MovieChat Forums > Clue (1985) Discussion > Mr. Green is never blackmailed

Mr. Green is never blackmailed

posted 7 years ago by TM1617-2 (602)
19 replies | jump to latest

Regardless of which ending is followed, the only explanation for Mr. Green's presence is that he is not a victim. His homosexuality must be a façade in all three scenarios because nothing else is ever used against him. Nobody even knows anything about Mr. Green until he offers the information, whereas Mr. Boddy holds secrets about every other guest. I imagine that the hidden agent still works for The Federal Bureau Of Investigation in the first two versions of the story but never specifies it because Wadsworth manages to catch the blackmailers and murderers. That is especially suggested in the dinner scene when Mr. Green tells Mrs. Peacock that he recognizes her true identity. His smarmy, mischievous smile indicates that he is aware of what the senator and his wife have been engaging in. He gives another hint upon admitting to Miss Scarlet that he has already known for some time about her illegal business. When applicable, Mr. Green is probably sent to the mansion as back up assistance in case if anything happens to Wadsworth, and to give a secondary report. It is possible that the investigative agency keeps Mr. Green and Wadsworth out of each other's acquaintances so that the latter's shock is genuine when he hears the former's revelation. That helps both men remain undercover and prevents the others from growing suspicious. Most likely, the fact that the chief of the incriminating team does not acknowledge Mr. Green when Miss Scarlet or Mrs. Peacock is arrested is due to not yet having the details on what has occurred in the house during the evening. He can't be sure of who has done or said what, and wants to make certain that he does not annunciate Mr. Green's purpose to the wrong person.

[–] DiggoryVenn (89) 7 years ago

It’s interesting, what you write here. Clue is actually one of the most difficult films to watch, and therefore is so eminently rewatchable, because of the three different interpretations viewers must follow intellectually in hopes of ever untangling it.

[–] AP (5259) 7 years ago

I always considered the convolution to be a part of its charm.

[–] ShogunofYonkers (72269) 7 years ago

Yes...great move...huge rewatch value!

[–] TM1617-2 (602) 7 years ago

Thank you, DiggoryVenn.

[–] DiggoryVenn (89) 7 years ago

You're welcome! Every time I rewatch Clue, I see something "new." Pursuing what you wrote above, I noticed this time that Mr. Green is the only character who, whenever attention focuses on him, does a pratfall. Colonel Mustard is verbally funny, sometimes hilarious, and Mr. Boddy is non-stop genius+funny. That's why it's so easy to miss how Green deflects everything--except Yvette--by collapsing to the floor. If you buy the third ending (even if you like the other two endings but don't buy that Green is homosexual, which in 1954 would definitely shut down all curiosity into his private life), then the reason Green stands so long at the attic doorway is because he's enjoying the view.

[–] avortac4 (3505) 3 years ago

"It’s interesting, what you write here. Clue is actually one of the most difficult films to watch"

How can any movie be 'difficult to watch'? Watching is easy, you just keep your eyes open (you may blink when needed), and stare in one direction for some time. What's difficult about that?

Difficult to understand, maybe. Difficult to grasp, perhaps. Possibly difficult to figure out. But to WATCH?! No such thing!

[–] SandyR (7407) a year ago

Here 'watch' entailed everything you mentioned. It's called abstract thinking. I realize it's a lost art...

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7428) 5 years ago

I like this theory someone posted on the board at imdb a few years ago that the Mr. Green that was there isn't the real one. The real Mr. Green went into protective custody with the FBI and the FBI sent an agent to go posing as him. It is really weird also that unlike everyone else, Mr. Green doesn't ever have his informant revealed.

[–] TM1617-2 (602) 5 years ago

GreenGoblinsOck8, your last sentence perfectly supports my notion. Mr. Green doesn't have an informant because he is an informant. His work, however, is the legal kind. It's discomfiting for someone to impersonate Mr. Green since the others are caught at the same time and he is trained to handle the events that unfold at the mansion. The Federal Bureau Of Investigation would not mock itself by forbidding one of its own employees to do his job. That would defeat the purpose of the agency.

