"What Really Happened," like the previous "I Saw the Whole Thing," is a superior episode set mostly in the courtroom. Howard Raydon (Gene Lyons) is a wealthy stockbroker married to a younger wife, Eve (Anne Francis), whose best friend Addie (Ruth Roman) is employed by Howard as a housekeeper. When an agitated Howard catches Addie's young son accidentally breaking a valuable antique clock, he decides to fire her, leading the desperate woman to spike his nightly dose of warm milk with liniment, believing that his death would be blamed on his illness. Due to the hysterical accusations posed by Howard's possessive mother (Gladys Cooper), Eve is subsequently arrested and put on trial for her husband's murder. The smarmy prosecutor (Tim O'Connor) points out several motives, such as Eve's extravagance on shopping sprees, which Howard wanted her to pay with her own money, and also a shocking revelation involving Eve's first husband, a former employee of Howard's, who left her a widow at age 17 after only four months of marriage. During the period when PERRY MASON was still riding high, courtroom intrigue provided foolproof drama. Prominently featured are a pair of future STAR TREK veterans, Gene Lyons from "A Taste of Armageddon," and Michael Strong (as the defense attorney), from "What Are Little Girls Made Of?"
10 Reviews
"It'll be a miracle if they believe it now."
classicsoncall2 September 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I'm surprised at the tone of the negative reviews here for this episode, as well as a few that implied a lesbian relationship between Eve Raydon (Anne Francis) and Addie Strain (Ruth Roman). Perhaps it's a result of present-day obsession with matters sexual, but that line of thought doesn't wash with this viewer. Why isn't it possible that the women were good friends and Addie decided to step up to the plate to do Eve a huge favor by agreeing to pose as Gilly's (Michael Crisalli) mother? Granted, a bigger favor than most people would be willing to agree to, but not impossible to be credible. In fact, the revelation that Gilly was actually Eve's child was the biggest twist in the story for me coming right out of left field.
I thought the writing for this episode was very well done. Even though we know that Addie slipped the poison into Howard Raydon's (Gene Lyons) milk, the tension built by Eve's arrest and the courtroom trial that followed was made palpable with the background information gleaned from the flashback scenes offering different points of view. In one, Eve was a scheming shrew cheating on her husband, in her version she was trying to make amends for her extravagant spending. It was difficult to get a fix on her true character. The frequent cuts to Addie's tortured expression during the trial made it almost certain that she would take some action to prove Eve's innocence in the matter. The more honorable thing to do would have been to admit her own guilt instead of attempting suicide, as the outcome, according to Hitchcock's closing remarks, wound up being the same as if she had.
I thought the writing for this episode was very well done. Even though we know that Addie slipped the poison into Howard Raydon's (Gene Lyons) milk, the tension built by Eve's arrest and the courtroom trial that followed was made palpable with the background information gleaned from the flashback scenes offering different points of view. In one, Eve was a scheming shrew cheating on her husband, in her version she was trying to make amends for her extravagant spending. It was difficult to get a fix on her true character. The frequent cuts to Addie's tortured expression during the trial made it almost certain that she would take some action to prove Eve's innocence in the matter. The more honorable thing to do would have been to admit her own guilt instead of attempting suicide, as the outcome, according to Hitchcock's closing remarks, wound up being the same as if she had.
Not the strongest episode but rather interesting nonetheless
root7316 June 2022
The lesbian reading of this episode seems to come naturally, although admittedly I'm likely biased in my interpretation as a lesbian myself. It was certainly not unheard of in this era, however, for gay characters to be portrayed in a similar, somewhat ambiguous fashion, although never in a particularly positive light. Regardless of if our two leading women Eve and Addie were specifically written to be romantically involved, I personally find it makes the episode an awful lot more interesting to see it that way. It's not a bad story line - a woman marries a rich older man to provide for herself, her secret lover, and their child, but when things turn south, her lover kills the husband to get him out of the picture. Things do not go as planned, and relative chaos ensues. The plot doesn't quite get to live up to its full potential here, though, as the writing is just a bit rough around the edges and could maybe use a few changes. Still, it didn't hinder my enjoyment of it too much. I do love the way the story is framed, with the same events playing out slightly differently through the testimonies of each the defense and the prosecution, leaving the viewer to decide for themself what really perspired prior to the events of the episode. It's certainly not a trope invented here, but it is one of the things it does well. All in all I wouldn't say 'What Really Happened' is worth particular note among the rest of this series, unless you are similarly interested in the possible queer representation of this era, but it's definitely not worth skipping over.
