Perry Mason - L'affaire du complot diabolique

When Michael Nader is accused of murder, Raymond Burr's friend Mason Adams vouches for the ex-mobster and Perry Mason is on the case. This means, of course, that he is innocent and the murderer will confess on the witness stand. Yet when Nader tries to help out by manufacturing evidence, can even Erle Stanley Gardner's lawyer-sleuth untangle the snarled threads of this case?

It's an unusually complicated and engaging mystery, since there is never any clear alternate suspect, and the case must be investigated in court. Of course that was a standard feature of the mysteries written by Gardner in the 1930s, the TV show that Mr. Burr starred in from 1957 through 1966 and the TV movies, like this one, that ran from 1989 through Burr's death in 1993.

Television has never seen a more ethical attorney than Perry Mason, as is well known he never takes on a really guilty client. But this particular Mason television film really plays it close to the edge in the realm of lawyer/client privilege.

If I'm wrong some lawyers or law student will no doubt write and correct me, but in this particular film Raymond Burr is defending mobster Michael Nader who is charged with murdering his wife. Nader is one of the darker characters that Mason has ever defended either in the two hour films or the one hour television series from the Ffities and Sixties.

Nader's wife Gwynyth Walsh is killed when someone fires a bullet into a speeding car Walsh is driving causing her to lose control and the car hurtle over a cliff. Of course there's no lack of suspects as usual.

But in order to get at the truth, Burr actually let's it come out that his client actually did another murder some time earlier. The two crimes are indirectly linked. Maybe I'm wrong but the fact that he got his own client nailed for another murder to acquit him of the one he's defending him for seems to be stretching the lawyer/client privilege issue out of shape. I think the Bar Association might have had something to say on the issue.

Still it ends as all Perry Mason stories do with the guilty part unmasked. Not someone you would have suspected given the kind of parts this individual normally plays.

Probably the worst entry in this series. Perry Mason defends a reformed mobster framed for the murder of his wife. There's something unpleasant about Mason being involved with this type of defendant and his cronies. There has to be something wrong when Perry has harsh words for both Della Street and Ken Malansky. Even NBC chose not to screen the movie during sweeps.

Ken Malansky (William R. Moses) finds himself mixing with some unsavoury characters in the shape of gangster Johnny Sorrento (Michael Nader) when his old friends Mike (Howard McGillin) and Joanna Calder (Pamela Bowen) end up in business with him. But when Johnny's wife is killed and all the facts seem to point to Johnny having done it "Perry Mason (Raymond Burr) finds himself defending the known killer as he is convinced that on this occasion he is not only innocent but turned his back on killing people. It means for Ken even more danger than usual as he digs in to Sorrento's past including one of the murders he did commit and got away with.

There's a different spin to the usual formula with the defendant being a mobster and possibly a murderer to another case- hence it's a darker film with a bitter-sweet ending where Perry is disappointed. Quite an engaging episode with some good twists.

Ken Malansky has an old college acquaintance who has gone into business with reformed mobster Johnny Sorrento. When Sorrento's wife is killed all fingers point to Johnny and Mason is asked to take up the case – reasoning that everyone deserves the best defence, Mason takes the case. Mason finds the world of the mob is one of murder and threats, while Malansky investigates an old murder case that Johnny had been accused of until someone confessed.

These Mason movies are all pretty much the same – innocent client who all the clues point to. Ken investigates the rough stuff while Mason questions each suspect. It all leads to courtroom questions and the twist at the end. As a result if you like one you generally like them all. However here the film tries to be a bit rougher and have a darker edge by having a mobster as a client. Mason naturally takes the case but we never see any conflict in his heart over doing this. Also the tougher edge is only added to the normal formula as a very thin top coat – for example Mason occasionally raises his voice a little, or a few people get shot or killed etc. Really it didn't work that well as it didn't add to the formula, only took a little away instead.

Burr isn't as good as usual because he has this tough edge on a familiar character and it doesn't sit well – witness him in a sling as if nothing happened! Hale has less to do than usual but Moses is actually pretty good with the darker subject matter. The rest of the cast are really nothing more than mobster support roles from bad mobster films – they don't even reach the level of caricature! The usual `oh, look it's…..' face this time is Stephen Tobolowsky.

The courtroom looks more like a TV set than usual and the actual courtroom finale is a bit of a letdown and doesn't even manage the usual average tension. The end result is a standard Mason setup that is spoil by little extras that the formula didn't need – the darker edge didn't work. Overall a sub-par outing in the series that plays slightly above par.