Original airdate (episode 4): March 19, 1985
Original airdate (episode 5): March 26, 1985
I wasn’t able to watch an episode yesterday, so I watched two episodes in a row tonight. The funny thing is both episodes fit together well. Both had very ‘noir-esque’ plot lines that featured a murder early in the episode and then worked around various characters until the end when the criminal was revealed.
The first episode I watched revolved around the ‘murder’ of a late-night radio host who is killed on-air. The suspects include his mistress, her husband, and the station manager. The second episode had the murder of an author on a murder-mystery train, and the suspects are his wife, his technical advisor, and a handful of mystery buffs. The change of formula once again (from a Miami Vice rip-off to a Remington Steele rip-off to a Hitchcock rip-off) is greatly appreciated. I feel as though this could be the formula that eventually makes this show a success. There’s something to the naïve quality the Shepherd brings to the screen that works well with the viewer’s naivety (brought on by lack of clues shown) that builds tension naturally as opposed to the fluff that was the elevator chase in episode one.
I would never call myself a mystery buff, despite enjoying an episode of Law and Order or CSI in my past, but these past two episodes were highly entertaining. Unlike clichéd shows such as those I noted above where the first suspect is always wrong and the real criminal ends up being a random person in the back-ground, these episodes made everyone a suspect right from the beginning and worked from there. With nearly every television show it takes a while for the production team to find their flow, and I’m hoping that this is the flow of this show. Theoretically, I was spellbound, trying to figure out who the murder could possibly be with so many suspects (though in reality it wasn’t that mind-blowing during the reveal, but I won’t ruin it like I’ve ruined past episodes because, as I said, both were honestly entertaining).
As an aside, I find the idea of the radio host-romance very interesting. I don’t personally listen to much radio, so I don’t know if there is still a lot of late-night content directed to the lonely-hearted or if it’s a byproduct of an era that died with the passing of Wolf Man Jack. What I find interesting is this image of a woman finding comfort in the voice of a man ala ‘Sleepless in Seattle’. This is very different than the image of womanly lust that Sex and the City brought us in the late 90s (aside from the Miranda/Sausage romance). Could it be that in the past the male/female relationship, could have been nearly the exact opposite of female oppression countries such as Iran which force their women to only be heard and not seen? I don’t know, and I think I’ve gotten beyond my level of knowledge or discussion at this point (plus, I must admit, I’m a tad drunk while writing this tonight)…
I’d also like to discuss the idea of romance between characters on a series. Everyone knows that when a couple pairs up the series always goes down-hill from there. Thats why I like the idea that a show such as ‘How I Met Your Mother’ will never (hopefully) reveal who the actual mother is, because thats when the show will die. I did some research on ‘Moonlighting’ to find out that Maddie and David hook up during season 3. I guess that it’s nice to know that for the remainder of this season I won’t have to deal with that, and can revel in the tension brought on by their not hooking up. The funny thing is that the actual actors refused to hook up for fear of it ruining the show and in the end I don’t know that it would have mattered as much as when their fictional characters ended up doing the deed, fictionally…
Tags: Bruce, city, Cybill, frost, halstead, how, met, Moonlighting, mother, sex, Shepherd, Willis
