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 Uncut Hasty Honeymooner

So sorry I missed the weekday post. Thursday was a busy day in general, and I’m also rather frantically juggling my entries for the October Writing challenge this year, including the big Perry story. The big story can be posted to October Writing at any time during the last ten days of October, and I’m still sort of desperately hoping that I will have it ready for posting starting Monday. But that is highly unlikely. Even though I know where it’s going, and have the remaining scenes basically planned, there’s still quite a lot to be written. My other entries keep popping up with new ideas as well, and then I can’t focus on the Perry story until I write them. The other stories can be much, much shorter, but they keep getting extremely long anyway!

Then I’ve spent this week trying desperately to think of something to write in tribute for Dan Tobin’s birthday today. I don’t know anything more about the actor than what I’ve already posted, so I knew it would have to be about the character. That also poses a problem, since Clay is usually in the background and only comes around to make commentary in a scene or two per episode. But, since I knew of one episode where he plays a much more active role, I decided to watch the uncut version of it and try to find something new to comment on.

Unfortunately, it’s been so long since I’ve seen even the cut version of The Hasty Honeymooner, I’m not sure what wasn’t there before. I am fairly sure, however, that the scene where Luke Tolliver admires Hutch’s felt sign creations is not in the cut version. That is certainly amusing and unique. It isn’t often that Bible verses are depicted in the series, and I think this is the only time someone makes creations using them. Something about it reminded me of some of the few times Bible verses wandered into Nancy Drew books, although I’m not entirely sure why. Maybe simply because the characters involved are always quirky in some way.

That is still one of the strangest episodes I’ve ever seen in the whole series. But I like Noah Beery, so I just settled back and enjoyed the ride. (And, since one of my favorite oneshot episode characters from The Wild Wild West is also named Tolliver, I got the giggles over his last name.)

It seems like every television series in the 1960s had to eventually get around to commenting on the blossoming trend of computer dating. I’ve seen episodes on the topic from shows such as Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C., My Three Sons, The Wild Wild West (yes), and many others I’ll probably think of after I make this post. It’s amusing when it crops up, although also tiring, since all the various series wanted to get their two cents in on it. I was definitely amused by the audience getting a giggle over the co-owner of the Happy Future agency in The Hasty Honeymooner saying how horrifying it was that the two people’s cards were incompatible.

As for Clay’s role throughout the thing, we learn the bit of background information that he and Luke served in WWII together and Luke was a smooth operator, making captured Japanese flags and keeping him and Clay eating well, the little rascal. That’s when Perry first starts to realize that there is more to Luke than meets the eye.

The episode comes the closest the series ever came to giving Clay a real piece of the spotlight. At the wedding party, Clay is the only main character present to carry the scene with the guest-stars. He interacts with them, enjoys watching the dancing, and is available to witness Luke’s wife Millicent taking the fatal drink. He catches her as she faints and watches the ambulance workers trying to help her after they arrive. He is the first to vocally realize that Millicent is dying.

Clay cares about his old soldier friend and wants to do all he can to help clear his name. During the hearing, Clay is the first witness examined onscreen. It’s fun to watch his expressions. He’s so relieved and happy and pleased when Perry manages to score the first points in Luke’s defense.

Clay is present throughout the hearing, sitting with Paul in the gallery, and appears in the epilogue when all is well. He wanders off to tend to the restaurant, however. I would have liked for him to stick around for the remainder of the scene.

For all of his added screentime in this episode, we don’t really learn a great deal more about him. He doesn’t seem to be joining in the dancing, although he enjoys observing it. He’s very loyal to his friend. And the background information from the war is interesting and amusing. Apparently Clay didn’t have much of a problem with Luke’s less-than-honest antics by making the flags. But maybe in that situation it seemed perfectly natural and alright, since they wanted to eat well. Perhaps Clay always had a weakness for good food!

I wonder what would have happened with the character had the series been renewed. I would like to think that he would have had some more chances to emerge from the background, instead of always remaining there like Sergeant Brice does. But the existing material is a lot of fun, and this episode is good for a tribute on Dan Tobin’s birthday. When it comes to Clay’s very unique views on life, however, none of those colorful commentaries are to be found here.

