters plan to keep their relationship secret. If Clifford is charged and they start cavorting around town, doesn’t Columbo say (aloud to himself, natch): ‘Heeeeeeey, what’s all this then?”
The worse the modern Columbo episodes get (with, of course the distinguished exception of the one currently under consideration, but also I maintain the seriously underrated “A bird in the hand” …. both directed by Vincent McEveety)…. the more felicitous become CP’s analyses of the various debacles.
CP’s breakdown of “Trace” includes a real comic gem worthy of PG Wodehouse (& maybe borrowed from him ?) I chortled more uproariously at the quote below than at anything since the patsy in “Bird” was dismissed, in a semi-cancelled intoductory phrase, as a “mulleted pillock”… and I’m still laughing at it now. I am referencing –
“…Raye [b.t.w. what’s wrong with being just plain “Ray Burke” ?] Birke’s Howard Seltzer…a genuine contender for “least developed victim” in the series’ history. Other than seeing him decked by Clifford [etc] ……we get to know him not one jot, making it difficult to give a hoot about him one way or another when he meets his maker.”
Already having trashed the inadequate Selzter (no doubt a watery individual who had problems with his gas) … as a “pencil-neck” (funny enough), I guess it’s the hilarious juxtaposition of the flippant “not one jot” & “give a hoot” with the portentous “meets his maker” that tickles the funny bone à la Plum.
“Good on yer, cobber !” (to employ an Aussie-ism of yesteryear)
Many thanks, Adrian! Your appreciation of my efforts to serve up interesting prose is gratefully received. I wasn’t even trying to be funny with that line, but am delighted it raised a smile. The “mulleted pillock” description was a confirmed gem, though!
Cheers cobber!
I think the problems with ABC-era “Columbo” reflected changes in American television. Starting in 1990, TV movies on America’s traditional broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) began losing their appeal. Just about everyone had access to cable networks and an increasing number of people purchased a VCR to watch rented movies. The old networks responded by cutting costs. With Peter Falk’s high salary, that meant less money for supporting actors, writers, etc. And it showed in the declining quality.
Since “Undercover” I think I have lost my judgment. Now every episode seems good to me, including this one.
It’s certainly a big step up from Undercover, I grant you that!
As I’ve stated in other instances, I find this a rather entertaining episode with interesting ideas, notwithstanding, conceding to some of the shortcomings quite bluntly pointed out by our dear host. By ABC Columbo’s standards, I believe A Trace of Murder is derserving of a higher slot in the rankings.
My sentiments exactly !
Rasche isn’t effective here because his character isn’t the typical Columbo killer. He’s not arrogant enough, he’s not helpful enough, he’s just sort or ‘There’. Nothing to him.
For the life of me, I don’t find any fault in Shera Danese’s acting. She’s no beauty queen, yet she’s attractive in her unique way. Maybe it’s the salty voice with a hint of New York. Anyway, she’s credible in the part. I’ve said it before, you don’t get on network television if you can’t act. As for her relationship with Kinsley, it’s quite credible. He’s a good looking, surfer type with the blonde hair-blue eyes, and a pleasing, animated style of speaking. Physical attraction is just that, and is a must. Compatibility is secondary. Perhaps that’s why half of marriages end in divorce. As for the rankings, Columbo Goes to the Guillotine was awful. No policeman would ever gamble with his life as Columbo did at the end lying in the guillotine. Clearly, No Time To Die was the worst of all entries by far. It wasn’t even a Columbo. It was T.J. Hooker without Wm. Shatner.
“T.J. Hooker…” That was harsh 🙂
Watching this episode now; happy to see one I’m not all that familiar with. I’m playing casting director, in particular watching Shera Danese after reading some negatives about her acting from Columbophile. I rarely veer from his views, but I think she does a very good job in this–clearly an actress, fun to watch, who knows her craft. She doesn’t shine in a brief scene with Peter Falk in the front foyer of her home, but most of her scenes are spot on, in my opinion.
There are enough good ideas in the script that it’s hard not to imagine what it would have been like if it had been done for a COLUMBO made when Steven Bochco was story editor.
