He should have stayed away from westerns!
-
Eric-62-2 — 12 years ago(January 25, 2014 09:03 AM)
"Ellery Queen" managed to develop a long-term following I think more because of the cable rerun exposure it got on A+E in the early 1990s when it ran in rotation with some other short-lived Universal detective shows and people like myself got a chance to see how really good Hutton was in the part. Queen experts also say that Hutton really nailed down the persona of the character as did David Wayne as his father. I think when you bring to life a character in a way that is considered the definitive version it will make an impact. There were several film and TV Ellery Queens before Hutton, but rather tellingly there have been none since because that's how much Hutton is now identified with the role. I strongly believe that if he had lived, he would have revived the role at2000 some point.
I think Dr. Strangelove is overrated too but that opens up another can of worms we've been over in other threads.
-
MsELLERYqueen2 — 12 years ago(January 25, 2014 11:28 AM)
Regarding the Ellery Queen literary character, he went through various changes in the novels as years progressed. He was basically a "robot" in the thirties, a bit of a charmer in the forties, and he had less of a presence in the later books (in the ones I've read, anyway). Jim Hutton spiced up the character a bit.
The atmosphere of the series seems to be based on the 1940s EQ radio plays, in which Ellery, his dad, and Velie hung out together, solved cases, and had an overall cheerful atmosphere about them. Only Ellery's assistant Nikki is missing from the show.
Richard Queen and Sgt Velie of the show are exactly the way I pictured them when reading the books.
~~
JimHutton (1934-79) & ElleryQueen -
hobnob53 — 12 years ago(January 25, 2014 01:03 PM)
As I just posted to MEQ I did see most of the
EQ
shows, in the 70s or in its A&E repeats. I thought the show was fine; it simply wasn't something that particularly grabbed me, since (as I told her) I am generally not a huge fan of detective stories. Not having read any of the original tales I can't speak to how closely Hutton inhabited the character, but of course I have no reason to doubt what you say.
I'm not sure the reason there have been no Ellery Queens on TV since is simply because of Hutton's portrayal. After all, the show was only on for one year, nearly 40 years ago, and its repeats were also now long ago, to a smallish audience. My guess is that it's just a character no one has bothered to revive; I doubt lingering memories of Jim Hutton's performance are discouraging further incarnations. Maybe nobody wants to do yet another period detective piece of its sort. And Hutton was never as closely identified with the Queen character as, say, Raymond Burr was with Perry Mason (or Ironside), or James Arness with Marshal Matt Dillon, or William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy with Kirk and Spock. Who knows? Maybe TV executives today are squeamish about the character's last name! It could be for any reason, even a stupid one. But you may be right, had Hutton lived, he might have revived the role in made-for-TV movies later on, much as Burr did with Perry Mason.
Re
Strangelove
, the issue isn't what any one person thinks of it, but how it's widely perceived. Personally, I like it a lot and find a great deal in it with repeated viewings, but I'm not gaga over it or brook no criticism about it. That's my opinion, nothing more, like yours that it's overrated (although that does imply you think there are some good things about it too!). The issue here was that, individual opinions aside, in broad critical and popular consensus the film is considered a classic: it was well-received by critics and audiences alike; it's ranked by film historians, groups like the AFI and others, as one of the best films of its type, and of the 60s; and audiences over the 50 years since its release have also mostly liked it. It's not a matter of whether you or I agree with such receptions and evaluations, but it's undeniable that these represent the main body of thought about the movie. -
MsELLERYqueen2 — 12 years ago(January 25, 2014 02:18 PM)
In the eighties and nineties, quite a few retro 1930s and 1940s mysteries were filmed, based on novels by quite a few different authors. Unfortunately, after
Nero Wolfe
ended about 12 years ago, the only ones (to my knowledge) still being filmed are the Agatha Christie adaptations, and now even the David Suchet Poirot series is done. I wish that these retro mysteries would come back in style. Another EQ series would be great. Maybe Tim Hutton could play Richard Queen. Hmmmhe's about 10 years too young, but he could be made up to look older. I wish that they would film some of the other Agatha Christie stories, like the Mysterious Mr. Quin short stories. A lot of the John Dickson Carr novels haven't been filmed, and those would translate well to the big screen (if they are faithful to the books).
Personally, I wish so much that someone would film all the Doug Selby mysteries! I've read a couple of the novels and seen the one and only film adaptation, but I'd love to see all the novels filmed, and set in the correct time period (thirties and forties). I'd also like to see all those novels back in print again. I'll take Doug Selby over Perry Mason any day. (Both lawyers were created by the same author.)
