Of course, depending on who you're playing against, how you're playing and how melodramatic you / they are, this can be made all part of the fun with a vainglorious rant; "Haha, you fools! Little did you realize that the killer was amongst you all along!" Etc. And then you 'kill' all of their pieces and make a getaway. Or maybe that's just me.
I always assumed you knew you were the killer, but found the clues that would implicate you. When you discover them, you can dispose of them or clean them, and your announcing that you're the killer is actually informing them that the murder will never be solved.
That doesn't explain why you repeatedly sabotage any possibility of pinning the crime on one of the others.
To make it look like you're innocent of course, since all the others are doing the same thing. And with the evidence against you gone, it doesn't matter it can't be pinned on someone else; the case will remain unsolved.
Also, it doesn't explain why you can make suggestions that involve yourself as the killer. It'd be all right if the suggestion just included the person, as it would just be asking for someone to back up your alibi, but the way it is in the game makes it sound like a Suspiciously Specific Denial: "Surely someone must have proof that I didn't kill Mr. Boddy... in the lounge... with the lead pipe...?"
I imagine it's intended to be something more like this In-Universe: "I couldn't have murdered him in the lounge with the lead pipe, I was on the other side of the house at the time! You saw me, didn't you Mustard?" It's just phrased like that for players of the game for consistency and clarity.
The movie gives another possible explanation: having reconstructed the entire night, you're able to prove that the killing was justified, so your admission is just part of a long, triumphant summation.
Maybe you're not one of the suspects after all; you're one of a team of detectives, each of whom is following one of the murder suspects. In that case, revealing that the person you're trailing is in fact the murderer makes sense.
This is how it's played in one of the computer versions—and you can progress from something like "rookie" to "chief inspector" depending on how many games you've won.
How about this: Every suspect is guilty of a lesser crime, and cannot reveal what they know without revealing their own crimes. They are offered a deal: anyone who gives them useful information gets total immunity for any past crimes. The killer notices a loophole and confesses his crime (which is the most useful information he could possibly give), thus gaining immunity.
There's also the question of why finding out the means and location of the crime are not only independent of figuring out who did it, but still equally important.
If you don't know where or how it was done, claiming to know who did it would ring kind of hollow.
Yeah, knowing the particulars can help to nail the killer. You need evidence, and the more you know about the details of the murder, the likelier you are to find it.
For that matter, how do you not know where it happened? Some of those weapons are blunt instruments, but a few are pretty messy. The large trail of blood between Mr. Boddy and the room where he died is a pretty big clue.
Bloodless Carnage strikes again. Also, didn't you see the movie? They were lucky if they could figure out when he died, much less where.
No, it was pretty easy to figure out who killed Mr. Boddy. Mr. Green, in the hall, with the revolver.
And then he went to sleep with his wife.
Flames. Flames on the side of my face...
For the location and the means of the murder, it's possible that the killer murdered Mr. Boddy in one location, but he was found somewhere else, and the various weapons are randomly scattered around the house. When you make a "suggestion" and somebody else proves it wrong, they are pointing out the flaw in your reasoning. For example: "I suggest it was Colonel Mustard in the Conservatory with the Lead Pipe." "Impossible. (shows the pipe) The Pipe has no blood on it!"
And for people, it's a matter of "Professor Plum couldn't have done it; he was with me at the time!"
Objection! How can you prove the pipe wasn't cleaned after the murder?
The killer obviously didn't have time to clean the weapon before the body was discovered. Ever tried to remove blood off something? Not easy.
All the games of Cluedo I've played have indicated that Boddy was found on the staircase (in the centre of the board, where the mystery cards are usually placed) and murdered somewhere else. Presumably the unnamed killer ditched the weapon, and possibly made an effort to disguise the wounds (if there were any) on Boddy's, um, body.