I find it pleasant to watch Shera Danese. Not that she’s much of an actress- on the contrary, when she and Peter Falk are on together it’s like watching a home movie. If the episode had more going for it, that would be a regrettable break in the dramatic illusion, but since nothing in it really works, it just gives a cozy touch to the whole thing.
In the 70’s, we would have been led to believe that killing Howard Seltzer was Cathleen’s sole objective. Only after Clifford “accidentally” becomes the focus of suspicion, and Cathleen is in a position to clear him, would we learn that framing Clifford was her plan all along.
My memories of this episode are only two: Columbo telling Cathleen as he takes her to be interviewed not to pretend that she didn’t know Kinsley previously because “…that cat’s out of the bag” and the dreadful, explanation to Barney added on like clanking cans tied to a wedding limo at the end. I hoped that wasn’t a new feature of the new Columbo. I loved the cat-bag comment and have used it relentlessly ever since.
Agree with most of the criticism — especially about the unbearable closing scene where Columbo painstakingly explains what ought to be obvious to any viewer.
But I rate the episode much higher in part because I really enjoyed Falk’s interactions with Rasche. For whatever reason, one scene where Columbo says (quoting from memory) “This case is a tough one,” and Rasche’s character responds, “Sure, if it were easy we’d get the janitor to solve it” still sticks in my mind as a particularly droll Columbo moment. In general, I found Rasche’s performance very endearing.
Also thought Corbin’s as the framed husband was a pleasure to watch and that it was great to see Columbo pull his “just one more thing” routine on a totally innocent but humorously aggressive suspect.
I think those are the main factors that make me rank this episode much more highly than CP even though I fully agree with most of his critical remarks.
Oh, the english version is better then, there was no mention of the janitor in that scene in the italian version, he just answers that if it were easy they’d have solved it already.
Thanks for the response, Roberto. Your post made me worry that I might be misremembering the exchange. But nope, in the original English version, Rasche does indeed reply “No, no, no, it is not easy. And… if it was easy, we’d just ask the janitor.” Not sure whether I can post links, but you can find the original scene on Youtube here at the 3:00 minute mark. https://youtu.be/HAihQxJZGjU?t=180
… though one of CP’s criticisms didn’t bother me, viz., his concern about why Shera Danese’s character would be attracted to Rasche’s. I just assumed that she hooked up with him because his position in the police department meant he could provide invaluable aid in her scheme to get rid of her husband.
For Columbophile:
This is not to diss your review (I haven’t seen the show), just to object to your downplaying Barry Corbin, for the reasons given above.
I hope your move to Perth went smoothly! The idea of you and your family spending another summer way up in the desert, with Australia setting numerous high-temperature records (I have had several friends in the Sydney area), gave me figurative cold chills.
I worked with Barry Corbin onstage as a university student in 1982. He and G.W. Bailey, at the time Sgt. Rizzoli on M*A*S*H, were invited back to their university to guest-star in Hamlet as the two gravediggers. (Their scene together, which is usually cut from productions, is a comic take on the frailties of life and the importance of a gravemaker, “for his house lasts till doomsday” (just before he unearths Yorick’s skull, mind you). I think Shakespeare added this scene to give a role to Will Kempe, the company’s in-house comedian and a very popular actor favored by the “groundlings.” The second gravedigger, an apprentice, exits and Hamlet turns up for the morre popular Yorick and burial scenes.
I played the Second Gravedigger myself, opposite Corbin in rehearsals (Bailey was testing for a role in St. Elsewhere), and opposite Bailey in the last three performances after Corbin left for Hollywood.
Both actors have a resume a mile long. I count seven TV series to date for Corbin, including hits like Northern Exposure, The Closer (he played Kyra Sedgwick’s father in a recurring role; Bailey was a full-time regular), and Anger Management. He seldom played the lead, but he did just fine in numerous supporting and guest roles in TV and cinema, often being the highlight of the lesser works. In other words, some people would definitely tune in to see him, as well as David Rasche of the cult classic Sledge Hammer!,
I am one of those who think this episode is massively better than your rather (if I may say so) mean-spirited hatchet-job review implies. The plot is essentially a sly re-working of “Double Indemnity” wherein the murderer poses as helpful professional assistant to the investigator. The tension that is inevitably created thereby is adroitly handled throughout and builds to a gripping climax in the “double gotcha”, one (or two, if you care to think of it that way) of the very best in the entire canon.