~~
JimHutton (1934-79) & ElleryQueen -
hobnob53 — 12 years ago(January 25, 2014 08:00 PM)
Well, you stumped me never heard of Doug Selby. Sounds like an insurance salesman. Erle Sta1908nley Gardner invented him too? Hmm. Of course, strictly speaking those aren't detective stories. Lawyer stories?
Most of the shows you've mentioned, or the "classic" detective characters of yore, are being made in England rather than Hollywood, and this has been true for quite a while. I also think the British are generally more faithful to their sources than are detectives in American movies or TV.
TV trivia: When they were holding auditions for the TV series
Perry Mason
in 1957, Gardner sat in with the producers to give his opinion as to which actor was best. Raymond Burr came in to read for the part of D.A. Hamilton Burger. But the minute he walked in Gardner took one look and said, "That's Perry Mason!" Interesting how actors get roles sometimes. -
Eric-62-2 — 12 years ago(January 25, 2014 09:28 PM)
The solo character detective or private eye has been gone from American TV for some time now for what I think is a simple reason. Today's actors are simply incapable of carrying a series all by themselves. Just about every TV series nowadays is an ensemble piece of some kind. There aren't any more Rockford's or Magnum's who depended on the strong "Q" score of their leads respectively.
-
MsELLERYqueen2 — 12 years ago(January 25, 2014 11:12 PM)
Doug Selby is a D.A. who solves mysteries and has to compete with a crooked lawyer named A.B. Carr. His love interest is a reporter named Sylvia Martin.
The one and only movie adaptation is the 1971 TV movie
They Call it Murder
, starring Mr. Cutie Pie.
After seeing the movie, I tracked down a couple of the books (all the ones I could findnot many) and when I read them, I could totally see Jim in the role! He was so perfectly cast! I wish they had filmed the entire canon back in the early seventies (nine books).
~~
JimHutton (1934-79) & ElleryQueen -
Eric-62-2 — 12 years ago(January 25, 2014 06:36 PM)
Probably not a fan of Columbo either, Hob?
Basically EQ was doing Columbo in reverse because Columbo gave you the killer in the first moments and you had to find the clues that would expose him while EQ was traditional whodunit with that great breaking of the fourth wall Hutton would do before revealing the killer. Richard Levinson and William Link who were responsible for Columbo developed this version of EQ.
For a one season show, EQ has had more durability than most others. The other titles it rotated with on A+E didn't develop the same following ("City Of Angels" with Wayne Rogers; "Delvecchio" with Judd Hirsch and let's try to forget all about Kate Mulgrew as "Mrs. Columbo"!) and EQ did get a nice DVD release a couple years ago which is also impressive for a one-season 70s show. And Levinson/Link have also acknowledged that "Murder She Wrote" was basically their way of trying to revive the EQ format in some way (though EQ is a far superior show since the Queen character, as the son of a police inspector has b68a reason to be associated with murders every week whereas being around Jessica Fletcher should be considered bad luck!)
Yeah, there are a few good things about Strangelove, specifically the brilliance of Sellers, but it's supposed "brilliance" as a supposedly spot-on satirical comment of the period is something that reveals more about the critics than the reality of its supposed assessments. -
hobnob53 — 12 years ago(January 27, 2014 09:53 AM)
You may be right about a possible correlation between the dearth of detective shows on TV today and the Q ratings of the kind of stars who once inhabited them on TVthough in the case of Jim Hutton, wouldn't that have been an EQ rating?
One reason the
Ellery Queen
series might have left a bigger impression than the shows you mentioned is that2000 it wasn't a concept developed for television but a preexisting franchise dating back decades, with a built-in reputation and potential audience the others lacked. Of course it was a better series than the others you mentioned (all personal opinion, with which I happen to agree), which probably helped. It's really not
that
impressive that a one-season show got a DVD release; there have been others that lasted only one or two seasons that have been released on DVD (some of them, unlike
EQ
, pretty lousy); but here again, it may in part be attributable to its built-in franchise aspect.
No, I am a fan of
Columbo
, and I was waiting for someone to bring that show up. But in that case it was, first, the novelty of the show's structure (knowing from the start who committed the crime and seeing Columbo unravel the mystery); second, the uniqueness of the character; and third and most importantly, Peter Falk's engaging and skilled portrayal of him. Had any one of these three elements been lacking the show wouldn't have been anywhere near as interesting. (Remember Columbo's first name? No cheating!)