It's possible that the second the killer, uh, kills the poor Mr Boddy, they cover the wound so no blood can be left behind. It's possible to use every single weapon bar the rope as a blunt object (the candlestick, the lead pipe, the wrench, the knife, and the revolver, provided you use the butt of the revolver and the non-pointy end of the knife). Then again, there was a pretty clear case of strangulation in Ace Attorney that was classified as blunt-force trauma (Stolen Turnabout; look at the picture of his corpse, he was totally asphyxiated with his tie). Further, hitting someone hard enough with the blunt object or smashing someone's head in post-mortem would leave it pretty ambiguous as to what actually killed him, even if it was strangulation or a gunshot wound. Most weapons, again bar the rope, can be used to pierce Mr Boddy with either enough force or just outright shooting him. Presumably to cover up what killed him, most versions of the game leave Boddy's, er, boddy on the steps. They push the corpse down to cause a few post-mortem contusions. I suppose no matter how you look at it, the rope is the odd weapon out since it's got nothing in common with the other weapons (except the poison used in other versions, where neither leave obvious signs of usage if the strangulation marks are left under his collar). I suppose it could be used to trip Mr Boddy or beat him to death if used like a whip (which would take far too long), but since it's usually depicted as a noose on the box art and in the card pictures, you're supposed to assume it's used to strangle. Or the guests don't dare approach the body at all, and that's why nobody knows how he died.
Why are there no bathrooms in the Clue house?
Maybe they're in the underground tunnel.
They're probably all upstairs.
Thank you for clearing up something else for me. I never knew what the layout was in terms of 3-D space. The staircase is at the center of the board: does that mean everything above it is the upper floor? But of course, as you've said, it must mean that we're seeing only one floor, and for some odd reason the murder couldn't have occurred above. Maybe there was a door locked from the other side at the top of the stairs or something.
Amusingly, there is a bathroom in The Movie, and it's even a plot point (being where Boddy's body is hidden).
I always kind of assumed that the eight little enclaves (the six where the pieces begin the game and two blanks) were some assortment of bathrooms and closets. Most are in places where they could be stretched (Miss Scarlet's space is next to the Hall, where a coat closet might be. Mrs. White's is near the Kitchen, where there might be a pantry, meat locker, or wine cellar. Mrs. Peacock's space next to the Conservatory could be where gardening supplies are kept.) The rest could simply be half-baths, with there being full baths upstairs where the bedrooms presumably are.
I know it's just a board game and it's all supposed to be abstract, but wouldn't it be really easy to at least narrow down the murder weapon by examining the late Mr. Boddy? Even a kindergartner should be able to tell (for instance) whether or not he had been stabbed, thus ruling the knife in or out.
Perhaps he was all of shot, strangled, bludgeoned etc to death and the object of the game is to find out which instrument dealt the fatal blow? (c.f. the Inspector Morse novel "Service of All The Dead" where the victim was stabbed to cover up the fact he was really poisoned.
Or perhaps he was bludgeoned; any of the weapons can be used as a blunt instrument, including the knife. Well, okay, maybe not the rope.
It's a moderately heavy rope (in some depictions), wrapped in a bundle and tied around the middle. You could probably bludgeon someone to death with that with a good run at it (or simply tie a large knot in one end and swing it at him. Think of the torture scene in Casino Royale, except aiming at his skull.)
Or use it to trip Mr. Boddy, who falls and fatally hits his head on the floor. Nope, the rope is still under suspicion.
You'd allow a kindergartner to do that?
"Now Molly quit yer crying and tell the police how he died!"
They're all suspects so they might know better than to turn the body over and examine it for fear of leaving fingerprints or DNA.
I like the new Clue game, played it earlier. It even includes the possibility of your character being murdered by the murderer... which brings up the odd possibility of your character being the murderer...
So your character kills the guy and then commits suicide, big deal...
What if the murderer commits suicide, then another character is killed by the murderer?
The killer just faked their death?
I don't mind the idea of updating the game (let's face it, it IS a bit dated), but a video game designer? A trophy? And the design of the game box? Is this a whodunnit in The Hills or something?
The problem with all that is that it's going to get dated very quickly. The original Clue's 1920s setting fits in well with early detective stories (the actual game was post-WW2, so it didn't get outdated so much as the original wasn't even trying to be current). The modern day setting just isn't really known for being mystery-themed, and I'm afraid that, in ten years or so, it's going to come across as a lot more dated than the original. To put it simply, the original can get by on atmosphere, and I'm not sure the remake can do the same.
Bingo. The original was a classic. This modern version is tacky now and is going to be tackier later. Even if they did a modern version, it could have been done much better.
If you have your card, that basically means that you have some kind of incontrovertible evidence (multiple witnesses who saw you on the other side of the house, etc.) that means you didn't do it, and which you can produce to anyone who challenges your innocence.
I suspect that it would be hard to take seriously if played straight given the source material, so playing it for laughs seems reasonable.
The fourth ending is much darker and serious than the other three, but was left out of the release because test audiences felt it too dark.
