What does anything prove at the end of MWTMN, have sat here rewinding it with sky+ and all that happens is..... it annoys me every time i watch this episode that the ending is so awful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And i like Billy Connolly normally.
And the scene where columbo is guessing the film titles 'big fish... ahhhh' and everyone shouts jaws because he cant remember, the same with psycho -absolute stupidity as well as the scene where columbo drives findley home.
So much filler throughout and then the ending comes and... nothing - nothing... NOTHING!!!!! And it starts out ok.

AGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Everytime i see this is on i think oh good and then i watch it and it really really really annoys me.

GB<

M

Mat, thanks for your post. I enjoyed it. You are certainly far from the first to question the evidence (or the ending) in this episode. So I don't mean to give you a bad time.

But, let's take this opportunity to address the lingering impression that there is "no evidence" in this case, or that the ending somehow "proves nothing." Here's how I see it.

I think we have to conclude that Crawford is most likely guilty, unless you (or someone) can answer the following questions:

1) HOW did Gabriel's baton end up in the elevator? It was given to him mere hours before Gabe's death, as proven by the musical notation on the handle. (Note, Columbo proved that it could not have fallen through the crack of the elevator doors, when they were closed -- so, somebody MUST HAVE sent the elevator to the roof, to make the doors open, in order for Gabe's baton to be found there.)

Repeat: How?? There's a good reason why this is the "final" clue.

(It was NOT because Gabe himself took the elevator to the roof. The elevator couldn't even be run without switching the fuses, and it is clear that Gabe went to the roof all the time, WITHOUT using the cobwebbed, ancient elevator. And, it's EXTREMELY unlikely he would somehow leave his new baton in the elevator, then nevertheless send the elevator down, and thereafter fall off the roof while "conducting" with NO baton.)

(And, as Columbo points out, Gabe surely would have heard the elevator coming, if he were conscious -- and would have jumped off the doors in time.)


This is why the final scene's point is to demonstrate -- perhaps seeking a sense of drama that may not fit the strictly logical nature of the clue -- that the baton in the elevator was definitely Gabe's own, brand-new baton.


2) WHY did Gabe utter no cry when plummeting from the roof to the ground, if it were an accident and if he were conscious? This was Columbo's first clue and, I think, a great one -- reminiscent of Holmes' "dog who didn't bark." In this case, the "falling body that didn't scream".

Columbo immediately concludes that the victim was "either drugged or dead" at the time of the fall. And eventually, Columbo gets forensic evidence that the drug found in Gabe's wrist-wound (scratched by the broken champagne flute when he collapsed after Crawford drugged him) was a drug that Crawford ADMITS possessing. So,

3) HOW did Gabe get Crawford's debilitating drug into his wrist-wound, if Columbo's theory is incorrect? The question is even better considering the drug was not in Gabe's general bloodstream (per initial autopsy) -- so, the drug got into his wrist-wound VERY shortly before his death.

4) HOW do you explain the bizarre coincidence of the elevator-noise being recorded at the very time of Gabe's death (and, RIGHT after Crawford emerged onto the stage)? Bear in mind, this is an ancient elevator, in an obscure part of the theatre's basement, behind a gate draped in giant cobwebs, where dust and webs cover everything EXCEPT (as Columbo points out) the "Up" and "Down" buttons.

5) Last but NOT least: WHO else but Crawford had a MOTIVE to kill Gabe? As the movie director points out, "everyone liked the kid."

Columbo said long ago, that he is "very big on motive". And, I think that MWTMN has a fantastic motive -- maybe the most original in the history of "Columbo". Jealousy is as old as Shakespeare, but to put jealousy, ego and reputation in context of "Hollywood's biggest award" (apparently they were not allowed to say "Oscar"!) was, in my opinion, brilliant as a motive.

True, Crawford managed to steal the incriminating, original compositions from Gabe's trunk. (And I can't help thinking that the Columbo of "Swan Song" would have been lurking in Gabe's apartment to catch Crawford in the act!) But, Becca knew all about the original compositions and the documentation. And, again: WHO else has a MOTIVE to steal these papers?

For that matter, WHO else could have gotten-in by using the house-key , mysteriously taken from inside CRAWFORD's own bungalow?