David Rasche is a highly presentable chap whose luxuriant, glossy “barnet”, well-cut conservative attire and intelligent, pleasant manner provide excellent cover for his villainy, while offering a sharp visual contrast to Columbo personal style & gaucheries. Danese doesn’t bother me at all in a role that just calls for bitchy shallowness – which she clearly can do, no problem.
Without some sort of prompting I certainly wouldn’t have recognised (and I’m sure you wouldn’t either) the significance of Kinsley passing the milk or sugar (or whatever) and/or opening the front passenger door of the police car: I don’t think having the Lieutenant think out loud was egregious in any way.
Do please reconsider and review your ranking of this admirable late gem of an episode.
Understandably you must be depressed at the the prospect of what lies ahead. Just two words to evoke unimaginable horror: “Billy Connolly”! There, I said them ….now that cat is well and truly out of the bag !
This episode is enjoyable, and not all that bad. Great job by Barry Corbin who pairs well with Falk. Some campy acting in this one though, but it achieves the main purpose to entertain.
“Having the Lieutenant think out loud” once is one thing — but TWICE? Do we really need both his explanation to no one in particular AND his post-arrest reenactment?
We agree 100% on this one, CP. ATOM is more a cartoon than a credible Columbo. The plot is cartoonish, as is Falk’s performance. Hey, there’s an idea they missed: an animated Columbo!
The one reality point ATOM does get right is how Columbo pits Cathleen and Kinsley against each other. A lot of Columbos involve an accomplice to the planning or commission of the murder, or at least another person who aides in its concealment. Having two players to pit against each other presents a detective with special opportunities. But by my count, Columbo solves only four cases this way:
“Prescription: Murder” — where Columbo identifies Joan Hudson as Ray Flemming’s “one mistake” — the “weak link” — and stages a hoax designed to break that link.
“It’s All in the Game” — where Columbo uses his proof against Lisa Martin to force Lauren Staton to cut a deal for Lisa’s protection.
“Undercover” — where Columbo works on false alibi witness Suzie Endicott, doing his parking meter shtick to get her to fold her alibi. Murderer Irving Krutch falls in turn.
[I don’t count “A Friend in Deed.” Columbo uses Hugh Caldwell, but only through Artie Jessup, never directly. Nor do I count “Double Shock.” Norman and Dexter pit themselves against each other; Columbo doesn’t.]
And now we have Columbo’s back-and-forth shuttle questioning in “A Trace of Murder.” Ironically, this is probably the most realistic exchange of the four. It’s akin to two suspects in adjoining interrogation rooms, each being told, “Your friend just caved and confessed that you did it all.” The clever manipulation, the subtle half-truths, the not-so-helpful advice, using each against the other. All very true to form. The sequence deserves high marks for its realism.
That said, it is also the least dramatic of the four. There’s no key moment — nothing remotely like Joan Hudson’s “Always planning ahead, aren’t you, Ray?” or the series of startling revelations in “It’s All in the Game.” Even the parking meter had a little drama. What’s the big moment here? Officer Will shouting, “She phoned the D.A.!” as he and Cathleen cross the street? As an ending, it’s a dud.
According to David Koenig (“Shooting Columbo”), Peter Falk thought this ending “lacked finality.” That’s one way to put it. So Falk, Koenig says, added the overlong, exhausting restaurant coda to the episode. Instead of a “gotcha,” it’s a “let me tell you how I got ‘em.” Sorry, Peter, yours didn’t work either.