In the movie version, Wadsworth takes a phone call from the FBI. This is perfectly fine for 2 of the endings, but in the third if he had known that the FBI were snooping around there's no way he would have done and revealed what he did at the end. But when the endings are stuck together that's the ending that we are told is what really happened.
But we've no proof that Wadsworth would have let them leave after revealing himself — well, at least not Mr. Green. Remember, the FBI call in the third ending was for Green, but Wadsworth took the call. Even if the caller was careful in what he said, Wadsworth was obviously keen to Green's cover (Green: 'I was going to expose you." Wadsworth: "I know.") and could have shot Green on his way out, or more likely staged some other accident.
In the Third ending, Wadsworth turns out to be Mr. Boddy, the true Blackmailer, and the first victim was actually his butler. If you paid any attention to Mr. Boddy at all, you'd see that this is absolutely nonsensical. His behavior clearly shows that there is no possible way he could be anyone other than Mr. Boddy. Just rewatch a single one of his scenes, and you'd realize this.
Perhaps the butler was an actor before he was blackmailed, and Wadsworth/Mr. Boddy ordered him to act like Mr. Boddy.
He certainly does have a lot of repressed rage and tries to get them to turn on Wadsworth. He also tries to escape. I suspect he'd stopped being the butler awhile ago and knew he was dead no matter what, so was acting without much in the realm of inhibitions.
Some of the logistics surrounding the informants escape me. First of all, how did the cop just happen to show up that night? The other informants (the cook, Yvette, the telegram girl, and the motorist) were all asked to be there by Wadsworth/Mr. Boddy, but the cop seemed to show up by chance. And it seems even less likely since he supposedly worked in Washington, and they party was in New England. He could've been invited, but why would he wear his uniform and drive his squad car? Secondly, who was the "they" Yvette was referring to right before she was strangled? And who did she expect to be in the billiard room, since she seemed surprised to find Mrs. White there? Thirdly, if Wadsworth/Mr. Boddy wanted to get rid of his informants, as he said in the real ending, why didn't he just kill them all himself instead of relying on a Gambit Roulette?
I was always bothered by the cop's presence myself. The only answer I can come up with (and it's rather lame) is that Wadsworth, Miss Scarlet, or Mr. Boddy somehow arranged for him to be transferred temporarily from the Washington police force to one in New England so that he could be out driving that night to discover the motorist's car. Wadsworth/Mr. Boddy is The Chessmaster and so could have pulled that off, but it still seems incredibly contrived and unbelievable. But then this is after all just a zanyscrewball comedy. On point two, the "they" would likely be Colonel Mustard and whichever woman she wasn't talking to depending on the ending, since they both knew her (Miss Scarlet quite well), and she was expecting to meet Miss Scarlet. In the ending where Miss Scarlet did it, she obviously wasn't expecting her employer to kill her. Admittedly this makes more sense if she was talking to Mrs. White, since it would hardly seem the case (were she talking to Miss Scarlet) that Mrs. White would know every inch of her body. (Unless she'd caught Yvette with her husband and got an eyeful?) Third question is easiest to answer: he wanted them to kill the informants so that he could keep blackmailing them while his own hands stayed clean. As he himself said "Now there is no evidence against me."
1. The cop was invited. Wadsworth said that everyone had been invited there. He wore his uniform perhaps because he was uncertain what would happen and a uniform is really a cop's best (psychological) weapon. Really, who's to say? 2. "They" was the people who had seen the photo of Yvette as a prostitute, in flagrante delecto with Col. Mustard. 3. Whether there is a "real" ending depends on what version you watch, but in that particular ending Wadsworth obviously found it to his advantage not to be the actual killer of anyone, in case there was legal trouble.
For what it is worth, during his phone call just before he is killed, the cop does say he isn't on duty, so he wouldn't need to have been transferred from Washington. Perhaps the letter requested he wear his uniform and drive his squad car? This may have been to help identify him to the other guests so he could be more readily killed, to psychologically set him at ease so he wouldn't be suspicious, or simply to scare the guests.
Or alternatively, the gathering was arranged / the letter requested that he arrive immediately after his shift was over, so he didn't have time to change or drop his squad car back at the police station.
When they locked the weapons in the cupboard, why did they leave the candlestick and the knife out? What, a weapon can only be used once and then it's no good? And there was really no point in locking up anything but the rope and the revolver. If someone wanted to bludgeon someone else to death, they wouldn't need the wrench or the lead pipe to do it, there were plenty of other things in the house they could use as a makeshift cudgel (there were other candlesticks on the mantle, Col. Mustard grabs a billiard cue at one point).
