Columbo, "telling stories"

Columbo – The Juxtaposition of Narratives

Here is my argument: “Columbo” is about the juxtaposition of narrative layers.

Level 1: the Background Hidden Motive.

In fact, the first sequence of events is not even the murder itself, the act of murder being in fact motivated by an earlier state of affair. The murderer had been driven to commit the crime because of a hidden status that is being threatened with exposure. For example, the future murderer has been fiddling expenses, has been blackmailed, has been leading a double life, is having an affair with the future victim's partner, etc.

So we already have a story here.

Level 2: Reality.

What happens. The murder is being committed. We usually (but not always) see how. This is the base diegetic (=plot) level. This is the genuine narrative that Columbo will be entrusted with uncovering.

Level 3: the Official Version, aka the Staged Crime.

But the murderer doesn't just kill his/her victim. Nope, he/she elaborates a scenario designed to provide him/her with an alibi, the story here being that the perpetrator will get away with it – and, ding! Here comes a new, hypothetical, scenario (according to which the criminal will go free). Often, this involves disguising the time or place of death (an Agatha Christie favourite). Or else the murderer may put appropriate clothes on the victim's body (=disguise the circumstances of death), or pretend being a witness to something that never happened, etc. The objective is to reframe the act, to stage the scene, to lead the police in a wrong direction. This official version of events is imaginary, a construction on the actual murder.

Level 4: Enter Your Man. Counter-Masquerade.

Our hero often gives a wrong impression when he arrives on the (crime) scene. It is not uncommon for the criminal or the local figures of authority to question his presence (“Who is this man? What is he doing here?”) or mistake him for someone else. More often than not, Columbo is not recognised as a police officer, and his unkempt appearance leads his protagonist to instinctively underrate him (more about that later).

The initial appearance of Columbo is often tinged with elements of comedy (for example: look at the state of his car; or he's got tooth-ache; or he's brought his dog along; or he asks people to hold egg shells for him, etc.), which allows the scenario to give the usually smooth and socially higher (ie richer) criminal a false sense of security. Ergo, the criminal does not recognise the brilliant sleuth that we, the audience, know Columbo to be.

Level 5: the criminal plays to the gallery.

One of the figures imposées of the series is the moment when the criminal gets officially notified of his/her acquaintance's death or murder. As a rule, the perpetrator pretends to be ignorant of what happened, makes a show of being taken aback by the news (“What??”), and appears to hurt from the loss (as if, somehow, he/she is also victimised by the crime and -therefore- cannot be suspected). We can choose to see this as simple diegetic role-playing (=as part of the plot) to convince Columbo of the villain's innocence.

But this also points to another, clever, field of story-telling.

Level 6: Winking at the Audience.

So the villain pretends to learn about the apparent accident/suicide/murder. Cue the usual “I can't believe so-and-so is dead!”, which surely must have some viewers responding to their TV “Well you should, because you're the one who murdered him/her!!” (I know I do. I shout at my TV, me.). I believe this is precisely the point of this mandatory scene: it is meant to establish a knowing connection with the viewers: we are in on the joke. It is a clear example of “dramatic irony” (=the audience knows more than some of the characters do). Interestingly, I often have the feeling some actors deliver that particular line badly, as if sending a cheeky wink to the audience: “See? My character is a faker!” It is part of the game, part and parcel of the “Columbo” viewing experience, and must count as an extra meta (=reflecting on itself) layer.

Level 7: Troubling Inconsistencies, or the Emergence of Columbo's Critical Skills.

The investigation has now begun. The police is being led in a false direction (such as: this wasn't a premeditated homicide, or it was an unfortunate accident and nothing more, or the death was the result of a botched robbery). The problem is, Columbo notices details that don't match with the official version. He comes across apparently tiny, trivial, facts that don't fit. What happens here is that Columbo shows himself to be a more observant, astute -and more importantly independent thinker- investigator than expected by the criminal (and pat yourself on the back for uncovering an extra hypothetical layer!). Columbo does not idly subscribe to the official version that is Level Three and, instead, follows his own methodical, logical, line of investigation. He does not obligingly abide by the narrative he has been fed by the scheming criminal and is sometimes advised to approve by higher-ups.

