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!

The first Sergeant Brice, and a new story

As the readers know, I adore Lee Miller’s Sergeant Brice. He is quiet, loyal, dedicated, and friendly. In episodes such as The Grumbling Grandfather and The Borrowed Baby he testifies in court and gets some pretty decent screentime. In later seasons, he sometimes talks with Perry about cases and has a mysterious teasing exchange with Della, certainly indicating that there’s at least one untold story there.

They were using Lee Miller all the way in season 1, playing unnamed policemen who usually worked with the L.A.P.D. Once or twice he played other law enforcement officers, such as a Highway Patrolman in The Rolling Bones. Even then, he appeared with Tragg. Back in season 1, I don’t recall they ever used the same person more than once to accompany Tragg, until they started using Lee Miller.

By season 2, they continued to use Lee in many episodes, but his character still didn’t have a name and only rarely, if ever, said a word. Meanwhile, someone came up with the name Sergeant Brice and it was applied to another police character. He appears in two episodes, to my knowledge—once in an episode that Lee is also in (The Glittering Goldfish)! That gave me a start the last time I watched it, to see the “real” Brice around yet have someone else get credited as the character!

MeTV showed the first of the two episodes the other day (The Fancy Figures) and I studied the character as played by Chuck Webster. Instead of younger, quiet, and closer to Raymond’s build, the first Sergeant Brice is older, slimmer, and quite talkative. While I suppose the idea is that both actors are really playing the same character, I have an urge to make this first Brice a completely different character, since he is different in every way except in his loyalty to the police department, and when I hear “Sergeant Brice”, it’s impossible for me to picture anyone other than Lee Miller. Perhaps the first Brice is a relative? Chuck Webster was only eleven years older than Lee Miller, and even though some actors sadly do look much older than their age, this character didn’t look old enough to be the other Brice’s father. So maybe an older brother, cousin, or an uncle instead.

Also curiously noted is that while the first episode has him and Tragg both calling him “Brice”, the second episode only lists him as such in the credits. Within the episode itself, Hamilton addresses him as “Officer.” I wonder which episode was filmed first? If Goldfish was, then we could say that perhaps they only thought of the name after it was filmed, so they quickly inserted it in the credits and then addressed him by that name within the other episode. If the other episode was filmed first, then I have to wonder if they were already considering making Lee Miller the Brice character by the time they did Goldfish later, so they didn’t want Chuck’s Brice addressed onscreen by that name again.

I may address these mysteries in a future story, or maybe even in the one I’ve started now. I finished putting up the Steve Drumm detective parody and decided it was high time I start writing the story idea that one of my steady readers, Harry2, brought to me three years ago when I was writing The Malevolent Mugging. It heavily involves Della and a mishap with a supernatural necklace. I was interested, but felt I needed to finish Mugging before I started it, and of course, that didn’t get finished until about a month or so ago. So finally it is time to tell Harry’s story.

Since I have been wanting to explore Brice and Della’s apparent friendship for some time, a story starring Della would be a good place to start. I am tentatively planning that Brice will play a large part in it, especially as the mystery deepens and it becomes clear that not all is well with Della.

Also, as per my love of bringing back characters from the episodes I enjoy most, this one features Gene Torg and Pearl Chute from The Bogus Books. They were part of the original outline from three years ago, being the first to encounter the necklace and then desperately wanting to get rid of it. Gene may end up falsely accused of a crime and need Perry’s help; I’m still unsure if I will do that angle.

I have also had ideas of writing a story about the Stuarts from The Decadent Dean and I decided that this would be that mystery. Perry is trying to solve a new series of weird events at Aaron Stuart’s new Manzana Valley Prep School while Della begins to act strangely. The mysteries will connect. And I’m also planning that this will finally be the mystery with scenes at a masquerade ball. The ball will be held at the school.

Does anyone know if Manzana Valley/County is a real place or something the show made up? I’ve been trying to look it up without success because I wanted to figure out how close it is to Los Angeles. Tentatively I’m assuming that within the show, it’s the next county over in some direction, since Tobin Wade seemed to be living at his cabin in Topanga Canyon (which is, I think, part of the Los Angeles area?) and probably wouldn’t want to be driving a long distance to work each day.

I’m a little nervous to do another supernatural mystery for my first big Perry story since The Malevolent Mugging, but I really wanted this one to be next, so I hope it will be enjoyed. I have the first chapter up and am in the process of writing the second. If anyone is interested in following this new adventure, it’s at: http://www.fanfiction.net/s/11485312/

The Uncut Vanishing Victim vs. The Fugitive Nurse

First, a quick note: Rose and I have started a new Simon Oakland project, a Tumblr. We have weekly photo sets and post other Simon-related things during the week. I put up a Frantic Flyer photo set on Saturday. We're hoping the project will eventually reach the attention of all classic film and television fans on Tumblr, in addition to all fans of specifically Simon. If anyone wants to have a look, the link is: http://simonoaklandtribute.tumblr.com

The other day I finally did something I’ve been meaning to do for months: watch the uncut version of The Vanishing Victim. It’s taken so long for me to get to it since it’s one of my least-liked episodes. It remains so after the uncut viewing.

