Congrats to Valerie Ward on Winning the whj Scholarship

[beardedlamb]

Thank you to everyone who submitted. A panel of three ex-jurians have combed through the submissions and deemed Valerie Ward's Murder Mystery format the winner!

See the entry below:

A Murder Mystery Format for 6-10 Players.

At the beginning of the show, the players will line up across the stage, each holding a placard bearing a number from one to X (where X is the total number of players). The audience is told that tonight, a murder will occur. The host asks a member of the audience to silently choose one player by number to be the victim. The audience member will write that number on a slip of paper and drop it into a hat, wherein X-1 identical but blank slips reside. Each player will choose a slip from the hat. The player who draws the number will be the murderer, and know his or her victim by number. No player should reveal at this time whether or not they are the killer.

Players discard their placards, and a suggestion is solicited from the audience of a location where all these people might be. The opening scene commences, and all players are on stage. It is a group scene, with a give and take between general hub-bub and individual conversations. Players will shift focus from conversation to conversation, revealing the reason for everyone being in this place, developing relationships, characters, statuses. At this point the killer is still the only person who knows who the victim will be. After a good five to ten minutes, when all players have established their characters, the lights will go out completely. All players freeze. The killer will "kill" her or his victim with a gentle signal agreed upon beforehand, then move back into the position occupied before the blackout. The lights come up, and there is a body on floor, killed in a way appropriate to the location and established world. After a few more moments of hub-bub and confusion, the scene is cleared.

From this point on, the victim comes on as a new character, the detective. The rest of the show is a series of scenes that shed further light on the victim's life, the character's relationships, and possible motives for murder. These scenes stem primarily from interviews that the detective has with each suspect/witness, which may break out into split screens, flashbacks, or other scenes as necessary. It is up to the murderer to reveal enough that he or she will be caught in the end. The murderer could reveal themselves to another character, more murders could occur to cover up the crime, etc. Other characters can try to help the detective if they think they know the killer's identity, or throw false clues and red herrings into the mix. The conceit of a murder mystery is really just a structure to add suspense to the real meat of the show, which will be developing the world in which these people moved, revealing their motives, relationships, and desires.

The show concludes with all of the players gathered back on stage and the detectives explanation of the crime, the methods and motives of the killer, and the grand reveal of whodunit.

The possibilities of style and genre are virtually endless- it could be a classic Clue style mystery, a Victorian parlor crime, a gritty urban crime spree, a murder in the midst of friendly adorable woodland creatures, a medical thriller in a hospital- it's all open to the suggestion at the beginning of the show.

If the killer draws their own number, there are two possibilities: either it was a suicide, or the detective did it.

[sara farr]

I would love to see this show done with "Clue" themed puppets in a mansion house set with multiple levels and rolling playboards. I could help make this happen.

Val??

[SarahMarie]

Oooooo!!!! Super cool! Congratulations Valerie!

[hujhax]

Awesome! and also congratulations!



--
peter rogers @ work | http://hujhax.livejournal.com

Thanks for killing what was left of my soul. Next, could you kick a puppy?
      -- Maureen Ryan
      
For a TV critic, a soul is a liability.
      -- James Poniewozik

[zyrain]

I too love the format and would love to see it or play in it.

However, as I'm still a student, I've got a couple of questions.

Is it intentional that the detective always knows who the killer is?
As it doesn't really get all that dark in most theaters when the lights go out, is it intentional that the other players and some audience know as well?
Why the things with the placards and the numbers if the killer begins secret to anyone except the audience member?
Why not also let the victim know on his slip of paper if he's the victim?
Why let the audience choose the murderer, but not the victim (random victim)?
Why is the victim decided beforehand instead of after the setup 10 minutes?


Thanks!

[Marc Majcher]

Well done, Miss Ward. Well done.

[Jeff]

Nice, Valerie. With all due to respect to Kaci, Jordan, and myself, this is, at least in written form, my favorite WHJ Scholarship format.

[valetoile]

Wonderful questions and for some of them, I have answers.

The thing to remember first and foremost is that this isn't "improvised clue;" it's not a game. The point is not to solve the mystery. The point is to create an environment in which good improv can happen, encouraging strong relationships and motivations.

Is it intentional that the detective always knows who the killer is?
As it doesn't really get all that dark in most theaters when the lights go out, is it intentional that the other players and some audience know as well?

This is something that I think will have to be workshopped a little, and dealt with technically. The judges made a suggestion, which I really like, of everybody moving around during the blackout so that it isn't obvious who the killer was. That also made me think that everyone could do a stylized repositioning to a new frozen tableau during the blackout. But yes, the mechanics of that would be trial and error.

Also the method of killing- I don't know if it would better for the detective to know who the killer was, or to devise some method of "killing" that was anonymous.

I think it all depends in part on the audience's willing suspension of disbelief. The tension is enjoyable, and so we, the players and technicians, need only create enough obscurity so that it's not blatantly obvious who the killer is.

Why the things with the placards and the numbers if the killer begins secret to anyone except the audience member?
Why not also let the victim know on his slip of paper if he's the victim?
Why let the audience choose the murderer, but not the victim (random victim)?
Why is the victim decided beforehand instead of after the setup 10 minutes?

Ah, but the killer is not known by the audience member- the audience member chooses only the victim. Chance chooses the killer. A metaphor for life, neh? But seriously- this is part of the willing ignorance of the audience. And I think it's powerful to have one person given this god-like power at the beginning. I like the formal, ritualized set-up at the beginning- almost as if we (the host and audience) are the gods on mount olympus, choosing the fate of mortals for the evening. And then the only person who knows both killer and victim is the killer.

The opening scene is really crucial to the resat of the show- just like an good improv show or scene, you have everything you need from the very beginning. It's in this big group scene that we learn characters, alliances, feelings, motivations. I want all this foundation to be largely untainted by knowing who the killer and victim are, or players thinking about what they'll do as detective, or how they should set up other people's characters. The improvisors have to simply act, not knowing what role they will play in what is to unfold. How enjoyable to go back to that first scene later in the show, pick out the details that seemed inconsequential at the time, and were, as far as the players knew, and give them import.

The reason I want to choose the killer at the beginning though is twofold:
First, It makes for a smoother flow of the show- we have ritual at the beginning of choosing the victim and killer, then the improv can proceed without interruption.

Secondly, I think it adds a nice tension for the audience- the gears have been set in motion, the killer and victim have been chosen, but most everyone is unaware of who those people are. What will happen next?

Thanks!

You're welcome.
[/quote]

[DollarBill]

This is awesome. It messes with my favorite thing in improv right now which is that fact that you can change what stuff from earlier means by adding stuff in the future.

Do you want the detective to actually solve the crime? I mean is there an element of party quirks where we want to get comedy from the detective making mistakes? I guess not in exactly the same way since the audience doesn't know the details.

If the point it so surprise the audience and make it very much like a real murder mystery, you could set it up so that the Nth scene after the murder gives the real clue as to who the murderer is. That way the audience wouldn't be able to distinguish it from the "red herring" clues but the detective would. Just an idea. I love it.

[zyrain]

Thanks for the detailed answers Val!

I'm sorry I wholly misread which was being selected in the beginning. It makes much more sense for the victim to be chosen, as it's also choosing the protagonist, and if the audience is familiar with the format they can 'see a different show' each time in that way.

[mpbrockman]

When she puts her mind to it - what does Val not win?

Congratulations!!!

[EmilyBee]

That is excellent! Makes my brain happy. Congratulations, Valerie!