November 2024 …
[Spoiler alert: This blog reveals the culprit of a murder mystery.]
Recently I had the chance to watch the 2013 British crime drama, Broadchurch. It was an eight-episode series that followed a police investigation of a murdered eleven-year-old boy in a small English coastal town.
The story was complex. Many characters were suspicious and had diverse and interlinked back-stories. It was a classic ‘whodunnit’ where the viewer finds it difficult to identify the murderer. The writers were skilful in not releasing all relevant clues early so it was impossible to deduce the murderer from the evidence revealed at any stage; each episode drip-fed more evidence.
My wife, Monique, had seen the series when it was released so she knew the outcome. (She would like me to mention that she did well not giving anything away as we watched!) At the end of episode 4 she asked who I thought the likely murderer was. Since I knew that all relevant clues had not been made available, and I suspected the writers were creating confusion with so many characters behaving suspiciously, I had to put on my ‘writer’s hat’.
I asked myself, what would the most shocking outcome be for any of the characters? Most characters had some secret they wanted to hide – even the lead detective. The only one who didn’t appear to have a secret was the assisting detective sergeant and her husband. I guessed that the most shocking thing that could happen was that the husband would be shown to be the murderer. I couldn’t explain why based on the clues revealed to that point; rather, I based it on recognising odd story elements being used by the screenwriters.
I recognised that the only two characters who were not behaving suspiciously by episode 4 were the assisting detective and her husband. They were portrayed as a close loving couple whose son had known the murdered boy. The son clearly had secrets and was acting suspiciously, but not the parents.
The story also included a lengthy scene that seemed redundant – the couple invited the senior detective to dinner. They shared a nice meal and interesting small talk, and we learned more about the lead detective, but nothing was revealed to further the core story for the police or the viewer. My question was, why was this scene included? If it weren’t significant to the whole story, it could have been easily removed. There must have been a reason. I guessed it was because the writers wanted to present the husband as a significant character, but not one who was acting suspiciously. Why?
My writer’s brain applied the ‘Chekhov’s Gun’ principle; don’t put something in the story unless it is relevant. My only conclusion was that the writers wanted the audience to ‘meet’ and get to know the husband as benign, because they were going to later reveal him as the murderer.
Over the next few episodes, he appeared more often but not in a suspicious way. In the final episode he broke, and evidence was revealed which showed why he was relevant. All other character secrets were resolved or shown to be irrelevant.
Picking the murderer halfway through, based solely on writerly instincts, was satisfying. In his book, A Swim in the Pond in the Rain, George Saunders refers to ‘Things I Couldn’t Help Noticing’. He mentions that as we read or watch a story, we notice odd facts or occurrences and wonder why they are presented at all. This is a feature I have become increasingly aware of in novels or movies. I find myself anticipating the outcome based on what the writers are doing, over and above the situation of the plot. This is satisfying since it reveals I am continuing to develop as a writer.