I watch it so seldom I’m actually not sure which scenes are new to me, besides the infamous epilogue. I ranted a lot about the cut version in another post, so I don’t think I’ll go into all of that examination here. I’ll just say that my previous opinions on the episode as a whole still stand. It’s a very messy, confused conglomeration, and the constantly changing idea of who’s actually dead around here makes it very wearisome by the time they finally get around to letting us know that the real dead guy is an extremely minor character we only barely saw.

And I’ll make a couple of comparisons with the episode it claims to be patterned after: The Fugitive Nurse. That season 1 episode is one of my most favorites, both of season 1 in general and the series as a whole. Hamilton and Tragg really have a lot of chances to shine in it.

Hamilton and Steve get a lot of screentime in The Vanishing Victim, but aside from Hamilton’s final comment to the murderer (which was just awesome) and Steve’s adorable appearance in the epilogue, they don’t really have much chance to shine. They’re by and large depicted as the antagonists, behaving ridiculously and unfairly, calling the hearing before there’s enough evidence and then, after the judge throws the case out, planning to re-arrest the defendant on a trumped-up charge while they try to gather new evidence to prove the murder. They honestly don’t often tend to pull stunts like that, so Perry’s comment about Hamilton being predictable with the re-arrest plan is still irritating to me.

Also, the defendant in The Vanishing Victim honestly seems like a block of ice. I’m all for aloof characters, but I like to get to know them a little even if they remain a mystery to the other characters. I couldn’t figure that woman out at all. Usually we get to know the defendants enough so that we can dredge up some sympathy for them, but it didn’t really seem like we got to know this one at all. Perry mused on trying to discover whether she’s a grieving widow or a murderer, and she didn’t seem to be either one. Her husband didn’t seem like a nice guy, but when Lisa Gaye’s character commented on how miserable she had made life for her husband, there was no refuting of that statement. I have to wonder exactly what their marriage really was like.

Compare that with the defendant in The Fugitive Nurse. She realizes she’s being selfish to not let her husband have a divorce if he wants it so badly and thinks the nurse will make him happier. She wants to do the right thing. She opens up to Perry and the audience gets to know her and that she’s a good person who handled some things wrong. Maybe the bad marriage was partially her fault, and she’ll own up to that.

The restaurant owner who was so key in The Fugitive Nurse doesn’t play much of a role here. In this version, the friend isn’t dead and his wife didn’t try to kill him. Their marriage is on the rocks, and she’s serving him divorce papers, but she’s not the cold-hearted penny-pincher Jeanette Nolan expertly played in The Fugitive Nurse. This character has class, running a very swanky restaurant instead of just a cheap burger joint. Her only scene has her sitting down with Paul to discuss her husband.

And then the epilogue. I was always annoyed by what I’d heard of Perry supposedly paying Paul and then taking the check away from him. I was also annoyed when I watched the epilogue alone and didn’t see the whole episode.

This time, having watched the whole episode and seen the epilogue again, I’m not sure what to make of it. My opinion hinges on the key question: did Paul really have some expenses totaling $175.19, or was he totally trying to rip Perry off just so he’d have the money for his golf clubs?

I honestly can’t believe Paul would try to cheat Perry like that. Maybe he’d add a random 19 cents, but I can’t believe the $175 wasn’t a real expense.

If Paul really did try to cheat Perry with the whole amount, then Perry taking the money away from him and giving it to Steve is perfectly fine in my book. But if, as I originally thought, Paul had an actual expense and Perry was just refusing to pay up, then the epilogue still annoys me. I suppose the interpretation is up to each viewer to determine.

Overall, The Vanishing Victim never will be a favorite episode of mine. The war between Perry and Hamilton would work better in season 1 than season 9, but the confusion over the dead man’s identity would be exasperating and bewildering in any season. Pretty much the only things I like are still Perry’s speech to Lisa Gaye’s character, Hamilton’s final comment to the murderer, and Steve being adorable in the epilogue.

Recurring Characters: Mr. Snell

So. I wasn’t expecting to discover another recurring character. Mr. Snell, Robert Colbert’s district attorney character in The Grinning Gorilla, also appears in The Hasty Honeymooner.

Of course, the end result of that is that Snell really doesn’t come off looking too competent, since he’s the one Perry lobs many legitimate complaints about prejudicial conduct about. And it’s hard to really think of the man otherwise, since this is our only glimpse of him in a courtroom setting. At least poor Hamilton, whose courtroom conduct is very badly written and almost a mirror of Mr. Snell’s in the following episode, The 12^th Wildcat, has many opportunities to show that he is competent and that the writing in The 12^th Wildcat is really a fluke.

