I suppose after the BSG gripe it's only right that I detail one of my other whinges. My wife is more of a Cold Case fan than I am so I probably watch it more regularly than I otherwise would. My main problem with this show is not the odd suspension of suspension of disbelief but rather a structural problem to do with the way each narrative is handled.
The premise of the show to follow a particular murder Philadelphia PD's cold case team investigate and solve. This is portrayed by use of parallel narratives. As Lily Rush and her associates interview witnesses and suspects, their testimony flashbacks relate the story leading up to the murder. The first structural problem with this is that there's no particular reason for the stories to be synchronised. If you are piecing together the sequence of events up to a murder, it is surely more likely that these would arrive out of sequence.
The second structural problem is the narrative consistency of the flashbacks. The story is meant to be told by a series of individuals and yet appears as that of a single narrator. The depiction of character A by character B is consistent with his depiction by character C. This is particularly problematic when one of those interviewed inevitably turns out to be the perpetrator. You would think he would have a more self-serving narrative and be more inclined to send them on a wild goose chase and away from individuals who might possibly incriminate him. And yet, it's frequently the case that the eventual perpetrator provides them with the lead they need.
As far back as 1950, a solution was found to this problem. If Cold Case adopted a Rashomon-style format, it's hard to see what would be sacrificed. The flash-back story would have to be truncated as it would be told several times, from several viewpoints. But you would have a much more interesting storyline, and it would be much easier to accomodate the type of evasiveness and diversions you would imagine to characterise the testimony of people involved. Plus, the team would be forced to weigh and compare each person's testimony without assuming everyone to be telling the truth.
The problem with what you're suggesting is that this would also probably make it impossible for a considerable portion of the viewing public to understand what's going on: remember that half of the population is of below average intelligence, and another sixth barely above it.
Posted by: Abiola | March 30, 2006 at 01:14 PM
I take your point - they probably don't shift too many copies of Rashomon at Walmart and Target - but tv writing has got a lot more imaginative in the last few years: A recent episode of the much maligned CSI: Miami featured a similar plot device, one story retold from three different viewpoints, albeit in the service of an utterly preposterous plot about the murder of a five star hotel's cabana boy - poor old Armando couldn't catch a break: Boffing three women staying in the penthouse suite (on a "wives' weekend"), he couldn't get it up for the first, who bashed him on the head with a towel rail and left him for dead, then the second with a bit of chemical assistance, banging his head on the rail of the bed and again, left for dead. Falling down the stairs after a heated debate with the third and left for dead and taken by the hotel manager, put in the boot of his car to be disposed of, escaping only to run into the husband of one of the three (who was more pissed off that Armando was screwing one of the other wives, his mistress, than his own wife) who promptly strangled him.
Posted by: Frank McGahon | March 30, 2006 at 04:38 PM
Interesting point Frank. Though, it being a book this is a bit of a spoiler, the Rashomon device was also used to spectacular effect in Iain Pears's An Instance of the Fingerpost.
Posted by: Ciarán | March 30, 2006 at 05:06 PM
That's right, I read (and enjoyed) that last year (after it was favourably mentioned at Marginal Revolution).
Posted by: Frank McGahon | March 30, 2006 at 05:15 PM