The knife was stuck in the cook's body the entire movie. Even when Col. Mustard tried to pull it out, he couldn't. Stuck good. No good reason for the candle stick. As for the rest of it, yes other stuff in the house can be lethal, but it's easier to kill someone with a gun than a pool cue. Just saying.
The candlestick was missing at that point. We see it on top of a door frame (why? how?), before it falls on Wadsworth. That's because (as we find out later) it had been used to kill Boddy for real.
For that matter, about that knife... isn't there still an entire kitchen full of knives that could be used as weapons?
Each weapon offered by Mr Boddy had fingerprints added by several different guests: it would be simpler to misdirect attention from the murderer by using Mr Boddy's weapons.
In the third ending, how did Col. Mustard find the secret passage to kill the motorist? He "discovers" the secret passage after the murder (and in fact it's entrance is in a room he has never visited by that point), and unlike Wadsworth, Scarlet and Peacock he knows no one familiar enough with the house who could have informed him of the passage's existence.
This also applies to Mrs. Peacock in the second and third endings—how did she know of the passage from the study so she could kill the cook? It is stated that Yvette knew the house and all the passages in it to inform Miss Scarlet (and she in turn learned it from Wadsworth/Mr. Boddy, no matter which ending), so she could have told Colonel Mustard, considering their close history. But Mrs. Peacock had no connection to the maid...
It's revealed in the second and third endings that the cook used to work for Mrs. Peacock, so it's possible that the cook told Mrs. Peacock about the kitchen/study passage. Aside from this, though, is that Mrs. Peacock was the only one left behind in the study when the cook was killed - she didn't need the secret passage if she were quick enough.
You're not the only one to find plotholes with regards to the multiple endings:
Actually, the third, supposedly real ending contains a few plot holes: How would Boddy/Wadsworth not know that Green was a fake if he had all the evidence against them and set this up to kill his informers? Also, how would J. Edgar Hoover know to call Wadsworth's residence if it was Green and not Wadsworth that worked for him? The first and second endings do not suffer these two plot holes.
And the answer comes: Green wasn't just sent in by the FBI out of the blue; he had been blackmailed, just under false pretenses - he tricked Boddy into thinking he was a closeted homosexual. And the FBI knew where the meeting was, so they knew where to call him. Alternatively, Mr. Boddy might have never actually met or seen the people he was blackmailing, which is why none of them recognize Boddy, and it makes sense since his blackmail was based on informants.
That's what I always considered to be the answer too. However, there is one other point to consider, which could either support or undermine your case: the scene in the study where all the guests are revealing their secrets. When the time comes for Mr. Green to be unmasked, he pre-empts The Reveal from Wadsworth and states his homosexuality. After this, we see a scene of Wadsworth staring bug-eyed at the letter from Mr. Boddy and then, it appears, shifting the relevant page underneath the stack, unread. While in the first two endings this makes sense, because Wadsworth may not have known all the secrets (being both a butler and an FBI agent) and Mr. Green really was gay in them, in the third ending you would think Mr. Boddy would know better than to shift the page aside unread, especially if he didn't actually know all the secrets firsthand nor had met his victims face-to-face. Nor does he seem the type to be that appalled or startled by such a secret. So either Mr. Boddy was feigning his shock in order to fool his victims, knew about the secret, but had been fooled himself into believing Green was the genuine article, or he hadn't yet been told what the secret was by Green's informant (the Jehovah's Witness, since as Green's boss he would know him and Wadsworth didn't seem surprised by his appearance in any of the endings?), and the information was so shocking he moved the page aside unread, thus being fooled because he didn't bother to check the credentials. The latter hardly seems in character, unless he's just that arrogant, so it must have been the former...
Is it not possible that Green really was gay, and really was blackmailed for it, and managed to organize the sting without exposing his gayness? Also, Boddy doesn't have to know who Green's boss is. He just has to let someone at the FBI know. Back then (see The Fifties and the Red Scare, which was also a Gay Scare — see Julia And Juliet for an example), that sort of allegation wouldn't need to be delivered to the top dog; it would find its way up the chain quickly. Besides, he could always find out who to tell later when he needs to know. Of course, blackmail never actually involves carrying out the threat, just the fear that you will.