When I previously remembered Mr. Snell only from The Grinning Gorilla, I liked him alright. He seemed competent enough, as did the police. I never really understood Perry screaming “Entrapment!”, since all they did was wait to see if their suspect would come retrieve the check she had previously hidden in the squad car. They didn’t induce her to commit a crime she was otherwise unlikely to commit, which is the definition of entrapment. I suppose it’s a bit of a gray area, but it seemed perfectly fine to me. But in any case, Mr. Snell mentioned having a word with the police about the incident.

It seems like Robert Colbert had a bit of an unlucky streak with his recurring characters. He was also the one unfortunately chosen by Warner Brothers to basically replace the Bret Maverick character after Roger Moore quit the series, citing low-quality scripts for his Beau Maverick character. (While Beau is actually my favorite Maverick, I do have to agree with Roger that the scripts were rather below par, for the most part.) Robert ended up playing a character called Brent Maverick, a third brother to Bret and Bart. In his dress, speech pattern, and mannerisms, as well as his similar name, he was clearly meant to be another Bret. He was aware of this, too, giving the famous quote that he would rather have to cross-dress than do what Warner Brothers wanted of him. The character went over about as well as expected, disappearing after two episodes.

I wonder if they were planning to use Mr. Snell for more than two episodes? I suppose it’s possible that if they had, they would have used the character more favorably, as they did in The Grinning Gorilla. It’s hard to say, since their track record with writing for the prosecutors was up and down. And in season 9, which often wanted to go back to being season 1, there were several very bad “down” ventures.

I would say that it’s interesting in any case to use a recurring character in two different seasons, and only two seasons (unlike more frequent visitors D.A. Hale and Sergeant Landro), but I’ve heard that seasons 8 and 9 were filmed as though they were one big season, a thought which the production numbers back up. Also, it isn’t the first time Perry brings back characters seemingly at random in different seasons. Deputy D.A. Alvin appeared twice in season 4, then disappeared until he very randomly showed up again in season 6. Likewise, Detective Toland of Robbery made appearances in two separate seasons, albeit unlike Alvin, those were consecutive (6 and 7, I believe). It’s kind of neat to see the cast and crew remember these characters sometime after their original appearances.

The Careless Kitten: Book vs. Episode

March 11^th is the anniversary of Erle Stanley Gardner’s death. I always find it both sad and eerie that he and William Hopper died only a few days apart.

He left us such a lasting legacy with his Perry books and everything that resulted from them. I wonder what he thought of the television-only episodes when they began to emerge on the series? I suppose he must have been okay with them, at least enough to approve them, since he insisted on that right throughout the entire series run.

While it is exasperating that he never saw fit to approve such interesting ideas as scripts where Hamilton won (hopefully only if the client was guilty; it would be too depressing otherwise, unless Perry could overturn it as in The Deadly Verdict), as a fellow writer I do have to respect his insistence on having things the way he wanted. He already knew what it was like to lose control of his characters more than once, with both the 1930s movies and the radio series. Naturally he would want to take steps to ensure that it would not happen again.

I am intrigued that apparently he was alright with Perry and Hamilton becoming friends, as they steadily did throughout the series’ run. I wonder whether he downright supported that idea or if he just loosened up and decided to allow it while being more or less indifferent to it overall. I remember Barbara Hale saying that he didn’t want Della sitting on Perry’s desk, exclaiming that a proper secretary would never do that. But it happens multiple times throughout the series. I wonder what caused him to allow it after all.

Last night after I watched MeTV’s fun episode (it’s always a treat to watch David McCallum’s guest-spot!), I had the urge to get out my recorded copy of The Careless Kitten, which is one of the few later episodes based on one of the original books. I wanted to see the adorable kitty as well as to review one particular guest-star’s role. It was the sole appearance of British character actor Hedley Mattingly on the series, and I’m coming to be rather fond of him from watching him play opposite my beloved Christopher Cary more than once.

I wonder how much of the episode works with the book’s plot. I’ll have to bring up the book version on that Indian site Fedora found with all of the books available in English PDF files.

One thing I’m sure the book version won’t have is the great scene where Hamilton comes to Perry’s office and outright says he’s coming as a friend, worried because Perry is poking into the case all over the place and Andy is getting bent out of shape over it. Hamilton pleads with Perry to leave things alone, and Perry says he’ll consider it. Of course, however, he keeps on.

One difference I know of for a certainty is that the cat’s breed is different. In the books, the cats are always Persians, while on television they’re always Siamese. Somehow a Siamese seems a more suitable breed for such a mischievous little rascal, but maybe that’s just heavy influence from the hilarious Disney movie That Darn Cat!

Now I’m giving the book version a brief run-through via the summary on Storrer’s site, as I was just too curious now that I started thinking about it. It looks like for the most part, the characters keep their names in both versions. That’s certainly unusual. The kitten’s name is changed (Monkey on television instead of Amber Eyes) and Helen’s boyfriend’s first name in the book is Jerry. There’s a character called George, whose role I am unsure of. I believe he was omitted from the episode.

