Presumed Innocent: Can a Whodunnit Reward Repeat Viewings?

Harrison Ford is accused of murder in Alan J Pakula’s 1990 adaptation of Scott Turow’s novel. Once you know the ending, is it worth a second look?

Credit: Warner Brothers

Does a whodunnit reward repeat viewings? Conventional wisdom dictates once you know the identity of the killer, it isn’t worth revisiting. However, I think it depends on the film. In some cases, whodunnits yield significant additional pleasures beyond that of the central mystery.

My favourite whodunnits, including Laura (1944), Witness for the Prosecution (1957), Murder on the Orient Express (1974), The Name of the Rose (1986), LA Confidential (1997), Gosford Park (2001), The Secret in Their Eyes (2009), and more recently, Knives Out (2019), all feature wonderful narratives that lend themselves to the hoary old cliché that it isn’t about the destination but the journey. Sometimes, a whodunnit explores emotionally potent themes of love and obsession that are worth wallowing in multiple times. On other occasions, comedic interactions, social satire, nail-biting stylish set pieces, arresting subplots, fine use of locations, a stellar cast, exceptional direction, or any other number of additional factors may compel the viewer to revisit a whodunnit.

Since I write mystery thrillers myself, I take a professional interest in well-crafted whodunnits in addition to having a love for the genre. In that capacity, I decided to take another look at Alan J Pakula’s 1990 adaptation of Scott Turow’s novel Presumed Innocent; a film I’d found nail-biting when I watched it at the cinema aged 15. With full knowledge of the denouement, would it still rivet me 35 years on?