It could be, too, that the FBI got wind of this serial blackmailer, perhaps via Senator Peacock's people, and managed to hook Boddy with the "gay person at the state department" bait way before all of this, and paying the blackmail for a while, with the intent to follow the trail back to Boddy. Boddy would have had no idea that Green is FBI. After catching the Hoover call, he may have surmised *someone* was FBI, but not known who, which is why he looks so distraught afterwards. It could be, too, that the owners of the house were either friends with Hoover, or perhaps had reported people as suspected Communists (or homosexuals) — and Hoover, realizing he wasn't talking to his agent, could have come up with a cover story like this.
Also, in all cases the murder of the cop makes no sense. When Wadsworth uses his key to lock the Cop in the library for the second time, he puts the key back in his pocket. However, later on in the film, the door to the Library is unlocked from the outside and the Cop is shortly after killed by either Miss Scarlet or Mrs. Peacock, depending on who the murderer was in the different endings. However, nobody stole Wadsworth's key before the guests split up into pairs to search Hill House again, Wadsworth never mentions that the key was stolen from his pocket to unlock the Library door when he takes the guests through the events of the evening step by step, and it is never said that Yvette had a key to unlock the rooms of the house. It would be impossible for the murderer to unlock and open the door to enter the Library.
Not that we know for sure whether anyone had a chance to take the key; there are plenty of scenes where everyone is huddled together.
Also, I would have to look again very closely to be sure but it is possible Wadsworth left the key in the library door—if not the first time, then when they split up to search again.
The second ending also has a pretty huge plot hole. Mrs. Peacock is shown yelling at / hitting a pipe, in the basement, apparently at the time that she is supposedly to be killing the motorist, in the living room.
You're thinking of after the power was shut off—when the motorist was killed we didn't see anything of Mrs. Peacock other than her searching the cellar. The part where she was hitting the pipe was right after the power was shut off though—and even though the switch was at the top of the cellar stairs, it wouldn't make sense she went up, shut it off, went back down to bang on the pipe, then went back up again to take out Yvette and the others. Unless she was establishing her alibi with Professor Plum...
And another thing: if Mrs. White really did kill Yvette, why did the film show Yvette descending the staircase while hearing White scream from the master bedroom upstairs (from being startled there a moment ago) right before entering the room where Yvette's killer already was?
This film is a rare example of plot holes not only being intentional but fully justified. If all the clues added up to one ending then there would be no point in there being two more as well. The film, if you scrutinize it carefully from start to finish, is a deliberate dead end of contradictory evidence, because only then can three different endings equally fit.
This may sound stupid, but in the beginning, why don't the guests know what the dinner party is all about? There are at least three instances where one of them (either Mrs. Peacock or Colonel Mustard) asks about what's going on, but it seems rather unnecessary since Wadsworth had written letters to them explaining why they had to come. Are the guests just playing dumb, is it for the audience's sake, or what? Also, why would Wadsworth give a letter to Mr. Boddy when they live in the same house?
The way the letter was written, as Wadsworth read it, the blackmail wasn't outright revealed—and unless each person assumed all the others were being blackmailed too, they wouldn't guess this could be the reason they were all invited, nor would they admit it aloud. As for Boddy's letter, two possible reasons—Wadsworth was trying to hide what he was doing from his employer so that he would be lured to the house and didn't realize what was going on until it was too late, so he mailed the letter anonymously; or it was designed to fool the guests into not knowing he was their blackmailer as opposed to another victim, because Wadsworth wanted them all in the study before that was revealed. A third option, for the third ending only, is that there never was a letter, it was all made up by Mr. Boddy to mislead the guests as to his true intentions and identity, and he ordered his butler to go along with the lie. This could also be true even in the first two endings, if Wadsworth only claimed there was a letter, Boddy went along with it to keep from revealing he was the blackmailer, and in actuality he'd just handed it to Boddy or verbally told him to come to the house.
Or an even simpler explanation: they didn't live in the same house any more. Wadsworth said his employment ended when his wife killed herself, since with her dead Boddy no longer had a hold on him. Since presumably this gave Wadsworth time to get all the evidence and make the arrangements for the party, he also would have been living elsewhere so could have mailed the letter to his old employer. As for the FBI agent ending, either Wadsworth faked having a wife who knew socialists so as to get into his employ (much as Green did in the third ending), or the story about his wife was a lie, the FBI had found out what Boddy was up to on their own and directed Wadsworth to send the letters, so he never lived with Boddy. Which could explain why Boddy brought the weapons and acted so hostile toward Wadsworth—he didn't know him and suspected a sting.