The most striking difference, character-wise, seems to be that the butler is not an Englishman, but an Oriental. I always thought Cosmo was a very odd choice of name for the butler on television. Now that I see the butler’s name was Komo in the book, perhaps it makes a bit more sense. They picked something rather similar.

And oh my, the plot sounded like it was fairly well lifted from the book, until chapter 11. When someone shoots at Helen’s boyfriend in the book, he’s hurt far more seriously.

Another thing the same in both is Thomas’s ill feelings towards the butler. In the book, he keeps trying to insist that the butler poisoned the cat and Matilda, which is really disgusting since he knows the truth. In the episode, we’re left with either believing that the butler really is a creepy sadist as Thomas says or believing that Thomas is prejudiced. Considering everything that Thomas is doing, I find it rather difficult to believe him about anything. The butler shows no indications of being a sadist; the kitten rather seems to like him, snuggling against him and even purring. (Yes, I’m sure I heard purrs!) Of course, that could simply be that the cat liked the actor rather than the character. But considering that Thomas even refers to him with a racial slur (“Limey”), I would have to say that he is just being unfair and has no real knowledge that the butler is a nasty sort. Perhaps, as in the book, he’s also trying to cast blame where he knows it doesn’t belong.

I rather liked the butler, honestly. He seemed perfectly nice to me. And he was the one played by the great character actor Hedley Mattingly, who was very capable of playing nasty characters as well as nice ones. If the butler was truly unpleasant, Hedley would have given some indication of it. He was a little short with Perry on the phone, true, but Matilda had just been taken to the hospital and he was shaken up about it. It was a touch of realism that he reacted on the phone the way he did.

A difference between the two versions is that once again, Della takes care of the kitty for a while, just like she does in the book version of The Caretaker’s Cat. The kitten gets into mischief and is discovered by Della and Tragg. Tragg then takes them both to headquarters.

And ah yes, Hamilton is definitely not friendly with Perry in the book. We also get to court, unlike in the episode. Della is the defendant. Apparently they’re in court not for Leech’s murder, but for Della having the kitten and Hamilton thinking she was hiding the missing and wanted Franklin Shore!

Thomas is killed via hit-and-run in the book. He and Matilda Shore being partners in their evil plan, and Matilda having killed Franklin, are the same. But those facts never come to light; Perry just tells it to Della in private.

I really don’t care for how in the books, it seems like a lot of times the solution is only revealed in private, instead of having the real culprits uncovered and punished. Sometimes the culprits are Perry’s clients and he’s perfectly okay with getting them off even if he knows they’re guilty. In this case, where neither crook was his client, I wonder why he chose to keep it all secret.

I suppose some book fans prefer Perry’s behavior in the books to his insistence on exposing the real killers and the clients always being innocent in the television series. I do think it would have been interesting for the clients to be guilty sometimes, but not for Perry to absolutely not care if they are. Naturally there are plenty of lawyers in real-life who wouldn’t care, so it’s a realistic touch, but it seems an odd trait for a lawyer to have when Gardner was writing the books to try to show lawyers in a better light.

I guess he must have been okay with those formulaic changes to the television series. Either that or he was simply informed that the censors would not allow it to be otherwise. It would be interesting to know which. What actually prompted such changes from the books? Was it the censors? Was it that they thought the character would be more likable and heroic that way? Something else?

I also wonder what prompted Perry and Hamilton to become friends. It was such a natural progression through the seasons, in that respect keeping something fluid amid all the formula. But they could have chosen to keep things in a more season 1 light. So why the change? As much as I love these and other changes, I’m still curious to know the reasons for them, since they make the series so different from the books.

Whichever one prefers, the series or the books, the series would of course not exist without the books. I will always be grateful to Erle Stanley Gardner for creating the original Core Five and their first adventures. Every time we watch the series, we’re ultimately celebrating Gardner’s genius.

Extra! Extra! Read all about Mr. Mason! (Or Mr. Burger!)

So I’m writing a non-Perry story based on the adventure quest genre and decided to have some of the clichés, including a heavyset bad guy in white. I opted to base the character on Perry alumnus Dan Seymour. I’ve already written a story with a Victor Buono-inspired bad guy, and Dan Seymour seemed the next most logical choice.

The Ancient Romeo is not a favorite episode of mine and never has been. When I saw it was on MeTV tonight, I decided to see what was on the local station instead. I see that episode so seldom I didn’t recognize its opening scene at first, but I recognized Dan Seymour’s voice before he actually walked onscreen. I’m rather pleased about that.

