Over the past few weeks, I've been watching this old series on Netflix and have really enjoyed it. For those that don't know, Columbo is a homicide detective played by the late Peter Falk. It has quite the unique format. At the start of almost every episode, the viewer watches as the killer plans and executes the murder. The rest of the show is dedicated to discovering how Lieutenant Columbo goes about his investigation to prove that the person who the audience knows all along is the killer, is the one responsible. It's a very fascinating set-up, and quite well done. Peter Falk is flawless as Lieutenant Columbo.
I was wondering if any of our other members remembered this show. If you do, what are your thoughts on it? What did you like? What did you not like? It's quickly becoming one of my favorite TV shows, even though it's decades old now.
I did have a few observations, which I wanted to share. Almost without exception, the murderers seem to all be wealthy. This to me seemed rather unfair, as murder is not necessarily only committed by people who are affluent. I am wondering if anyone has heard any commentary on this. Was this purposeful on the part of Falk and the filmmakers involved? It seems to me that this would have to be purposeful, but whether or not those involved would admit it, I don't know.
I also find it a little bit strange that most of the murderers, even before Columbo has accused them of anything, always says how Columbo won't be able to prove that they were guilty, and seemed annoyed with Columbo as he goes about solving the murder. If someone I knew or loved had been murdered, I would want to be as helpful to the investigator as possible, and certainly wouldn't get annoyed at them for asking me questions. Even if they asked the same question over and over, I'd want to help the investigator as much as I could so the murder of my loved one or friend would be solved. I think that anyone who was innocent, or who was trying to portray themselves as such, would. Also, someone who was innocent, or who wanted to portray themselves as innocent, would never tell the investigator that they couldn't prove their theory implicating them. They would say how they were innocent, how it couldn't possibly be true what Columbo was saying, etc. Only guilty people goad the investigator about them not being able to prove their accusations.
Lastly, I found it a bit strange that Columbo only ever seems to have 1 case. This is something I notice a lot. Does anyone know how many cases homicide investigators typically are assigned to at any given time? I'd find it very hard to believe that it would just be one.
Because of my background, I often find myself questioning how many of these completed cases that Columbo solves would actually lead to a conviction, or hold up in court? It seems like a lot of the evidence Columbo uses to make his case could be pretty easily challenged, often successfully so.
I know that a lot of these things are done for dramatic license, and are merely part of the conceit of the show. I appreciate that, and at the same time, I'd love to hear what other people's thoughts might be who also enjoy the show about some of these questions that I've posed. Please post your own reflections about the show. I'd love to hear them.
I was wondering if any of our other members remembered this show. If you do, what are your thoughts on it? What did you like? What did you not like? It's quickly becoming one of my favorite TV shows, even though it's decades old now.
I did have a few observations, which I wanted to share. Almost without exception, the murderers seem to all be wealthy. This to me seemed rather unfair, as murder is not necessarily only committed by people who are affluent. I am wondering if anyone has heard any commentary on this. Was this purposeful on the part of Falk and the filmmakers involved? It seems to me that this would have to be purposeful, but whether or not those involved would admit it, I don't know.
I also find it a little bit strange that most of the murderers, even before Columbo has accused them of anything, always says how Columbo won't be able to prove that they were guilty, and seemed annoyed with Columbo as he goes about solving the murder. If someone I knew or loved had been murdered, I would want to be as helpful to the investigator as possible, and certainly wouldn't get annoyed at them for asking me questions. Even if they asked the same question over and over, I'd want to help the investigator as much as I could so the murder of my loved one or friend would be solved. I think that anyone who was innocent, or who was trying to portray themselves as such, would. Also, someone who was innocent, or who wanted to portray themselves as innocent, would never tell the investigator that they couldn't prove their theory implicating them. They would say how they were innocent, how it couldn't possibly be true what Columbo was saying, etc. Only guilty people goad the investigator about them not being able to prove their accusations.
Lastly, I found it a bit strange that Columbo only ever seems to have 1 case. This is something I notice a lot. Does anyone know how many cases homicide investigators typically are assigned to at any given time? I'd find it very hard to believe that it would just be one.
Because of my background, I often find myself questioning how many of these completed cases that Columbo solves would actually lead to a conviction, or hold up in court? It seems like a lot of the evidence Columbo uses to make his case could be pretty easily challenged, often successfully so.
I know that a lot of these things are done for dramatic license, and are merely part of the conceit of the show. I appreciate that, and at the same time, I'd love to hear what other people's thoughts might be who also enjoy the show about some of these questions that I've posed. Please post your own reflections about the show. I'd love to hear them.