The Hasty Honeymooner vs. The 12th Wildcat: There's some definite deja vu here...

Last night my local station aired The Hasty Honeymooner as part of its current Saturday lineup. If I’ve ever seen it before, it was years ago. It’s a season 9 episode, and one of the strangest I’ve seen in any season. And perhaps the oddest thing of all is how some elements of it curiously echo some of what’s wrong with the episode that aired right after it: The 12^th Wildcat. And it managed to run this parallel despite being an out-of-town episode.

The plot is both unique and odd, concerning a very suspicious man who arrives in town and immediately begins courting a young woman on a ranch. Apparently they met through a computer dating service, only he lied on his application about many things and now has the business’s staff highly unsettled. They believe that he’s out to milk the woman for all she’s worth.

That’s certainly the impression the audience is given. I wasn’t sure whether they were setting him up to be the defendant or the victim, but since everyone seemed to think he was up to no good I figured he might be the defendant. Which he is, after his new wife dies from drinking poisoned lemonade he hands her.

Another unique element is that Terrance Clay certainly has an extensive part in this one, perhaps his most important and involved in any episode. The fellow happens to be a war buddy of his. Clay later recommends Perry to him when he wants a good lawyer to write a will for his wife. And, although Perry has strong misgivings about continuing to represent the guy when he realizes he’s been lied to on many accounts right from the start, he agrees to see him when Clay pleads for Perry’s help. And Perry finally consents to remain the lawyer when the desperate defendant begs not to be let down.

I think out of all of his clients and all of the lies, this guy is the one Perry has the least faith in. I don’t recall ever seeing him so hesitant to represent anyone else. But he has good reason; he and the audience are still being led to believe that something is bizarre and the man might have been committing illegal acts. There’s the mystery of a former wife who died under mysterious circumstances. And during court, it comes out that there was another wife before that. Perry just about drops him after that lie, and warns him that if there’s any more. . . . He’s interrupted and assured that he knows about all of them now.

There ends up being an intriguing and sad twist, in that the defendant was actually supposed to be the murder victim. And instead of him fleecing the woman, she was the one fleecing him. He was actually just lonely and looking for a loving wife, especially after two bombed marriages (which he didn’t talk about because of being afraid that the third woman would freak out and leave him).

I did think she acted very odd in their scenes together. She was very standoffish and aloof. And I noted that when he wanted her to call him Luke, feeling that Lucas was indeed standoffish, she continued to call him Lucas. I thought maybe she was afraid of him, thinking he was out for her money. But she wasn’t afraid at all until his stepson lied to her and made out like Lucas had killed his former wife. Poor Lucas.

And the poor wife of the murderer. It ended up being the guy who ran the dating service with his wife. He was in love with the girl who got in with Lucas and he even gave her his and his wife’s ranch, without his wife’s knowledge, to make her look rich. At the end of the episode, Lucas gives the ranch back to the woman and muses that maybe he’ll go out there and try to offer her some comfort.

Our main guest-star is played by Noah Beery, Jr., popularly featured as a regular on several television series, and a previous Perry guest-star from season 8’s The Golden Venom. He played the bad guy in that one. Here, as the very quirky, secretive defendant, he once again pulls off a stellar performance. He is one of the best things about The Hasty Honeymooner.

This episode takes place in the next county over, save for scenes in Perry’s office. So, with a new county comes a different prosecutor. And in walk the similarities to The 12^th Wildcat.

Throughout the scenes in court, Perry continually complains about the way the district attorney is handling the case. Many of his complaints, if not all, are upheld by the judge. The half-dozen or so points of frustration mostly revolve around the sole idea that the man is prejudicial against Perry’s client and keeps phrasing questions in a way that brings that out. The D.A. apologizes to the court each time this happens and he is reprimanded. Sound familiar, anyone?

The most eerily familiar line is when Perry’s patience is finally stretched to the nth degree and he says that his current complaint is that not only has the prosecutor’s last comment been filled with prejudicial misconduct, but his whole case likewise. Didn’t we hear the same thing, pretty much word for word, when Perry complained about Hamilton in the very next episode? What’s going on here? Aside from the actual identity of the prosecutor, the exchanges are interchangeable!