The episode was The Silent Partner, which probably gave Dan Seymour his meatiest screentime on Perry. Even though I’ve come to prefer its remake, The Candy Queen, I like the earlier episode and decided to watch it instead of MeTV’s offering. I am, however, wondering why the local station was showing season 1 when they were in the middle of season 4! I hope they haven’t decided to only air episodes through most of season 4 now. It was bad enough when they cut out most of 7, all of 8, and half of 9!

It’s always a little odd to go back to season 1 episodes after watching later episodes. I will probably always prefer the later episodes, as sacrilegious as that likely sounds to some fans, but there’s no denying that the early episodes featured very twisty, noir-ish plots.

They also feature a Perry who doesn’t always put the interests of worried clients first. Okay, so even a bit later there are times when he really doesn’t want to take a case, but season 1 seems to bring us the majority of the times when he has a client and doesn’t always jump to their aid or even wholly believe them. He’s a much more cynical Perry. Here, he wants to work on a brief instead of immediately going to Mrs. Kimber’s aid, suggesting she come tomorrow as opposed to that night. It’s understandable that he would be worried about the brief, but it’s just interesting to note that he doesn’t drop everything to see about Mrs. Kimber that night. Della, however, thinks that he should do exactly that.

But this post isn’t going to be one that examines the differences between Perrys. The main thing I was thinking about this time around was how the press features into the episode and how often they’re around in the series at all. I was also thinking about Hamilton’s approach to the press and how that seems to change over time.

There really aren’t very many occasions when the main characters are shown being hounded by reporters. This episode gives us a glimpse into what has been happening on that front, with the reporters hanging on the friction between Perry and Hamilton and rushing off to make their stories when Perry says “No comment” in response to being asked if he really, deliberately told his client to fire a second bullet from the gun to make a paraffin test inconclusive.

Perry and Hamilton are on very bad terms here, with each calling the other by his last name and not even affording the courtesy of a “Mr.” for the sake of the press if nothing else. Hamilton is stressed and angry, believing that Perry has broken the law, and he treats the reporters in a very clipped manner. Perry is cold to Hamilton but gracious to the reporters; in spite of the “No comment” remark, he delivers it in a calm and collected tone.

Contrast this season 1 incident with a scene from season 9, where Hamilton is cornered by reporters in The Carefree Coronary. (Oddly enough, Dan Seymour is in this episode too.) Now Hamilton is calm, cool, and collected, handling the questions with grace and ease and telling the reporters that he isn’t going to make any case against Perry until he sees what the outcome of the inquest is.

Hamilton is definitely more of an ally by the final season. And he has also matured in other ways, including not losing his temper as often. (When he does, though, it’s a beaut, like in The Fatal Fortune.) Perhaps he would have handled the reporters smoother even in season 1 if he hadn’t been so stressed at the moment; we see him in the season 1 episode The Terrified Typist, rather pleased and triumphant as he talks to a reporter after court (albeit we don’t hear what he’s saying). But it’s an interesting contrast between season 1 and season 9 anyway.

Also of interest to note is that while in The Silent Partner and other early episodes, Perry goes to the police for help (i.e., Lieutenant Tragg), in later episodes such as The Carefree Coronary he’s more likely to appeal to Hamilton (despite Steve being the most genuinely friendly of the three policemen). Ah, how times change through the seasons. I just love their always-developing friendship.

(And yet another interesting contrast, as others have noted, is Hamilton’s reaction to getting an onscreen win. While in The Terrified Typist he’s clearly pleased with himself for getting a conviction, in season 7’s The Deadly Verdict he is very sobered. Even though in both cases he believes the defendant is guilty, he has always recognized that it’s still a somber thing for someone to be sentenced to death, and in The Deadly Verdict, this feeling is more visibly prominent than in the earlier episode.)

EDIT: I just remembered that Perry is cornered by reporters in The Grinning Gorilla, when they mob him to ask about him taking on the case. At that point, he had not agreed to take the case and it was very awkward for him. It's been so long since I saw the episode that I no longer recall how he handled the situation. I vaguely remember that he was so taken by surprise that he didn't know what to say at first. I think in frustration he then tried to say he had not taken the case, but never finished that statement.

I actually can’t think of any other times where we both see and hear Hamilton or the other main characters talking to reporters about themselves. Perry has to fend off reporters bothering his clients sometimes, such as in The Wrathful Wraith, and there’s a couple of times when Perry or Hamilton appears in newspaper stories, including Hamilton’s win in The Deadly Verdict, but as far as actual interaction between the main characters and reporters where reporters want to write about them, it’s quite rare. (So are those other news-related incidents, actually.)

Still, even though we are only allowed glimpses into what happens when the press pounces on our main characters, they are fascinating little glimpses. In early seasons I imagine reporters in L.A. make it big describing all the latest clashes between Perry and Hamilton, while reporters of the later seasons are stunned and amazed by all the times the two actually work in harmony together. And judging by the tongue-in-cheek example of the “District Attorney Victorious” headline in The Deadly Verdict, I wonder if the reporters make a big deal out of any time Hamilton actually wins a case.

