Poor Wanda

MeTV will be airing The Candy Queen on Monday. And while it remains a favorite, I have increasing issues with the defendant, Claire Armstrong, every time I watch it.

This post could be called “When Perry antagonists are right.” While of course Wanda wasn’t justified in committing murder, her frustration and hurt over how she was treated are completely understandable. It’s just as she said, the candy formula was as much hers as Claire’s. Why did the grandmother only give Claire the formula? Both girls had sold the candy as kids. Why didn’t Claire think about making Wanda a partner in the company, at least after it really took off? Why did she think making Wanda her secretary was good enough?

In Claire’s defense, she was not a good businesswoman. She was going to dump the guy who had helped her get started and who knew the business, in order to give the company to her spineless fiance. She also refused to listen to anyone who tried to open her eyes to what kind of crumb the fiance truly was. She even childishly hung up on Perry when he expressed concern at her business decision. Perry was diplomatic enough to say it might have been an accidental disconnection, but after seeing what Claire was like in the rest of the episode, I think it’s far more likely that she hung up on him.

Wanda was also upset at Claire’s nonsense, saying how Ed Purvis was worth ten Mark Chesters. Maybe Wanda wouldn’t have been good at running the company either, but at least she seemed to be thinking more logically until she ended up committing murder when she dug herself too deep in her scheme to get the formula that should have been partially hers to begin with.

One wonders what kind of sentence Wanda got. It doesn’t seem like the murder was premeditated, but an impulse decision when the gambler realized the woman he was talking to wasn’t Claire. Of course, it still wasn’t justified. But I have to admit that Wanda is one of the antagonists I really feel sorry for. In court, she breaks down on the witness stand exclaiming how Claire always gets it all and now she has it all again. “I hate you!” Wanda sobs over and over as the scene fades out. Despite being raised as sisters by their grandmother, they were not raised as equals and that has taken a heavy toll on Wanda all through her life. Why weren’t they raised as equals? Why did Wanda leaving to get married mean that she couldn’t inherit the candy formula too? There is so much more to the story that we’re left to wonder about.

Of course, Claire didn’t exactly have it all, being that she lost the man she thought she was in love with. And I’m sure that, and Wanda’s betrayal, will haunt her for a good, long time. But she does have the candy company still, and Ed Purvis saying he wouldn’t hurt her for the world. Hopefully the Claire at the end of the episode is a sadder and wiser Claire who will really appreciate what she has, including Ed.

Every now and then, the Perry antagonists really are characters one can feel sorry for or even possibly feel like were in the right. Are there any you hope got a better break after the episode’s events? How about Wanda? Do you feel she was right to be upset and that she wasn’t treated right by either her grandmother or Claire? Was she instead a whiny brat? Is the truth somewhere in between?

The Case of the Purple Woman

On the request of Greg, a frequent visitor to the blog, here is a post for season 2's The Purple Woman. I am really surprised to find I didn't highlight it already, nor have I written a post about all the art-related episodes. It's very strange, as I thought I did both things. (I have finally found the latter. i knew I was sure I'd made one.)

Art is a recurring topic on Perry. I believe there was at least one art episode per season! I am not sure what the attraction was for the show creators and writers, but it definitely makes for classy and compelling story-telling.

MeTV is currently showing the later seasons and has just finished up 6. It feels a little strange to go from that to season 2. Season 2 still had some of that noirish, time capsule feel more prevalent in the earlier episodes, while later seasons by and large feel more contemporary. I tend to prefer the latter, but I do enjoy a good noir and there are many excellent episodes among the earlier ones.

The central focus of this venture is a mysterious painting called The Purple Woman by Van Houten. I always wonder with episodes like this if the painting is actually real. I can't seem to learn much, unfortunately, but there is, actually, a painting by a Georges van Houten called Portrait of a Lady in Purple. It doesn't really resemble the Perry painting. There is also a Dutch artist called Gerrit van Houten, who apparently mostly drew sketches. The episode, however, refers to a Carl van Houten (or "Hooten"), so I'm guessing the artist and the painting are made up, but possibly inspired by the Georges van Houten painting. That disappoints me a little, as up to now I've been assuming they were real.

Frequent classic TV guest-stars Bethel Leslie and Robert H. Harris appear here, Bethel as the defendant, the wife of a man who swindled a collector with a fake painting, and Robert as the frustrated artist who painted it. Both give masterful performances. Bethel is always a treat to see and Robert's characters always feel real somehow. Frustrated artists can be hilarious, and this guy is no exception. Aaron Hubble is arrogant and conceited, but fully believes he's being modest to say he's a genius since "of course" it's true. I am usually highly amused by conceit when it's played at least partially for humor, and it is so here. Towards the end, however, it actually becomes a bit sad when it's clear how desperately he clings to this idea that he painted a beautiful copy, and when Perry finally proves him the murderer, he's initially upset but then decides it's a great thing, as now he has a ton of free publicity. Priorities mixed up much?