--

And all of this is without adding Columbo's usual, "little things" -- like,

WHY the victim was found wearing tuxedo shoes 2 full sizes too large -- when he had a documented habit of wearing sneakers even with tuxedos. In classic Columbo manner, Columbo deduces this was because, as in "Exercise In Fatality," the victim was put into his shoes by the killer. And Gabe's sneakers, meanwhile, were found by Columbo -- in Crawford's bungalow!

And,

WHY did Gabe's personal effects include no house-key, on his key-ring? WHY would this happen, unless the key was stolen by the killer? (And remember, Gabe's jeans and key-ring were stored in Crawford's own bungalow!) And WHY, or HOW (or WHEN), would Gabe's house-key be stolen from Crawford's bungalow, by anyone but Crawford? (See MOTIVE, above.)

Also, if the house-key was instead taken by a common thief, mugger or burglar, why was nothing stolen from Gabe's place -- except the original compositions that Becca knew about?



--

So, I think it all hangs together MUCH better than is commonly alleged.

Maybe the complaints arise from director Pat McGoohan's decision to use a musical demonstration at the end, just to be theatrical, but in a way that, as the fans see it, did not lend itself to immediate "gotcha" reactions -- even if the logic is there.

Moreover: While I think the final version of the episode contains more than enough evidence -- in TV terms, of course! -- it's even worse when a bad rap is given to the author of the original screenplay, a terrific guy, a true "Columbo" fan and a smart writer, who included numerous clues in his script, that never made it to the screen due to Pat McGoohan's re-writes as director.

This is well-documented -- this site has not only the original script, but also the "daily" tapes of the episode as it was worked-on by McGoohan, during the filming.

And let's be honest: Who, in the author's position, would not accede to the ideas of a proven genius (and multiple "Columbo" Emmy-winner) like Pat McGoohan?

The screenwriter's original, "final" clue was especially incriminating, and impossible for the killer to explain. But I can understand the practical reasons why it was eliminated. And I do think it is unfair to say there is "no evidence" in the final script...

....Unless someone can answer the above questions!

And remember, any alternate set of answers, in total, have to hang together better than Columbo's theory. Because this evidence cannot be simply ignored.

Ted, you know my take on this one.

I guess it's that one last "big" final clue/solid evidence that's not there that bugs me so much.

There are a whole lot of little things that lead to Crawford, just like there are a whole lot of little things that lead to all the Columbo murderers. But for all those other murderers, there was a last final "big" clue. The lack of one for "Notes" sinks the ending for me, and I believe, would have any judge tossing the case out of court based on lack of conclusive evidence.

As the original author of this topic wrote, there are a number of silly scenes that do nothing for the script. I'd forgotten about the "Jaws" music, etc, scene. Now that it's been recalled to my memory, I have to agree, yes, it's annoying. Then too, that scene where Columbo allows a drunk Crawford to drive his own car, following an irritatingly slow Columbo in his own car - is horribly senseless. At that point, Crawford has done nothing to make Columbo suspect him, and if I'm remembering correctly, Columbo, at that point, does not suspect Crawford. So it's just Columbo irritating some poor guy at that point. (Usually Columbo only irritates someone he already suspects of being the murderer.)

It's been a long time since I've watched this episode. So I'm basing what I'm writing here on remembering what I've written in the past regarding this episode. I don't think Columbo's final evidence of the baton and the letters on the baton indicate anything. That big concluding scene up on the roof just doesn't offer any solid proof.

I suppose it's not fair for me to continue to say that nothing adds up in this episode, being that I haven't watched it recently and it has faded from memory. Perhaps I'll give it another go soon. It's not the worst episode, that's for certain. Also, I like Billy Connolly very much.

Oh, I just remembered that scene down by the elevator where Crawford tells Columbo to "make it snappy" (or something like that, and Columbo responds with a screwed-up look on his face and alters his voice into a nasty retort of "It'll be snappy." Oh how I hate that little snapshot of a moment. Don't know why really. But I do!

Still though, lots of great input in your response there, Ted. It makes me want to give the episode another chance.

Oh, and are you saying that the actual script is on this website somewhere? If so, where? Or is it just that you yourself possess it courtesy of the author? I'd certainly love to read it!

Thanks, Headache. I'm sure you noticed that I'm not disagreeing with complaints that certain scenes are too dragged-out (like the "slow" drive that actually spans a commercial break -- although, to Columbo's credit, notice it does show him contriving to question Crawford at some length, in close quarters where he can't just walk away, on the night of the murder AND while the killer is a bit snockered). And, while I'm usually amused by Columbo's attempts to make himself look dumb and harmless, the "Jaws" scene may go too far in that way. McGoohan was not at his best as a director, in this one.

