In the new season of the murder mystery series Poker Face, one of the cases involves not two, not three, but five identical siblings (all portrayed by Cynthia Erivo). In The Residence, another recent detective show, a whopping 157 suspects (including Kylie Minogue playing herself) are scattered throughout the 132 rooms of the White House. This kind of ante-upping is characteristic of 21st-century whodunnits. It makes sense that a genre that relies on predictable tropes, and whose golden age is thought to have occurred a century ago, would feel the need to reinvent itself in increasingly audacious ways.
This trend perhaps also reflects the fact that attention spans have dwindled since Agatha Christie’s day. While Uzo Aduba’s portrayal of birdwatching-obsessed detective Cordelia Cupp in The Residence is everything you could want from an eccentric but brilliant sleuth, the show itself doesn’t seem to trust its viewers to keep up with the dozens of suspects and twists. As a result, too much of the runtime is spent recapping or replaying earlier scenes, which is frustrating for those of us who aren’t second screening.
Poker Face, on the other hand, places more faith in its audience and is overall more satisfying. Natasha Lyonne stars as Charlie Cale, a straight-talking, sharp-witted, chain-smoking drifter-turned-amateur-sleuth who is being chased across the US by various mobsters. The precise reasons behind it all aren’t crucial. What matters is that Charlie possesses an almost supernatural ability to detect lies, which allows her to solve the murders that always seem to occur wherever she goes.
The internet had long been clamouring for Lyonne to take on a role like this. Her whole career (and I mean this as high praise) has basically been one long Columbo audition. Her spiritual connection with Peter Falk often seeps into her mannerisms, even when she isn’t on set. So, when Rian Johnson (who is also behind the Knives Out films) created a detective role with Lyonne in mind, it was only natural that both Falk and Columbo would be major influences.
Beneath Cale’s exterior of 1970s thrifted clothes, unruly hair, and “voice like a rusty clarinet” lies genuine vulnerability and heart, qualities she shares with Columbo, and that some of the other near-superhuman detectives lack. Cale solves intricate murders, one after the other, not because she’s on the police payroll or finds the whole exercise intellectually stimulating, but driven by loyalty to the friends she’s made in her travels, a strong moral compass, and, of course, her in-built lie-detector.
Like Columbo, Poker Face is not strictly a whodunnit but a “howcatchem,” in which crime and culprit are known by the audience from the start. The intrigue lies in discovering how the detective will solve the mystery, and in Poker Face, how Cale will find herself entangled with the murder victim in the first place. The standalone case-of-the-week format allows it to showcase an impressive line-up of guest stars like Adrian Brody, Chloë Sevigny and Giancarlo Esposito (who also appears in The Residence), across a wide range of locations and professional settings, from the heavy metal scene to a race car track or a retirement home.
Of course, this all requires a healthy suspension of disbelief, but I was more than happy to oblige because I had so much fun watching. I am sure that, despite its winks at the audience, and Lyonne’s effortless charisma, some will grow tired of the show’s repeating patterns. But I think the creators understand that it is precisely the well-tested, formulaic nature of whodunnits that make them so enjoyable.
A key element of this formula is the detective. I am not referring to the gritty, morally ambiguous figures from noir fiction with a troubled past and a drinking problem. I mean the eccentric detective with a silly and sometimes alliterative name, whose quirks often cause suspects to underestimate them. This detective is daring enough to bend rules and take risks but always remains morally sound. Then, of course, there’s the cast of archetypal suspects, the assortment of red herrings and plot twists, and the grand finale in which the detective reveals, in dramatic fashion, how they’ve once again solved the case.
We like to think we enjoy whodunnits because they engage our analytical skills, much like solving a puzzle. But is it really all that satisfying to crack the case before the detective does? I personally find that if I am able to work things out before the end, it makes me think less of the writing.
If we are being honest, the true appeal of whodunnits is that they’re comforting. In a world filled with chaotic uncertainty, true crime documentaries about unsolved cases, and a growing sense of confusion in virtually every aspect of human life, whodunnits and howcatchems offer much-needed structure and resolution. The figure of the detective who always finds the solution, is reassuring because they take the overwhelming complexity and disorder of human affairs and neatly organise them into clear, straightforward explanations, leaving no room for any lingering doubt. In the end, everything, down to the killer’s motives, is perfectly tied up, and justice is always served.
On a less existential note, the paint-by-numbers nature of murder mysteries actually provides a perfect backdrop for something more important than a reassuring sense of order. Those who write good murder mysteries understand that within the well-defined parameters and predictable outcomes of the genre lies a certain creative freedom, one that is especially conducive to whimsy and farce. Think, for instance, of anything Hercule Poirot has ever said about his own moustache, or Daniel Craig’s outrageous but wonderful Mississippi accent in the Knives Out film series.
Poker Face is a prime example of the genre being well exploited: witty, fun and with a memorable lead who is on track to go down as one our most iconic amateur sleuths.
Emily Herring is a freelance writer and editor based in Paris