Neither ending to “A Trace of Murder” — neither the one on the street nor the tack-on in Barney’s Beanery — packs a punch. And without one, a Columbo isn’t really a Columbo.
death hits the jackpot, uncle Rip and ex Jamie Rose..columbo has other evidence, but lets them believe they have turned against each other
It’s become painfully obvious with episodes like this that most of the money being spent on the new Columbo was going to Peter Falk with little left over for good writers and supporting players. It seems the ABC network was satisfied to have any Columbo versus good Columbo. Perhaps if the original network (NBC) had returned to the helm we would have had a better product instead of just nostalgic escapism. I only get some pleasure from these new Columbos if I don’t compare them to the the classics from the 70s.
Every Sunday I watch Columbo on the UK channel 5usa and always end up here reading the reviews. They make me laugh 😃 I read on the Caution: Murder page your daughter was ill. Hope she’s recovering well. Best wishes x
I enjoyed this episode. I thought it was a lot of fun. I enjoyed your review too, it made me laugh for the same reasons. Except for the jab at my intelligence for missing the clues that you point out were so obvious to the rest of the world. Needless to say, I will not be wasting my time applying for membership in the Sigma Society. I guess I was too busy enjoying the show.
I will admit this is light fare and I take it as such. It does make me question whether at this point I like Columbo for no other reason than that it is Columbo. Which is to say it is still better than anything else on TV at the time. As light fare, it makes me wonder if this same episode would have fit comfortably into a show like ‘Murder She Wrote’, which I cannot stand. MSW strikes me as pure, distracting, light entertainment that is not worth my time. It’s too much cute fluff for me. And yet, if this episode is that, then I confess to inconsistency. I’ll let someone else figure out why that is – I’m not going to let it bother me the next time I sit down to enjoy this episode. (And I will too.)
You didn’t like Murder, She Wrote? Them’s fightin’ words. It was a Sunday dinner institution at MY house.
I am honor-bound and saddened to report that in “A Trace of Murder”, Peter Falk, yet again, clearly holds up his “Frank Columbo” badge for all to see, this time while meeting the victim’s lawyer. Saddened, because it just throws more needless fuel on the fire of the Frank-Not Frank debate, which you can read about in more detail here: (Was Lieutenant Columbo’s first name really Frank? – THE COLUMBOPHILE BLOG). New Columbo made a complete mess of what should have been a simple and wonderful myth about Columbo – that nobody knew his first name. I wish we didn’t.
As usual, CP has expertly checked off the boxes on this episode’s multiple failings. A murderous, brilliant forensics investigator should be a formidable adversary. But it’s a blown opportunity that totally fails to take advantage of what Kinsley does for a living. After all, any killer can plant bogus evidence at a crime scene….which is all Kinsley does! It’s the tampering that a forensics expert could do with the evidence in the lab that makes it unique. There’s potential here that is fully squandered.
His plan is idiotic: Cat hair rubbed onto the back of someone’s coat jacket? How is that even remotely plausible to establish being at the crime scene? Hairs on Clifford Calvert’s sleeves, knees, shoes, socks, are all at least credible. That observation could have made for a decent “Columbo clue”, but our hero doesn’t question it at all, because that helps drive the story along. It’s lazy writing. As is the conveniently contrived meeting Columbo sets up with Kinsley and Cathleen – Columbo is the long-established expert at reading suspect’s reactions, and the invite to Kinsley undercuts that expertise, built up for us over 29 years of murder cases.
In 1986, David Rasche starred in “Sledge Hammer!” and wrung 2 seasons from amusingly answering the question, “What if Dirty Harry were a comedy?” The jokes were hit-or-miss, Airplane/Police Squad/Naked Gun-style, but Rasche was a great fit. Not so in “Trace”. CP noted the wide-eyed camera-mugging moment early on, and is the first time in “Columbo” history that a villain is in danger of actually appearing goofy.
The Gotcha-less finale just has Columbo turn the two sorry antagonists against each other. Ho-hum. Sharper plotting (as in: Classic Columbo-style writing) would have found a way for Columbo to tie Kinsley’s forensics meddling directly to him instead of simply tricking Danese into blabbering.
The multiple feline lines (don’t forget “You’re a tiger” and the wink-wink nudge-nudge twice-hammered “That cat’s outa the bag”) are among the worst in Columbo history. Writer Charles Kipps’ IMDb resume isn’t long, but it is Cosby-heavy. In addition to scripting some “Cosby Mysteries”, he produced 2 animated series with him and wrote.… [gulps dramatically] “Fat Albert: The Movie”. Unfortunately, this episode is more “Old Columbo: The Movie”.