I subscribe to the idea that he won more than we saw onscreen, and that there were actually more times that he won onscreen than what is generally noted by viewers (such as all the times a case went to jury trial instead of remaining a preliminary hearing), so I’ll admit I do hope that the reporters don’t make like a win by Hamilton is a rare event.

That said, the headline in The Deadly Verdict is amusing. A nice smidgen of humor in one of the darkest (and best) episodes of the series.

More book news, and the uncut Barefaced Witness

I bring more exciting news on the book front, as Richard is interviewed about it: http://www.bookpleasures.com/websitepublisher/articles/7271/1/Hollywood-Actor-Richard-Anderson-Discusses-Acting-and-His-Memoir-With-Norm-Goldman-of-Bookpleasurescom-/Page1.html#.VGbCF9JDvq7 The interview is awesome in general, and now we have confirmation that Perry Mason will be discussed within the book’s pages! I hope there will be a nice, meaty section on it.

And The Barefaced Witness was on MeTV this past night. The television version has never made a great deal of sense to me and I’ve had the feeling that it’s one of the most cut-up episodes, so I decided it would be the perfect time to watch the uncut version.

I was definitely right about it being chopped up. So many scenes were missing, specifically almost everything that specifically showed or mentioned that ridiculous festival the town was having. And since that was kind of pivotal to the whole plot, even being brought up in the episode’s title, it’s absolutely preposterous that those scenes were removed!

I think that concerning that subject, the cut version of The Barefaced Witness only keeps the scene in the café where Paul looks at the list of the nine clean-shaven people arrested during the festival week. But it’s so weird for that to be the only mention of the festival. That makes it seem such a throwaway thing when it’s actually important to the solution of things. I don’t recall the opening sequence at all, which showed the silly signs about clean-shaven people being arrested and guys walking around with beards. And the scene with Paul arriving and ending up being forced to take part in the mock arrest for being clean-shaven was certainly missing.

Paul sure was a good sport about that. The police were pretty nice, contrary to the visions that have been dancing through my mind for years, and it all seemed to be in good fun. I wonder, though, what would have happened had someone not wanted to participate in the silliness. Someone could have arrived not knowing about the festival and have needed to meet someone in a hurry, and I doubt they would have liked being sidetracked into being arrested and fined for such a nonsensical reason! And it wouldn’t have seemed very fair, either. It didn’t seem fair as it was to fine people who didn’t even know anything about it.

One thing that seriously amuses me is that the local reporter played by Adam West apparently refused to be part of things. I suppose he was fined, but he must have been okay with that and preferred it to wearing a fake beard all week or growing a real one.

Adam West’s Perry characters seem to follow a pattern of being very protective of the girls they like. Both this guy and the character Adam plays in The Bogus Books are like that.

One intriguing thing about this episode, which isn’t as clear in the cut version, is that it’s really a Paul vehicle. Perry appears in the scene where Paul’s client wants the folder found, and then he goes to look for it when Paul isn’t available, but other than that, he doesn’t even appear again until they’re actually in court! There’s not even a scene of him talking to the defendant before court convenes. The whole mystery starts because of a past case of Paul’s, as the client is coming to him about some new twists, and Paul is the main player until the case goes to court. That’s neat; I like episodes that cast more of the spotlight on the other characters.

Another thing I was specifically looking for in this episode was the district attorney, Mr. Hale. I found it interesting that the first witness says his name straight-out while being questioned. It certainly shows how laid-back and familiar they are in that town. But I wonder if it was also there because the writer wanted everyone to know that yes, the D.A. was indeed Mr. Hale from earlier episodes and not just another character played by the same actor.

I like Paul Fix and his character is interesting in how he definitely brings a rural, laid-back manner to the courtroom. I wonder if that was why they used him multiple times, to make quite the contrast with Perry the “big city” lawyer.

The episode has never been a particular favorite of mine, but that’s always been partially due to being so puzzled by the cut version. Knowing it’s a Paul episode makes it more intriguing to me. And I like Adam West, both from The Bogus Books and from Batman, so I enjoy seeing him guest-starring. It will probably never rank among my most favorite episodes ever, but in its uncut form I will probably enjoy seeing it now and then, especially in order to see a lot of Paul in action.

And today is Joseph Campanella’s 90^th birthday! Awesome! I wish he was a Perry alumnus, but unfortunately he never appeared on our show. He does have a Raymond Burr connection, having appeared on four Ironside episodes. I saw The Happy Dreams of Hollow Men last month when MeTV aired it and I was thoroughly impressed anew by his acting abilities. He and Raymond Burr are the main players and carry most of the episode alone. It’s highly intense, as Joseph’s character descends into drug withdrawal and desperation and Ironside tries to keep him grounded in reality.

I’m still repulsed by the character flipping out and pitching Ironside to the floor, and later threatening him with a rifle, and it shows what a wonderful and loyal friend Ironside is, to keep believing in his friend amid all of that. The way the episode ends, with Ironside going to him as he sobs on the floor in despair and telling him to lean on him as they leave, is very powerful and poignant.