Nor am I denying that the ending lacks the pizzazz or head-smacking shock value of the "great" Columbo endings, although it tries. The actual playing of the notes from the baton-handle (imagine the hassle of getting a piano onto the roof!) was unnecessary, and ends up more distracting than helpful.

I just wanted to refute the recurring idea that there is "no" evidence, or that the final clue (that the baton found in the elevator was Gabe's, and got there on the day of his death) is meaningless.

--

As to the idea that Columbo had no reason to suspect Crawford, at the time Columbo subjected Crawford to the excruciating "slow drive" (and in-car questioning): Remember, Columbo had already decided (from the "body that didn't scream" clue) that Gabe was either drugged or dead at the time of the fall. And, Crawford was the proverbial "last person to see the victim alive", which was reason enough for Columbo to try pushing his buttons. Also, Crawford began by carrying on about the "tragedy" of it all, and this would not be the first time that a killer's fake display of grief just plain set-off Columbo's B.S. detector.

Then, after declaring that Gabriel was "like a son to me," Crawford puts on the CD player and begins elaborately "conducting" Tchaikovsky. Columbo's face clearly shows us that he finds this behavior to be odd -- you can see that his mental wheels are turning -- a small thing but, again, not unusual as an initial way to put Columbo on the scent.


Oh, and the original script is not on the site -- sorry that my wording was misleading. It's in my collection (and it's Steve who has the "dailies", so it seemed easier to say "the site" has both of these items, meaning me and Steve). And (you didn't ask, but), sorry, I also don't think it would be right for me to describe the "final clue," in case the author wants to use something like it in a future project. But I think it would have satisfied all standards for the "great final clue".

I will mention, however, that the killer's original name was -- Paradiso! I guess that was before he was Billy Connolly.

Ted, understood regarding the original final clue.

You make lots of good points. So good in fact, that I'm going to have to take another look at "Notes".

Supposedly when "memory cheats," it does so in it's subject's favor. It would seem with "Notes," that the opposite has happened for me. My memory has tainted the episode making me think it's worse than what it really was. I'll pay close attention to the scene in which Columbo talks with Crawford prior to the drive home.

Perhaps I'll have your above comments up on screen while I watch!

Headache, I hope you enjoy it. Of course, I'm not claiming it is one of the "all time greats" -- just that it has received some unfair treatment.

Beyond that, there are other reasons why I would admit having a soft spot for this episode: at the time, Columbo was in danger of extinction, and I, for one, was not ready to let him go. (I recognize there are some strong fans who felt that Columbo should just be put out of his misery, but I personally was enjoying how both Peter Falk and Columbo evolved their acting techniques into their mature years.)

Without the modest ratings success of MWTMN, we would never have gotten the 2003 "Columbo Likes The Nightlife". Which I happen to think is REALLY worth a new look, but that's another discussion.

May not have made it clear but i got how columbo got to a lot of the clues (the cut on the victims arm, the baton, why there was no scream, the keys, etc) i even got why columbo drove him home. Surely there was something just before crawford was going to drive away as columbo decided at that moment to tail him and deliberately annoy him, it wasnt simply becuase he was slightly over the limit sice crawford seemed to be sober after about 20 minutes - we've all seen columbo drive in earlier episodes and at times he wasnt the most safety minded but never drove like a blind 90 year old whose life battery was near empty.
I simply have a lot of annoyance at the roof top seen - maybe its simply that i want a last big clue to go out with a bang.

Ashes to ashes is a fantastic episode and columbo likes the nightlife as far as i can remember was good (it hasnt been screened for ages so i havent seen it and im not willing to pay full price for the newer episodes).

Ive heard before here that a big bang of a clue was cut from the ending and that McGooghan has reedited it a bit. A shame as i think a really good basis for a script is there which is why the ending bugs me so. It was also pleasant that there wasnt that stupid heavy close up and freeze on key clues as there was in some of the other other newer episodes - im thinking of a trace in murder where the audience was treated as pure dumb.

Would be good to see the original scipt and the other stuff mentioned some day.

On another matter i recently saw strange bedfellows and was pleasantly surprised to find that it was more enjoyable than the other times ive seen it.