Dear Glenn, I don’t really like it myself, Columbo flashing his Frank Columbo badge for everyone to see. However, maybe this is a good moment to acknowledge that Columbo’s first name is actually Frank.
Not that it matters much, his first name is clearly of no importance since he is only known to us all as lieutenant Columbo. But since he is a human being and was named by his parents he just must have had a first name, so why should it not be Frank?
I mean, there is no mystery like in the Morse chronicles what it must be, so I’d rather acknowledge it as Frank than, say, Mayflower or something. So let it be Frank and be done with it, since it is absolutely irrelevant what his first name is in the first place. This way the whole debate about whether Columbo should have a first name become superfluous, which would be a tremedous relieve.
David, I finally switched to the “Columbo is Frank” camp after catching Falk flashing that thing twice in the Gotcha for “Death Hits The Jackpot”. The CP column about the topic has some point/counterpoint between myself and the esteemed Rich Weill, which I heartily welcome folks to weigh in on.
You make a good point about the missed opportunity in this episode: indeed he could’ve tampered with evidence, given his job, would’ve been an unique element of any columbo episode.
Oh, I also definitely liked clifford, an interesting character, and at least in italian, I found several of his scenes with columbo fun, in particular when he’s risking to go to jail and columbo enters and says (in the italian version) something similar to: “I’m not here as a policeman but as a human being” and clifford answers: “compared to what, a kangaroo?”, then columbo says he doesn’t think clifford is the murderer and he answers “oh, fantastic, I’ll enter prison with a lighter heart, knowing you believe I’m innocent!”, also liked how he doesn’t make any effort to hide his hate for the murder victim, which should’ve been a giveaway of his innocence: usually columbo murderers always “feel sorry” for the victims and are generally hypocrites.
It was the same in inglese !
I didn’t hate this episode as much as I remembered it. Barry Corbin is great and would have made a good villain in earlier episodes. I’m all for Shera being in these later episodes. I think we wouldn’t have them at all if it wasn’t for her being in them with Peter. He may have lost interest.
I just really like David Rasche! Have you seen him in HBO’s hit series, Succession?
I know he’s in it but I’ve never seen it. Never see Sledgehammer either, which I believe he made his name in during the 80s.
Sledge Hammer ran 39 episodes in 1987-88, all in lousy time slots on ABC. Sledge Hammer (yes, that was the character’s full name) was a supercop who thought he was highly intelligent and waved his .44 Magnum revolver (named “Gun”) around. Somehow, he usually DID outsmart the bad guys, though a lot of it was just luck and the straight-arrow female partner who saved his Kalf Fries (look it up in a Texas dictionary). Harrison Page, from “Columbo Goes Undercover,” played the police captain.
Sledge Hammer owed much to Mel Brooks, who had created a similar dynamic in Get Smart. Also, numerous gags paid homage to the Airplane!/Naked Gun school of non sequitur humor. Critics and a large part of the public were mystified, but it had quite a loyal fan base, myself included.
Spot on ! I’m glad you’ve nailed it here. I couldn’t believe what I was watching when “Sledge Hammer” turned up on British tv some years later. I wonder – would it stand up today ? I rather think it would because, in order to sustain such silliness over many episodes, considerable intelligence (& panache) was deployed in its production. b.t.w. I can’t believe all the whingers on this site carping about Rasche’s imagined inadequacies as a Columbo villain. They cannot be serious, surely ! Rasche was/is a class act. Frankly, how ridiculous to suggest that he wasn’t good-looking enough (CP) or that he wasn’t sufficiently “arrogant” or hypocritically “over-helpful” in the manner of classic 1970ies “bad actors”. The character he plays is a pre-CSI crime lab professional: arrogance and frenetic busy-bodying in “assisting” the Lieutenant solve the case would be wholly inappropriate and out-of-character. Much of the charm of the episode lies in the understated professional way he stoically “eats crow” as his various deceptions are relentlessly exposed ….both by wholly unanticipated developments as the investigation proceeds, and of course the devastating revelatory insights of Columbo. Rasche should be included in any list of amiable/sympathetic Columbo villains i.m.h.o.