But again, my personal opinion isn't that
Ellery Queen
or some other detective shows weren't good; the genre in general simply doesn't appeal to me all that much. Which even I find curious in that I do like film noir, gangster movies, crime films, mysteries and the like. But perhaps because of the basic repetitiveness of most detective books, plays, films and series murder/investigation/solved as a group the genre simply doesn't involve me much. I certainly do like individual detective series or films (e.g.,
Columbo
) but in such cases it's because of the unique aspects of each rather than being a big fan of the basic concept.
And why am I being defensive about this?
Last comment on the unrelated topic of
Dr. Strangelove
: Clearly, the film's critics dislike it because of its political nature, which in turn is a comment more on the nature of the critics than the film. To me, the whole thing is farce, deliberately carried to extremes; yet it also bears an astonishing, sometimes almost scene-for-scene closeness to
Fail-Safe
, which is why both films have frequently been shown together in theatrical screenings. (Of course,
DSOHILTSWALTB
was based on a
serious
book,
Red Alert
, and the film started out as a serious one before
Fail-Safe
rendered it moot and Kubrick decided to make it a comedy; hence the similarities.) But of course their central point is of the dangers of nuclear war by accident, which is a perfectly legitimate subject.
[To be continued elsewhere if at all: some crank reported me for "abuse" last week over some unrelated comments I made on another board in response to another poster's unrelated comments, and IMDb sent me a warning about being pulled for such abuse. You all wouldn't want to lose me altogether, now would you? Don't answer that. But out of curiosity I checked that person's last posts, and 9 out of 12 had been reporting people for abuse not for bad language or personal attacks (none of the complaints had anything to do with her, as she hadn't posted before her assaults on others), but for going off thread-topic, as most people are wont to do on IMDb. She I gather it's a woman simply trolled for such remarks and then posted almost identical messages saying something like, "This has NOTHING to do with the subject! I'm reporting you for ABUSE!" and then reported me and these other people. Nice of her to first tell us she was reporting us. Anyway, although I don't think the three of us are going to start snitching on one another over alleged "abuse", I'm laying low for a while until things simmer down, and just mind my Ps and Qsor is that Ps and EQs?] -
MsELLERYqueen2 — 12 years ago(January 27, 2014 04:51 PM)
But perhaps because of the basic repetitiveness of most detective books, plays, films and series murder/investigation/solved as a group the genre simply doesn't involve me much.
Well, any genre is going to be repetitive in some way, especially if the movies are from the same time period. For instance, so many contemporary romantic comedies show the leads arguing throughout the first half of the film, and getting together in the second half. Film noir of the forties had certain characteristics to it as well, especially the movie endings, in which the "bad guys" either had to get arrested or killed.
At least whodunnits have some element of surprise: the identity of the killer(s).
I certainly do like individual detective series or films (e.g., Columbo) but in such cases it's because of the unique aspects of each rather than being a big fan of the basic concept.
I've never seen Columbo! I should give that series a chance!
~~
JimHutton (1934-79) & ElleryQueen -
hobnob53 — 12 years ago(January 30, 2014 11:55 AM)
You're right, any genre will be repetitive in some way. I just spoke to my mystery preferences in my reply to one of your earlier posts, but to another subject:
After defending myself across this thread I'm astounded that you've never seen an episode of
Columbo
, one of the most ingenious mystery programs ever put on television. It ran for several years, mostly during the 70s, and Peter Falk's characterization became one of the staples of the medium and a hundred bad impersonators. He also won a couple of Emmy awards for his performance.
The basic concept seeing the crime committed at the beginning, and knowing the identity of the killer from the start outwardly seems sure to ruin the show, but the suspense comes from watching Lt. C5b4olumbo of the LAPD unravel the mystery and trap the killer. Not to mention that most of the stories were pretty ingenious and that the suspects normally weren't the usual lot of cringing, despicable cowards you'd hate. Some were but most were more interesting than that. They developed a relationship with this disheveled, seemingly forgetful detective whom they never took seriously until they realized too late he had trapped them.
Columbo
was much more engaging, intelligent and, yes, suspenseful than the usual mystery whodunit format. Plus very funny. -
hobnob53 — 12 years ago(January 30, 2014 06:16 PM)
No, I wouldn't think you'd have a reason not to see it. Of course, like any show and main character they developed over time, loosened up as they became more familiar. If you do watch them I'm not sure whether you'd rather start at the beginning or go right to the core years of the series. Several years after the original series went off the air, it was brought back as an occasional series of TV movies that were pretty good, but not quite as good as the original show.
Someday, after you've seen some of the shows, I'll tell you who the first choice to play the Lieutenant was. You'd be pretty amazed. (No, not Jim Hutton!)