I will always wish Joseph had been on Perry, but I’m glad to have the four Ironside episodes to showcase his interaction with Raymond Burr and the other excellent cast members.

Notable Guest-Stars: Walter Burke

While watching The Ominous Outcast the other day, I was surprised and delighted and amused to see Walter Burke playing the prosecutor! He’s a fine actor, but that wasn’t the type of role I expected to see him in. Usually he’s a sidekick or a small-time conman or other roles that don’t quite have the prestige a district attorney would. I decided it was high-time to give him a spotlight post.

As is the case with quite a few character actors, I can’t seem to learn a lot of biographical information. Born in Brooklyn on August 25^th, 1908, Walter started acting as a teenager, appearing in several Broadway plays from 1925 to 1930. He then worked with the American Opera Company in several productions, starting with a non-singing role in Faust. It doesn’t say if he sang in the other productions; I am curious to know.

He went back to Broadway in 1936. He surfaced in Hollywood in The Naked City in 1948, and from there went on to appear in a few more plays and an assortment of movies, including All the King’s Men. I’ve seen that film, but I don’t recall his part in it. It was quite some time ago that I saw it.

Television is probably what he is most remembered for. One of the classic character actors who pops up just about everywhere, Walter appeared in everything from Westerns to detective shows and fantasy/sci-fi. I’ve definitely seen him on many detective series, including The Untouchables, and I remember a turn as a mayor on The Wild Wild West. Fun times.

On Perry, Walter made five guest appearances over the nine seasons, starting with Freddie in the much-hated season 2 venture The Jaded Joker. I did a spotlight post on that episode not too long ago, so I won’t discuss it again, except to say that I greatly enjoyed Walter’s interpretation of the character and how much he cared about the titular character played by Frankie Laine. A conman-turned-companion and friend, Freddie is extremely loyal and determined, albeit he doesn’t really like to talk about what he’s done for his friend.

The Ominous Outcast came in season 3, and here we see Walter with glasses as he plays prosecutor James Blackburn. He does well in the role, although of course I suppose the prosecutor’s lines were written with Hamilton in mind, so there isn’t a great deal different dialogue-wise. Instead, Walter uses the delivery of the dialogue to make the role unique.

He doesn’t appear again until season 5’s The Missing Melody, and here it’s a much smaller role, the smallest he played on the series, I believe. I only recall him being in one scene. He’s a gambler at odds with a politician who wants to change gambling laws. But he’s horrified when he realizes that a blackmailer decided to get to the politician through his daughter and then expects the gambler to pay for the blackmail evidence. He refuses.

Again Walter disappears, resurfacing in season 8’s The Wooden Nickels as panhandler Jerry Kelso. But since this episode isn’t one I see as much, I can’t quite bring his character to mind. I remember him there, but I don’t entirely remember what he was doing other than observing the odd cloak-and-dagger chase around town. And I think eventually he was caught and made to talk, but then again, that could have been a scene from his final Perry appearance. In season 9’s The Crafty Kidnapper, perhaps the darkest episode of the series, he plays a private investigator. I also can’t recall many of the details of this performance.

I always delight in seeing him turn up, whether on Perry or other shows. I’m surprised he was only in five Perry episodes; sometimes it seems like there were more than that. But five isn’t shabby, and he turns out some wonderful performances in all of them.

As I recall, like Milton Selzer, Walter didn’t often play unsympathetic characters. Usually they were good guys, or else if they were on the shady side, there was still something human and likable about them. That, I believe, is one reason why I particularly think fondly of him.

Walter continued to make many appearances on shows up until 1980, and according to IMDB, he also worked as an acting coach in the 1970s. Sadly, being a heavy smoker, he succumbed to emphysema on August 4^th, 1984. Another great character actor departed from us.

The Case of the Jaded Joker

I ended up missing The Jaded Joker when it aired on television recently. I decided it would be the perfect time to watch it uncut again, as I think I’ve only seen the uncut version once or twice.

I cringed to remember just how much was cut out. They eliminated both the scene where the titular character Danny tries to kill himself and is stopped by Freddie, and a scene at breakfast the next day where they discuss it. Or Danny tries to discuss it, anyway, and Freddie gruffly brushes it off, saying that he himself has been helped out of jams many times by Danny. They then discuss the murder and Danny tries to give an alibi to Freddie, worrying that he killed the creep who’s caused them so much trouble. Freddie, meanwhile, worries that Danny did it, although he doesn’t say so at this point.

As before, I find the episode just delightful because of the friendship between those two. I am annoyed that those scenes get cut, but even the cut version retains some of the friendship scenes. Danny exclaims on the witness stand that if Freddie did kill the guy, it was for Danny, so Danny should be the one to go to the gas chamber. It’s illogical, but it shows how deeply Danny cares about Freddie. Meanwhile, Freddie is still worried that Danny did it and he’s willing to take the blame to protect Danny.