Barry Corbin is the saving grace in this episode. He is fun to watch and I love his manly voice too.
Loved the part of your review sbout cat hairs being only on the back of his jacket. They needed to show the cat more and they needed a more cooperative cat.
Dear CP, I was looking forward to your views on A Trace of Murder and I already knew that I’d like it more than you would. However many of the points you made are spot on, especially when it comes to Peter Falk’s portrayal of the good lieutenant.
The moments that disturb me most are the handing out of the banana’s; his desperate need to find the cat, “the only witness to this terrible crime” (a sentence I could hardly believe hearing it from Columbo’s mouth); and the ten minute(?) or so explanatory epilogue, which is completely unnecessary.
I also agree with your pick of the scene where Columbo is talking to himself, however the moment before, when he gets up from his chair and flees from the scene towards the men’s room is a particuarly good one. This is one of the few moments in the whole canon where we see Columbo genuinly flabbergasted, totally amazed by the scene he has just been watching. I loved to see Columbo taken by surprise here, it’s a rare sight, because generally we see him sniffing out the killer in the very first scene he meets him/her and all that remains to do, is to prove it.
I also cannot share your dislike of Shera Daneses performance. You may find Cathleen’s attraction to Kinsley surprising, but her match with Calvert makes absolute sense – as does the decline of their marriage. But I think she is well cast as Cathleen and she is a nice counterpart to the more calculating and more introvert Kinsley. The scene where she is bid a “good morning” and she replies by “I don’t know what’s good about it” feels ad libbed to me, the way her co actors respond by staring at her, and it’s perfect, it’s how exactly how Cathleen would improvise in that very moment.
Also the gotcha isn’t that bad as you make it seem. The way Columbo is playing out his suspects against each other may not be his usual way of playing the game, but it works and here too I think Shera’s Cathleen makes her falling into Columbo’s trap all the more fun to watch.
Finally the ‘Three eyes see more than one’ line is a memorable one, as you mentioned. We now know that Peter Falk’s glass eye has not been playing a real one for all these years – although it would have done a good job doing so.
So I don’t think this is a good episode, but a very enjoyable one and I can see why many viewers have enjoyed this perhaps more than you did.
Thanks for the great review! I’m going to watch this one tonight and see if I still agree with my own comments…
Ahah, I thought the cat and the “witness to this terrible crime” sentence was fun! I was expecting this episode would’ve been rated more favourably also. I liked the gotcha as well, found it interesting how he put them against each other.
3 eyes are better than 1 is used in a classic Columbo episode also. I think but am not 100% he uses it in the episode with Dick Vandyke.
In any case he has used the line before
Really? I don’t think so, to be honest, but I’d very much like to see that scene!
I quite enjoy this episode and although Clifford is an oaf and meant to be totally unlikeable, his interactions with Columbo actually have a little warmth and respect between the two of them.
The worst thing about this episode is that it contains the most awful lines ever spoken in a Columbo episode. The whole thing about the cat being the only witness to this terrible crime. Seriously? I cringe every time I hear it. Its not amusing, it’s not serious, it makes Columbo appear bonkers. What on earth was he going to do with the cat once found? Take it to the station and interrogate it for hours?
This episode’s saving grace is that it only actively annoyed me at the end
What tipped you over the limit?
The overdrawn ending where Columbo very slowly and explicitly explains his thought process. I thought the rest of the episode was watchable, however
Yay! Yet again, you have crafted a review so witty, engaging & insightful that it made for FAR more entertainment than this squirmy episode ever could. While Falk was endlessly, genuinely cute in the classic episodes, he went on to painfully cute-SY, particularly in this installment. Agreed that Danese would be fine in a small role but her snarky overacting misses all the points of subtle humor that Columbo once personified.
A mortification of an episode, but your review made for great reading. As always, a million thanks!
Thanks Ellen, your kind words and support (and honest enjoyment) always make the heart sing!