Another thing: Who was the person who told Yvette to "shut the door" minutes before she was killed? The voice that asks, "Did anyone recognize you?" is obviously female (which would mean that that particular voice belongs to either Miss Scarlet, Mrs. Peacock, or Mrs. White, depending on the ending), but the voice that says, "Shut the door," sounds male.
They didn't want to pin down the gender of the anonymous voice, so they made it inconsistent.
In the third ending, Mr. Green shoots Mr. Boddy dead. Is this truly acceptable, considering that in the other two endings, the murderer is simply arrested? In all three situations, the murderer has the gun and makes it clear that no one else will get shot if they can simply leave. In fact, Boddy killed considerably fewer people than Ms. Peacock did in her ending. It shouldn't have been because of the blackmail threat; if it was, Prof. Plum should have gotten off for the murder he committed.
If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Boddy takes a shot at Mr. Green, or at least has the gun on him. If Mr. Boddy knew that Green was with the FBI, he almost certainly would have shot him, and Green was revealing himself anyway.
When Mr. Green pulls his gun to arrest them all, Mr. Boddy points his gun at him and puts his finger on the trigger. Under those circumstances, it would be perfectly legal and acceptable for Mr. Green to shoot him.
So, uh. Mr. Green couldn't be a kick-ass FBI agent and gay at the same time? Ahem.
The FBI under Hoover wasn't exactly known for it's acceptance of homosexuals. So sadly no.
Has less to do with the FBI and more to do with the makers of the film.
No, it really has to do with the FBI. At the time the film was set, being gay wasn't just socially unacceptable; in many states, it was a felony.
And Mr. Green's boast that he would sleep with his wife may have partly been because he really shared the attitude at the time about homosexuals, was disgusted with having had to portray one sympathetically (in the ruse within the movie), and wanted to distance himself from it as much as possible, even for the benefit of a bunch of un-American murderers.
Or he was gay/bisexual, his wife was The Beard, and not even his bosses knew about it.
Why did Wadsworth tell everyone to use an alias when he was planning to have them all confess to the police later that night?
Presumably so they would feel safe enough to come out into the open to the party. As was the case if they'd known the police would be coming ahead of time, knowing their real names would be used would likely have made them too afraid to show up.
When Wadsworth is revealing what Mr. Boddy is blackmailing each of the guests with, why does he accept Colonel Mustard's claim that he can afford to live above the means of a colonel's salary because he inherited money from his parents? He doesn't look like he believes Mustard, but he shuts his mouth and allows a change in subject. However, depending on which ending you watched, Wadsworth either gathered all the evidence against the guests together (including the evidence of Mustard's illegal income) into one envelope and invited the witness against Mustard to come to the house or Wadsworth did all that and he was Mr. Boddy all along. Either way, he knows the true source of Mustard's wealth and has the evidence to prove it sitting right in front of him, so why does he let Mustard's deception go unchallenged?
Two possibilities. In the first two endings, Wadsworth was trying to get the guests to confess to the blackmail so Mr. Boddy could be put away. Why he didn't do this for the other guests, I don't know, but he may have been waiting for the motorist to arrive before exposing Mustard's real crime, when he had a witness to testify to it and not just written documents. Perhaps it was because, as a military man, he thought Mustard would be more likely to go along with the "visiting a house of ill-fame jeopardizing his Pentagon post" accusation (which does after all suggest something about his manliness) than something which would reveal his lack of patriotism and completely undermine his military record (being a war profiteer). As for the third ending, being Mr. Boddy would make him more likely to twist the knife, allowing the matter to drop only so it could be revealed later to humiliate and expose the colonel. Considering the reaction the revelation got (Green suddenly linking Mustard and White through Yvette), he may also have held off on revealing it until it became necessary—either to theorize about why Mustard might have committed murder(s) (after they'd happened) or to throw suspicion onto him and off of himself.
Wadsworth's reaction isn't one of disbelief at the veracity of Mustard's story, but at the fact that a grown man (and WWII veteran — Colonel ranks ain't just handed out like candy) nonchalantly used the words "my mommy and daddy."
How the hell did the candlestick end up on top of the door frame? The doors are huge and no one is that tall to place it there without a chair. Why would you go through all that trouble to put a murder weapon out in the open in a place it doesn't remotely belong? And while we're at it, what could have supposedly caused it to fall when it did? At least the chandeliers only fall after being shot. It's the only forced prop movement in the film.