Level 8, a hypothesis of mine: Misgivings and Targeting.

Now level 6 is of a different nature. It does not depict a diegetic, visual, sequence of actions; it is a hunch of mine. My contention is: it is at this stage (after noticing troubling inconsistencies) that Columbo senses that the person of importance he is dealing with is the criminal. Now this layer of revelation is never made clear in any episode; at no moment does our man make a stand of punching the table and exclaim to the heavens “That's it! I know so-and-so did it!”. It is only gradually that the show conveys the sense that Columbo has made up his mind. Surely though, this must happen fairly early on, considering the fact that he will spend most of his investigation/ episode time grilling one person.

This hypothesis (Columbo decides that his main interlocutor -and incidentally guest star of the week- is the murderer) allows for a new, complex, layer: the detective is now conducting his investigation according to his conviction/hunch rather than following the procedure that would seem to apply to the case as presented; he probably posits the fact that the murder did not take place as previously imagined (there must have been another modus operandi); the other protagonist is not only lying (as to his/her actual guilt), but is also actively trying to mislead him. Oh, and the other protagonist is capable of murder (many is the episode in which the criminal compounds his/her case by murdering another person such as a witness or an accomplice, or even tries -sacrilege of all sacrileges- to murder Columbo himself).

Columbo is now proceeding by stealth.

Level 9: Desperate Rationales.

This narrative agenda/layer is basically what got me started on this analysis in the first place. For if there is one classic leitmotiv of “Columbo”, one recurring element in each episode, it is the moment(s) when, prodded by Columbo faux naif questioning, the villain desperately tries to explain away an inconsistency that threatens to scupper his/her masterplan. “Well, the criminal must have (done this or that) because...” “But of course! Ah yes, this is surely what must have happened...” Top of my head, I can't think of other series in which the suspect acts this way in each episode, thereby often digging his/her own hole, instead of just replying: “Well, I have no idea -Why should I anyway!” as any sane disinterested person would do. Instead, the suspect tries to be clever and embarks on another flight of fantasy; he/she creates yet another (ludicrously improvised) scenario that structurally builds up on Level Three ...except that Columbo has already progressed to Level Eight.

Level 10: the Cat-and-Mouse Game.

We the audience are now aware of the previous narratives, we have been guided through the different layers. This one level is for us and us only: we are offered the enjoyment of witnessing the duel between Columbo/Peter Falk and his antagonist/opposite celebrity. We know that he knows and the other one probably knows that he knows. This layer of awareness is, in itself / by nature, a spectatorial one (that is to say, it is for the viewer - it is not part of the plot itself). It is also -as far as purpose is concerned- a reflexive one: should we wish to reflect on how the plot unrolls, we are invited to wonder how Columbo will manage to expose the criminal.

Finally, the Synthesis, the Final Word.

I am loath to call this a proper level as it does not really offer a new narrative. ((Plus it ruins my perfect ten-point structure.)) So let us just make a few points about the resolution of “Columbo” episodes.

At the closing stage of a “Columbo” episode, we have gone beyond: background story, motives, actual proceedings, make-believe, role-playing, misunderstanding, hypothesis, fantastical rationales, and duel.

The final stage is not simply preoccupied with the mere reconstitution of the murder procedure – its recap is often a brisk affair, taking no more than a couple of minutes. No, what this final scene often does is offer a reflection of has happened since the original pretence (ie the murder that kick-started the encounter). Quickly getting rid of this detective story staple that is the necessary admission of guilt, the episode often concludes by reflecting on the relationship that has developed between the two protagonists over the course of the programme. It is not uncommon for example to feature a psychologically nuanced exchange between Columbo and his counterpart that testifies to their grudging respect -and even friendship. (Columbo has even been known to demonstrate sympathy for the criminal, as in the episode with Faye Dunaway or the one with the young female TV producer).

The point is: the murderer is not only admitting his guilt, he/she also concedes defeat to Columbo (more on this theme underneath).