Bethel's character is trapped in a loveless marriage with a creep and feels she can't divorce him because her family would frown on it. Her father is a prominent churchman. Religion doesn't often play a part on Perry, aside from the excellent season 5 episode The Renegade Refugee, but this is an interesting tidbit in this venture. A reporter is in love with her, and whether she sees him as anything other than a friend or not, she won't allow anything to go on between them and did not answer a stack of romantic letters he sent her. She did, however, care about them and hold on to them until she felt she had to burn them before their existence could come to light. Her husband had tried to use them against her and she didn't want anything else to go wrong because of them. The episode doesn't address whether anything will happen between her and the reporter now that her husband is dead.

All of the guests are very good, although I'm not as familiar with most of the rest of the guest cast despite seeing some of them in other classic TV roles. Perry was always hailed as a high quality show with A grade performances, and this episode doesn't disappoint. The murder victim is completely sleazy and wretched, the kind you can't feel too badly for when they wind up dead. His secretary is foolish enough to genuinely love him despite his cruelty. And the art collector who gets swindled is very proud of his collection and determined to keep up appearances, insisting that he has always had the genuine painting until Perry produces a second one and gets him to admit that he was swindled and later had to buy the original from the same guy.

The main cast is also in top form. One amusing scene has Tragg show up when Perry and company are just settling down to lunch somewhere (perhaps at Clay's), and announce to some news that they won't like. But then instead of telling the details of what it is, he says with false kindness that he won't tell it now and spoil their lunch. Of course, by letting them know there's bad news for them at all, he's already spoiled it and he very well knows it. A bit immature and classic Tragg.

I knew there was something I particularly liked about this episode, but I couldn't fully remember what until we arrived at the epilogue. It is the episode where Hamilton shows up to congratulate Perry on winning the case. Della is surprised, but Perry quotes an article Hamilton wrote in which he said "A well-tried criminal case is a credit to all involved. There is no winning or losing in the true administration of justice." He then invites Hamilton to join them for lunch. It's a lovely ending to the episode and one of the earliest incidents showing the emerging friendship between Perry and Hamilton.

Also, Perry has a modern art painting on the wall behind his desk that appears to be a kitty. Perhaps he loves cats as Raymond Burr did? I love it!

Books About Perry Mason

So I have now seen, I believe, the three most comprehensive books on Perry Mason: the wonderful Perry Mason TV Show Book, which was put online in its entirety and which I hungrily devoured many years ago, The Case of the Alliterative Attorney, which I have owned for several years, and The Perry Mason Book, the Kindle-only book that I finally decided to buy tonight.

My feelings are mixed. All three books certainly have their high points and valuable information. I have learned new things from all of them and look forward to learning more from them going forward. But I have to say I prefer the first two books over the latter. I can't fully put my finger on it, but the TV Show Book and the Alliterative Attorney somehow come across more classy and professional. I appreciate the immense work that was put into all of them, including the Kindle book, but I'm afraid I have the sneaking suspicion that it is a Kindle-only book not just because of its length, but because of its language. I have read many books about TV shows, and I have never seen this kind of crude and vulgar language, dirty cracks, and harsh swearing in any other such book. Normally I find such remarks blanked out or omitted entirely. The Amazon reviews for the book were mostly glowing, that I saw, and none mentioned that problem. Many Perry fans are among older generations. Surely I am not the only fan turned off by this element.

I have to admit too, that I kind of got the impression from the Kindle book that the author is not a fan of Hamilton or his actor, which of course is his right, but it makes me a little sad. In my perusing, the mentions I found of both seemed to always be negative. Unflattering stories and slants on stories seemed to be the order of the day whenever they were mentioned, instead of tempering it with also telling nice things too. To be fair, a couple of not totally negative remarks were quoted, but considering the overall tone, it felt like too little, too late.

One criticism I did find on Amazon was that the episode info seemed to be more focused on where they filmed or the cars or interesting camera angles rather than info on the guest-stars. I found this to be mostly true, which was disappointing. I far prefer to learn about the people and characters who brought the episodes together rather than unusual camera shots. One thing I really enjoyed about Alliterative Attorney was that some guest-stars were interviewed, such as one of my favorites, H.M. Wynant. There are interviews in the Kindle book too, including Lee Miller, which is definitely a plus for it. I look forward to reading all parts of that interview, which seem to be sprinkled throughout the book. Apparently Karl Held was also interviewed, so I will find that intriguing. Love or hate David, his actor was still a regular for a short time and no doubt has some interesting stories to tell.

Another thing I realized is that I can't seem to find pictures in the Kindle book. Maybe I just haven't looked well enough yet, but there really may not be any pictures other than the cover if the book is unofficial. I'm not certain whether it is. Of course, lack of pictures alone doesn't necessarily make for a bad book, but I definitely get excited when there are pictures.

At $4.99 for the amount of work the book entailed, I certainly can't call it a wasted purchase (especially with a gift card as payment!). The author worked very hard, and I do enjoy what info it has provided so far. I like that it discusses all incarnations of Perry Mason (or almost all; I'm not sure it covers the HBO series). I look forward to studying these sections more. Still, I far prefer the other two books.

What do you think? Do you have a favorite among the three? Do you like the Kindle book better than I do so far? I will make another post if my feelings on the book change any.