That's...a good question. What supposedly caused it to fall—I presume we're meant to believe the vibrations from Wadsworth shouting jostled it loose. As for the rest, presumably the killer put it up there to hide it (notice no one even seemed aware of it until it fell) so no one would know how Boddy was killed. But as for how it was put up there...I have no clue. In two of the endings it was a woman—Yvette (and how in the world could she have climbed up there in that skirt?) or Mrs. Peacock (also in a fairly tight dress), and in the third, I'm not sure Professor Plum was tall enough to have reached it. There were chairs in the hall, but on the other side near the library and billiard room, and moving them would have taken too much time and made too much noise. Hmmm...
It's perfectly possible to do it without a chair if you put a hand and a foot on one side of the door frame and the other hand and foot on the other, something small children often do for fun. You wouldn't have to climb very high, and both Yvette and Mrs Peacock could have just stuffed the upper half of the candlestick in the front of their dresses with the bloodied part away from their bodies, and Professor Plum could have tucked it in a pocket. You wouldn't have to push yourself very high up to do it (not even Yvette) once you got into position, then you just hold yourself in place with both feet and a hand and use one hand to place the candlestick above the doorframe. It wouldn't take long at all, either; certainly much less time than it takes to get and then put away a chair. Also, since we don't see much of the bathroom, it's possible there's something to stand on just inside the doorway. Why anyone would put it up there, though, that's the real question. Also, Wadsworth was moving while he was talking/shouting, and might have been bouncing a bit on his feet. 'Course, the most probable reason for why this is, is simply Rule of Funny.
So, how many husbands did Mrs. White have again? When asked, she says "five", but earlier, we hear she is being blackmailed because of the disappearance of "her husband" (heavily implied to be her most recent one) who is then revealed to be her *second*. But, I guess she had 3 since then that weren't worth blackmailing her for, for whatever reason?
She had 5, Wadsworth was only bringing up a few of them specifically to get the point across.
Simple: Mrs White has had five husbands, but was only being blackmailed for the second, because it was the only one there was bona fide proof she'd killed because she was supposedly informed on, though it's never said who told on her (or Green, for that matter) to Mr Boddy. We're probably meant to presume Yvette did it. Also, she would have been a lot more careful in murdering her husbands in ways that look like accidents after starting to be blackmailed, so she only had ties to the death of the second.
Where did Yvette vanish to during the Of Corpse He's Alive scene, and why? The latter is probably due to the fact they thought the cop would find it odd to see a maid indulging in partying/foreplay with house guests, and because there was no one for her to be 'involved' with except the dead motorist and she wouldn't do such a thing. Still, it's odd that the cop didn't find her absence suspicious, especially since he had halfway recognized her from Miss Scarlet's brothel. Though I suppose he may have thought she was off doing her job... In any event, after the cop is locked back in we see her...suddenly flounce back in from the back of the house. She wasn't in the kitchen, since the cop looked in through the serving hatch from the dining room. So...she was hiding in the ballroom, or the conservatory? Strange...
She may have been in one of the secret passages. After all, in the first ending, she was the one who told Miss Scarlet about them. She was most likely just inside the passage between the Conservatory and the Study.
How many bullets were fired from the gun and when were the fired?
I have to assume this is sarcasm, since the answer is spelled out in the movie (and on the main page) but for the sake of completion: one shot fired at Boddy in the study, one hit the chandelier by accident, two at the lounge door, one for the singing telegram girl. And then the last one gets the second chandelier in the first ending only and is fired (but misses Green) in the third ending.
In the first two endings Wadsworth is an FBI agent. Does that mean his backstory is all untrue? Why would Mr. Boddy put up with him then?
Remember, we only had Wadsworth's word for his previous relationship with Mr. Boddy and how he came to be his butler. Perhaps they had a (seemingly) routine employer/employee relationship, and Mr. Boddy figured out what was going on (or at least enough of it) when he saw all his victims and just took advantage of the situation presented to him.
How exactly is the police officer still making that phone call moment's before he's murdered? The murderer turned off the power to the entire building.
Old telephones weren't electric. The only cord is for the phone line, not a power line. The phone wouldn't have been affected by the lack of power.
All telephones are electric! But a standard landline telephone gets what it needs entirely through the phone line. As long as there's power at the exchange, the phone will work.