Paul expresses confusion early on as to why Freddie stays on with Danny and if there’s anything crooked in his mind, since Freddie has a record and was a two-bit operator before meeting Danny. But from all the scenes between them and concerning them, it’s obvious that Freddie has no criminal motives in mind unless said motives are for the protection of Danny. He’s very loyal and caring and they have a truly lovely, deep friendship.

The friendship, however, seems to be largely overshadowed by the main thing people seem to dislike about this episode, which is the fact that it gets into beatnik culture. Danny and Freddie’s friend, Buzzie, is a beat, mostly always playing the piano or occasionally spouting strange statements that people other than beats aren’t likely to understand. He ends up being the murderer, upset about the way his friends have been treated (“friends” also including Sheila Hayes, who was stood up). And the bizarre element of the body being stuffed into the kneehole of the desk is apparently because the victim is a “square” and Buzzie somehow feels that killing him and putting him in such a strange position will enable him to be “born again” and eventually find salvation.

It’s definitely weird, that’s for sure. But there have been other Perry episodes with strange resolutions. Whether or not they are accepted any better is something I’m not sure of. In any case, while I do think the solution to the crime is why my mom doesn’t like the episode, from what most people have said, it seems to be the idea of anything beatnik-related at all that makes their skin crawl. It kind of interferes with their ideas of what Perry cases should be like. They prefer more mainstream plots and characters, such as the ones from season 1, and do not care to see unusual subcultures. (Or stuff about the Space Age, as another example.)

While some of that may be a desire to keep the plots and characters more relatable to more people, I think another large part of it goes back to the idea of wanting to keep Perry a period piece, taking place even before beatniks really started coming into being. Beatniks properly place the series in the present day of its time, plus I suppose some people would say that the presence of beatniks dates the episode today.

I’m all for contemporary Perry, as everyone probably well knows by now, and I enjoy seeing them encounter the things that were happening at that time. I see nothing wrong with that and don’t think it should take away from the enjoyment of the episodes.

That being said, I do think it’s better to keep jaunts into the beatnik or Space Age worlds as something occasional and not the main thing. And the show did that very well; most plots are more mainstream, with more average, relatable guest-stars. (Although I think Danny and Freddie’s friendship should be relatable for most people.)

While the majority of people dislike this episode, however, one thing it seems most of them still appreciate is the hilarious adorableness of Lieutenant Tragg spouting off beat talk. Tragg is totally in tune with the slang of the day and would definitely be able to carry on conversations with members of the younger set who actually talk like that most of the time. I just love that priceless, mischievous grin as he says, “Don’t bug me, Granny. I’m one of the cool ones. I don't dig slick chicks trying to goof me up, Daddy-O.” Classic Tragg.

And now I have an image of Tragg in my stories (which are set in the present day) carrying on a conversation with a kid about video games like Mario and Sonic. If he could keep up-to-date on beatnik talk, I bet a present-day Tragg would also keep up on current interests of the young people. That would be pretty adorable too.

But I digress. I find The Jaded Joker a very enjoyable and fun episode, largely because of the friendship between Danny and Freddie. The beatnik elements certainly make it unusual, and the solution to the mystery is very trippy and strange (I can’t think of any other episode that resolves itself in a beat joint!), but I see no reason why those elements should have to make the episode overall any less fun to watch. And anyway, being a fan of Bobby Troupe, I found it intriguing to see him in this early role.

Actually, it’s interesting that The Jaded Joker is rather a musical episode, with music personalities in the form of not only Bobby Troupe, but Frankie Laine, who plays Danny. But despite Frankie Laine’s status as a singer, he doesn’t so much as hum one note in the episode. I’m always slightly amused when a famous singer comes onboard and then doesn’t sing. I suppose he wants to be known for something other than solely singing, or else the staff working on the episode doesn’t want the episode to turn into little more than a vehicle for the singer to sing.

Both Frankie Laine and Bobby Troupe are excellent in their roles, and I’m also very impressed with Walter Burke as Freddie. But then, I generally am impressed with the quality of the guest-stars on Perry. Maybe occasionally a slip is made, such as how I’ve heard that people forgot their lines in The Lost Last Act when Tragg comes to arrest Stacy Harris’s character, but it’s covered up so beautifully I never would have realized it hadn’t played out the way it was really supposed to be. Ray Collins is awesome in that scene, with his gentle prompting and ad-libbing. No wonder they kept it in instead of asking for another take!

Anyway, aside from the beatnik elements, the story of The Jaded Joker is very much like any other Perry mystery in that it has a wide variety of character types often seen on the series, a puzzling murder, and nice character interaction as the crew works to solve it. I study the episode trying to find something wrong with it since it’s so universally disliked, but I always end up coming away feeling that it’s just fine.