Set in Borneo the story features an investigator hunting a killer across the world. The trail leads him to a particular outpost in Borneo, but there are three white men living there - together - and none of them match the description of the killer. It's possible that the killer has altered his hair, but it's also quite likely that all three men have something to hide and won't tell the investigator the truth. The detective finally tricks the killer into revealing himself by hosting a dinner. As the men had complained about the lack of ice, as a treat he provides ice for their drinks. When one man complains about the ice ruining their red wine it marks him as a gourmet -- and the killer was a gourmet.
"Red Wine" is a somewhat unconventional mystery story. There is no gradual reveal of the killer, no bread crumb trail of clues. The whole point of the story is that each of three men are viable suspects, there is no reason to favour one over the other. Consequently, when you reach the climax, you're bound to go, "Wait, which one of three was he?" but it doesn't matter. The point of the story is, after all, the "Red Wine" -- the clever solution the detective comes up with.
The Escape adaptation is quite faithful to Blochman's original text. I usually prefer the original adaptation of a story over the later one, but I give a slight edge to the 2nd version with Willard Waterman, as I prefer his performance over Chandler's. But they're both great.
The Jeff Chanlder version can be heard on the Internet Archive, and likewise the Willard Waterman version, right here.
Much to my surprise, three years before the twin Escape adaptations there was another version of "Red Wine" heard on radio. This one appeared on the Molle Mystery Theatre on March 8, 1946, but it is extremely different from the short story and, frankly, a very unfriendly adaptation. The narrative moves at a very different pace, opening with the detective already in Borneo and having been investigating for some time, rather than opening with his arrival in Borneo as in the original text.
Where the episode becomes a downright unfair adaptation is the climax. After the gourmet has been found out thanks to the red wine, the story keeps going as the other two suspects return home by rowboat. Suddenly, one reveals he's the actual killer! But then the other man reveals he's the detective's undercover partner! The end. It's an extremely lousy climax. Again, the point of this story is that the three men are equally viable suspects and that the red wine is the means to set them apart. Revealing that the red wine trick doesn't work is against the spirit of the story. Revealing that one of the suspects was actually the hero's sidekick is a tremendous cop-out.
You can hear this miserable adaptation on the Internet Archive.
So I definitely don't recommend the Molle Mystery Theatre adaptation. If you'd like to see the story done on film, there is a good television version from Four Star Playhouse starring David Niven.
No comments:
Post a Comment