Anthony Horowitz speaks about the construction of "the twist" in a mystery novel. A good writer has to play fair--all the clues need to be available to the reader just as they are to the detective. In a well-done mystery, the clues seem to lead you down one particular path--but another path is just as plausible. In the new Horowitz novel, an actor playing Daniel Hawthorne is murdered. We first think that the actor was the intended victim. But what if the killer was going after the real-life figure the actor was playing--the killer saw the name "Daniel Hawthorne" on a trailer and became confused--? The killer then killed the actor, thinking that the actor was Daniel Hawthorne. We accept this conjecture. But the question is this: *Should* we accept the conjecture?
I was raised on Agatha Christie. In college, I discovered PD James, who is like the upgraded iPhone version of Agatha Christie. Depending on the day, I might tell you that PD James is my all-time favorite writer in the world of English-language prose. She is always among my top picks.
It's a tribute to "The Sheep Detectives" to say that PD James would approve. The central mystery is beautifully shaped. All the clues are available to you. Can you follow them?
In 2026, we need gimmicks. It's not enough to narrate a mystery. On top of the story, we need to have a detective who has autism spectrum disorder. Or we need to have a mystery within a mystery--a 2026 detective reads a thriller set in 1950 and tries to solve the 1950 thriller even while trying to solve her own 2026 professional mystery. "The Sheep Detectives" takes its own bizarre route. A bright sheep--Lily--tries to steer the case while also pointing a human cop (Tim) in the right direction. She has to feed lines to Tim.
We're all drawn to a bildungsroman--because we all have to grow up. We all know what it looks like to grow up. Lily the sheep is smart, but, like all sheep, she believes that no one dies. She believes that it's best to forget painful memories. She believes that prejudice is often justifiable. Her travails will force her to reconsider several of her childish assumptions.
Some critics feel that the sheep story overshadows the human story. I will say that this script is weirdly ambitious--it's enough work to describe one complicated human ecosystem, but to add a second ecosystem, a farm-animal world, is obviously an example of insanity. The humans get short shrift. It doesn't help that a pivotal human character--Elliot--is played by an actor who doesn't have a great deal to offer. He certainly isn't on par with Emma Thompson.
But I don't really mind. Nothing is perfect. I loved this movie.
Comments
Post a Comment