“Columbo” is not a whodunnit, and it is more than an ode to police procedure (“CSI”... to some extent). It is more psychological than factual; it is a battle of wills; and it is meant to be great fun. 

Coincidental Narratives

Not all sub-plots actively vertically serve the resolution of a “Columbo” episode. Its most famous, recurring side-plot and alternative sphere of existence is of course made of the references to Mrs. Columbo. Apart from one episode (starring a poisoner), Mrs. C's existence never really serves the plot, is never really part of the crime story / police procedure. The couple may go on holiday in Mexico or on a cruise - this only counts as context. The phone-calls Columbo sometimes gives his wife serve as a distraction and -more to the point- introduce yet another (non factual, non diegetic) narrative.

In fact, the family theme is a fecund one in “Columbo”: check out the number of times our hero recounts a chat he had with a relative (file under: Background Story). And, this time, these references are significant, insofar as they can be categorised under the Slyly Relevant Meta-Reflexion label: meaning they do serve a purpose, they are part of the case's resolution. In this respect, they probably belong to Level Ten (Columbo's less than entirely sincere dealings with the suspect). Indeed, I was never entirely convinced of Columbo's anecdotes' veracity...

Filigrane

Two other angles of analysis can be applied to “Columbo”: Class Conflict and Competence.

It will not have escaped anyone's attention that most -if not all- of his antagonists belong to the upper class and are consiiiderably richer than him. This is hardly ever explicitly stated but always blatant - check out the size of their houses, clothes, cars, but also their often glamorous or highly lucrative profession. Hence a certain tendency for them to start from a default position of snobbishness. Namely, “Columbo” villains often make the fatal mistake of underrating him at first sight. As we know, first impression matters (see Level Four). They look down on his clothes, his cheap cigars, and of course his freakish automobile. … Never forget which country this is set in: the ultra-materialistic USA.

But the criminals' belief in their impunity is misplaced. They are not insulated by their millions or their fame, they mistake money for privilege. They can't even conceive this simple, terrifying fact: Columbo has no time for that. This doesn't wash with him. Even though he often expresses great admiration for their material success, this means nothing to his sense of justice: no matter what they imagine (And here comes another narrative!), he will arrest the criminal. In this sense, the series constantly plays on an equalising trope: no matter how rich and powerful, criminals will be brought down by a shabby dressed copper. This has to be deeply satisfying in an ultra competitive, greedy, ruthless society. Pride comes before fall.

Another underlying theme is competence. Now competence may be synonymous with material success - or it may not. Take for example the scene where a loser type burglar demonstrates to Columbo his skill at recognising real diamonds from cheap glass copies. Columbo duly bows to his knowledge.

More generally, the criminals Columbo comes up against are great professionals in their field of expertise. Most of them are renowned in their trade – and Columbo recognises that readily. Indeed, the good egg that he is never fails to acknowledge their talent and lavishes praise upon them, thereby giving them a (false) sense of security (“My wife will be thrilled, she's a huge fan of yours!”). But there is one theme to each episode these celebrated pillars of society don't suspect: by the end of the episode (see earlier remark), they will get to recognise Columbo's own expertise. He may not be an outstanding athlete, a great cook, or a brilliant wine taster – but he is lethal at reconstructing murder scenes. ...They messed with the wrong guy, so they did.

The series takes great care to show this: the criminal will get to recognise Columbo's own competence. Once again, this is satisfying: at a stretch you could present this idea as “it takes all sorts”, even authorities on psychiatry or chess, even MENSA geniuses, will recognise other people's own brand of talent.

Telling Stories

It is also worth noting that most of Columbo's adversaries are people used to addressing an audience (musicians, artists, politicians, TV presenters, media producers, psychiatrists, bosses, actors...) They are used to offering a narrative, telling stories; they have an active social life and are accomplished performers for an audience (no cooks, hairdressers, mechanics or cleaners here). Coming up with a crime setting scenario (Level Three) and playing to the gallery (Level Five) should therefore not be too much of a stretch ...or so they presumed.