Okay so who informed on White and Green to Boddy? We're told the Cop told on Scarlet, the Motorist on Mustard, the Telegraph informed on Plum, and the Cook told on Peacock, but Yvette is never specifically stated to have informed on anyone, but we're meant to presume she informed Boddy on Scarlet AND Mustard, but she has no reason to say a thing about White, because the likelihood she would know Mrs White killed her husband is so small. Absolutely nobody in the house has ties to Green, which is probably a hint at the fact that he was innocent of the murders in all three endings- zero motive for anyone but Boddy. It's strongly implied Boddy learnt everything he knows from a different source, never learning anything for himself. So, who told him Green was gay and White murdered her second husband?
Actually I think the possibility Yvette knew Mrs. White killed her husband is pretty good, considering she was sleeping with the man. All she had to do was be coming over for a liaison (or already there for one and hiding in the next room) to see/hear the murder. Or she could simply have suspected it, and after informing Boddy he did some investigating on his own and found the proof. As for Green, the fact Wadsworth showed no surprise when the evangelist shows up at the door suggests he'd been told the man would appear because he was Green's informant. Considering the evangelist was actually Green's boss, he'd be in a great position to know if he was gay, or claim he did. In the ending where Wadsworth is the FBI agent, I guess we have to assume the evangelist, Wadsworth's boss, just happened to also be Green's informant, unless there was a State Department official who informed off-screen whom Wadsworth never invited. Maybe because he didn't consider Green's crimeworth putting him away for?
I assumed Mr Boddy just learnt of it himself and there was no informing, or because Green was just a plant in the supposed True ending that has more holes than Swiss cheese, the information was deliberately leaked to Boddy so as to get Green an in to put an end to the whole blackmailing thing and that it was specifically because Hoover was so harsh to gays that Green's cover was being gay (as that would definitely cost him his job and maybe his life, so that put him at just as much risk as at least Mrs White), which may itself have been suggested by Green himself either because he IS gay and it was just him trying to utilise the Fiction As Coverup trope (and if someone else suggested it, it's Accidental Truth), or he truly isn't gay and it was just a proposition for him to pretend so Boddy would blackmail him.
If the house belongs to a friend of his, and it looks pretty well-kept, why in Heaven's name would Wadsworth think it acceptable to stack the bodies in the cellar?
We never see the cellar. It's entirely possible Wadsworth knows the house's owner well enough to know he's never set foot there.
No, we certainly do see the cellar, when Plum and Peacock investigate it. However, based on the look of the place, it probably doesn't get visited often if at all. In any event we have no idea exactly how often this friend visits the house; it may not be he even lives there or takes care of the place much. The main floor is well-maintained, polished, and cleaned, but the rest of the house is pretty drab, dusty, and cluttered with antique junk. If the house is only one of many properties and the friend only visits once in a blue moon to do inventory or make sure it's in good condition, it could be a very long time before anyone discovered the bodies. Also keep in mind that in all but one of the endings, Wadsworth is only saying this to get the murderer to spare himself/the other guests; as soon as the murderer had escaped or was in custody, he'd very likely have called the police and coroner.
What was the message the singing telegram girl was carrying?
It's not plot-important. But for the sake of an answer, most likely something that wouldn't raise her suspicions — a bogus Happy Birthday or such.
Why the heck does Boddy keep inviting all these crazy folks back to his place when they're alternately trying to rob him blind, off each other, scheme with each other to off someone else, or scheme to kill Boddy and rob him blind? There's been 18 books in the first run of the series; that's enough for each of them to have done in Boddy an average of three times each!
Because they always carefully explain to him how it was all a series of innocent misunderstandings and fluke accidents.
It seems to be a combination of Mr. Boddy's childish naivity when it comes to his friends (one story has him thrilled to have the company of several of his friends, and then some time later wonders why they broke in through the window in the middle of the night) and them having just enough Pet the Dog moments to be likable.
It's definitely naivete, which is even lampshaded by Boddy describing himself as a "big-hearted, thick-headed fellow". One story had him banning weapons from the mansion, and when one of the guests asks him how he's going to enforce it, he says that he's going to make them promise, scout's honor. The guests get around the ban by displaying the weapons in plain sight while giving ridiculous excuses for them (Miss Scarlet wears the Rope as a necklace, Colonel Mustard uses the Wrench to hold his monocle in place, etc.) Suffice it to say that Reginald Q. Boddy is Too Dumb to Live.
Or, perhaps he's far more Genre Savvy than he looks. Think about it- this is how his friends act when on good terms with him. Imagine how they'd react if he kicked them out and told them to never come back. They'd probably divvy up the weapons and storm the mansion by force.
Given the number of times the guests have failed to kill him, the real question is why haven't they given up already?