Now, of course some things during court scenes recur. There are certain comments both Perry and Hamilton make over 271 episodes that are repeated in various ways. And I’m not forgetting that during William Talman’s suspension the assistant D.A.s were all given dialogue meant for Hamilton. But, the very same problem with the prosecutor, twice in a row? I don’t recall that problem ever happening before, at least not to the same, strong degree as it’s shown in both The Hasty Honeymooner and The 12^th Wildcat. What is the explanation? Is there one? Is it just coincidence?

Honestly, I doubt it. Especially after looking at the writers for both and finding a common denominator. Ernest Frankel wrote some of The Hasty Honeymooner. And he wrote The 12^th Wildcat all by himself.

I’ve long suspected that Ernest Frankel was responsible for most of the trouble with Hamilton’s characterization in season 9. True, he and Orville shared writing credit for other episodes I’ve strongly disliked that season, but I took special notice that when Orville wrote by himself he was usually kinder to Hamilton. There was that oddity during court in The Golfer’s Gambit, which was an Orville solo project, but even that wasn’t on the same level with episodes such as The 12^th Wildcat and The Vanishing Victim. And since Ernest wrote the former on his own, and was partially responsible for The Vanishing Victim, it seems much more likely that Ernest was the main one throwing characterization to the wind.

So, concerning The Hasty Honeymooner and The 12^th Wildcat, a whole new series of questions arise. Why on earth were the court scenes written so strikingly similar for both? Why weren’t the writers more creative, especially with the episodes airing one after the other? Maybe they didn’t know they would air in that order, but that’s still no excuse. Isn’t it a bad enough blow to deal the prosecution once, to say nothing of twice? When I watched The 12^th Wildcat, I complained about the prejudicial misconduct angle and that it had never happened to that extent anywhere else in the series. And with Hamilton, it didn’t. But with this other D.A., it happened again.

Was The Hasty Honeymooner ever intended to be an out-of-town script? Was Hamilton originally supposed to be the scapegoat in both episodes? Or going the other way around, was The 12^th Wildcat ever meant to be an in-town episode? What if it had originally been written as another out-of-towner, with some oneshot prosecutor as the instigator of that misconduct too? It is possible that Hamilton was not intended to be the one committing those acts. (And unfortunately, it’s also possible that he was supposed to commit twice the number he did. If the latter was the case, I guess I have to be grateful that they decided to make The Hasty Honeymooner an out-of-town episode instead. It was bad enough in The 12^th Wildcat without seeing Hamilton act so strange another time.)

It certainly gives me some new things to think about. It’s annoying to see that prejudicial misconduct angle crop up again, but it’s kind of nice to muse that there is the possibility that it wasn’t intended as a slur against Hamilton. (On the other hand, it’s aggravating to think that maybe it was, twofold.) It would be nice to know what really was in the writers’ minds.

In any case, as long as the angle is being used, I’d rather see it with a random oneshot prosecutor instead of Hamilton. Hamilton is already dealt enough blows in the series without being hit with a plethora of (justified) prejudicial misconduct complaints. And despite the episode’s overall strangeness, The Hasty Honeymooner is most definitely better than The 12^th Wildcat. In the latter, I just can’t get over Ernest Frankel’s sloppiness in not even explaining the crime. And it’s that fact, not only the gross mischaracterization of Hamilton, that makes me rank The 12^th Wildcat at the bottom of my list.

The only positive notations about The 12^th Wildcat are the appearances by real-life sports icons, for those who are into sports. And the epilogue, admittedly, is cute, even though it does nothing to explain the goings-on. And I honestly don’t think those things are enough to save an episode that really is terribly cobbled together.

(Oh, and by the way, I finished my latest writing prompt challenge. For anyone interested in reading the Perry vignettes that came out of it, the entire set is here: http://www.livejournal.com/tools/memories.bml?user=insaneladybug&keyword=lux%20aeterna&filter=all )