GB,

M

Hello, I watched this episode and am interested in the part where Lt. Columbia and the white haired gentleman are talking about how the elevator came into existence. The white haired man was telling the Lt. that the studio had a string of duds and that this guy came out of nowhere came his first major movie and then his budgets included anything he wanted. From there it mentions something about the guy making a movie called Rest in Piece and that it was so bad he "ended up directing some crummy sitcom on tv".

A couple of things made it seem like they were talking about someone in real life but looking up Rest in Piece, the Producer of this episode, etc I was unable to figure out whom if anyone this scene was referring to.

Any help to find out if I was correct in assuming it has something to do with real life would be appreciated as I spend a good amount of time Googling to no avail.

Geez, Ted. I'm one of the ones who has in the past posted a lengthy critique of MWTMN on this discussion board, and your rundown is a real eye-opener. You frankly do the episode better justice than it does to itself!

I think the problem a lot of us pick up on with the ending is that it is, with all deference to Patrick McGoohan, badly directed. Your description, in fact, imbues the final clue of the baton with more meaning than is given in the episode. It bothered me a lot that made so big a deal of the "love notes," yet never explain their relevance. Your description made me slap my forehead--yes, of course! The back-and-forth notes establish that the baton was just given to him, further establishing that it had to be dropped the night of the murder and not earlier. Now, if Columbo had merely *said* that, it would have had the bigger bang we all wanted! (Then of course, more careful thought would reveal that the whole love-notes thing was really unnecessary--Gabe's girlfriend could easily establish when she had given him the baton). So we're left with a great big production in which the keyboard is on the roof, and the notes get played, and we're all waiting for a big reveal as to what incriminating fact they establish--and none is ever given. None. Nothing. It's just left hanging there like a wet snot. If perhaps *you* had written the ending, Ted, it would have been 1000 times more satisfying!

Now, don't get me started with the gaping plot holes that you could drive a Renault through--like why Gabe didn't sweat profusely, get sunburned, or dehydrate while lying on the roof in full tuxedo under the open sun all day!

I think I finally figured out the ending. It wasn't a great ending but I think it makes sense in the entire context of the story.

So as everyone already knows, Columbo lays out the motive. As in other episodes, Columbo talks about means and opportunity. Crawford has both the means (Gabe changed his clothes in the bungalow so Crawford assumed the shoes would fit. It's circumstantial evidence but shows like in Exercise in Fatality it shows someone else put on his shoes.

It also shows opportunity. Crawford has no alibi for anything prior to Gabe's death. Crawford is trying to show that it was an accident. If it's not an accident then it's murder and all the motives point to Crawford.

Now to the final point. If you remember, Gabe changes up the notes on the computer to Becca and prints and then signs. This shows that Gabe had gotten the baton and no other baton was being used up on the roof. The baton from Becca was in the elevator which could have only been located at that spot if Gabe went up the elevator. Remember, the baton can't go through the elevator.

So when you take everything into consideration, Gabe had to be drugged. Somebody must have brought Gabe up through the elevator to the roof. The baton was left behind. Motives are aplenty.

I think the notes on the board just divert attention away from the motives and the baton being in the elevator. It was more of a final recognition that this baton was received by Gabe. It shows Gabe was in the Bungalow and someone else finished dressing him.

I think Crawford leaves because his motives are obvious. Someone had to drug him? If not Crawford then who? Someone put Gabe in the elevator. If not Crawford then who? If it's not an accident, then it's murder. Who would have access to the Crawford's bungalow and the elevator? It's just a weak ending. It's a circumstantial ending. The notes on the board is only there to show Gabe got the baton and Crawford killed him before he got up to the roof otherwise the baton would not be in the elevator.

Just watches the episode in german television.
One thing I do not understand: Crawford put a baton in the hand of Gabe while he was unconcious. I always thought, it was the baton from Becca????

So, they never found a baton on the street next to the dead Gabe?

I thought, the baton fell into the elevator while opening.

Strange ending.......

Without going too much into the details of this episode, and not familiar with the earlier episodes, I will say that this episode was done in 2000. I can understand some of your criticsm and I think to a degree its valid. However, I had to use this reason but it is all too common on TV.
Perhaps as with most shows when you get close to the end, writers start to loose it and are just not as good as they were at one time. With a few shows perhaps, even the greatest shows have had this happen.

I would hate to think Columbo was also one of these shows who's guality just was not the same at the end of its lifespan.?