[–] Sandman81 (1502) 5 years ago

But remember in the study Mr. Green says he works for the State Department. So if we believe that Mr. Green was an undercover FBI agent in all 3 endings (which I do), then there's two possibilities.

1) The real Mr. Green was a real guy at the State Department, whom Mr. Body was blackmailing for being gay. However eventually he had enough and decided to bite the bullet and go to the FBI. Perhaps it was the letter that convinced him to do it. So the FBI sent in an undercover agent in his stead to gather information not just on Mr. Body, but on other "victims". Doesn't explain the lack of an informant, but who knows.

2) The FBI was after Mr. Body, and the people whose secrets he was holding, so they had an agent pose as a gay State Department worker, and found a way to make sure Mr. Body directly got word of it and blackmailed him. Then when the letter came, it was the perfect chance to get the evidence on everyone to arrest them.

[–] TM1617-2 (602) 5 years ago

Oh, Sandman81, you think that the blackmail in Mr. Green's case has been fully acted out, not simply presented as a story. That is a creative addition to the plot. Perhaps it happens.

[–] Sandman81 (1502) 3 years ago

It had to have been acted out. Mr. Green was an invited guess. Wadsworth knew who he was when he arrived. Also there were 7 places set at the table, and 6 weapons in Mr. Boddy's suitcase.

[–] TM1617-2 (602) 3 years ago

You're probably right about a planned act, but we don't know that Wadsworth recognizes Mr. Green. I don't think that he does. The seventh place at the dining room table is for who the guests believe is Mr. Boddy. This is the same man who hands out the weapons, so of course he won't give one to himself.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

In endings 1 and 2 Mr. Green was gay and was being blackmailed (I guess we can assume that the evidence against him was somewhere in that file). In ending 3 Mr. Green was a plant and I;m guessing the FBI was suspicious of Mr. Boddy so he pretended to be gay so he'd get blackmailed and they would therefore have a way of figuring out who he was, OR there was a different Mr. Green who was gay and the man we saw just took his place at the party (I however do not accept this because Wadsworth/Mr. Body would have realized this).

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7428) 4 years ago

Mr. Green is kind of a pointless character except in the 3rd ending. Imagine seeing this in the theater back in 1985 and only ever seeing ending 1 and 2. You'd think Mr. Green was pointless. If they remake Clue they should have an ending where Mr. Green was the murderer. But except in the 3rd ending he's rather pointless.

[–] TM1617-2 (602) 4 years ago

GreenGoblinsOck8, Mr. Green serves as the timid guest. He is there to fool Mr. Boddy, Miss Scarlet, and Mrs. Peacock in to believing that he is submissive so that he can easily gather the information that will lead to arrests. Since Mr. Green is the smartest and most moral character, I would hate to see him as the murderer. I hope that this movie is never remade. No one could replace Tim Curry as Wadsworth/Mr. Boddy.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7428) 4 years ago

What you said though only applies to the 3rd ending. I do love this movie. Also while I can understand you not wanting to see it remade if they did remake it, I doubt they'd keep Wadsworth in the new one. They probably would make it a crime drama and not a comedy. As long as it's complety different from the original what harm is there in remaking it. You can still just like the original if there is a remake.

[–] NGMI (1184) 3 years ago

He's not pointless because his presence naturally arouses suspicion. If you're trying to guess who did it, some people choose the unassuming one. The person always denying it.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7428) 2 years ago

I feel like responding now. The thing that makes him pointless except in the 3rd ending to me, is that unlike everyone else, his informant is never revealed. So except in the 3rd ending, he does not serve much purpose aside from adding comedy like when he says, "Mrs. Peacock was a man!?" I mean if you don't want to believe the TC's theory about him you can assume Yvette or someone else might be his informant. But we never get to know.