Not a Biggie
dougdoepke25 February 2015
After firing his wife's valued companion-helper, a tyrannical husband turns up dead. So what's going on.
There's little of the usual suspense or dark mood in this Hitch entry. Despite a couple of interesting twists, we know from the near outset who killed Raydon (Lyons), and that's the story's key event. Also the narrative is filmed in conventional high-key lighting. Perhaps the one real oddity is the same event being dramatized from several different subjective points of view. That's unusual and tricky for TV of the time. But the technique shows how personal likes and dislikes can color perceptions and conflict with those of others in meaningful ways. I suspect the producers realized they had a tame episode, so they took a chance to spice it up.
Most of the narrative is taken up with courtroom proceedings, certainly not a staple of the series. There's not much suspense here, and smacks of lesser grade Perry Mason. (And catch that last shot— I'm not sure what to make of it.) Of course, for guys, there's the eye candy of blonde Francis and brunette Roman, an interesting contrast story-wise. All in all, however, it's lesser Hitchcock.
There's little of the usual suspense or dark mood in this Hitch entry. Despite a couple of interesting twists, we know from the near outset who killed Raydon (Lyons), and that's the story's key event. Also the narrative is filmed in conventional high-key lighting. Perhaps the one real oddity is the same event being dramatized from several different subjective points of view. That's unusual and tricky for TV of the time. But the technique shows how personal likes and dislikes can color perceptions and conflict with those of others in meaningful ways. I suspect the producers realized they had a tame episode, so they took a chance to spice it up.
Most of the narrative is taken up with courtroom proceedings, certainly not a staple of the series. There's not much suspense here, and smacks of lesser grade Perry Mason. (And catch that last shot— I'm not sure what to make of it.) Of course, for guys, there's the eye candy of blonde Francis and brunette Roman, an interesting contrast story-wise. All in all, however, it's lesser Hitchcock.
Where's the Suspense?
Hitchcoc8 May 2023
Warning: Spoilers
This is a simplistic murder mystery where the mystery is missing. First of all, we have a mean spirited jerk married to a pretty, young, entitled woman. He is an a humorless character and mean to a little boy. He ends up dead. The killer is obvious. Writing for Alfred Hitchcock one would think there would be a ironic twist. No such thing, I'm afraid. We have another villain, the mother of the victim. But she is pretty much right in her judgements. The trial is going in sort of a neutral way as the young wife has been accused of poisoning the guy. Suddenly, a piece of evidence which would have been so easy to dig for any prosecutor comes into play. It's just a really weak, pedestrian episode.
DON'T DRINK THAT GLASS OF MILK!
tcchelsey5 May 2023
Alfred Hitchcock decided to revise his popular half hour tv show to one hour episodes. The results varied, but make no mistake, he incorporated some top talent.
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED is more mystery than macabre, including courtroom scenes, reminiscent of PERRY MASON, without too much surprise. Anne Francis (just before her HONEY WEST series) is caught up in the poisoning death of her husband. Of course, it's the young wife/ old husband angle, coupled with the bitter housekeeper and close friend (well played by Ruth Roman) and the suspicious mother (Gladys Cooper).
Put that all together and figure it out, as only Hitch would want you to do.
Popular 1940s actor Steve Dunne is in the cast, always on tv as smooth types, also a Hollywood DJ to his credit, here playing the handsome gentleman caller. "Call me any time you're in trouble...." he says to Anne Francis. Emmm?
Cheers to Ruth Roman, whose style always reminded me of Joan Crawford, to a degree. She later became an author. Gladys Cooper was nominated three times for an Oscar and would next appear in two classic films, THE LIST OF ADRIAN MESSENGER and MY FAIR LADY (her third Oscar nomination). Tim O'Connor plays the dogged prosecutor.
This episode was also ahead of its time with the "suggested" lesbian theme, again credit Hitchcock.
10 STARS. Recommended. SEASON 1 EPISODE 16 remastered Universal/ CBS dvd box set.
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED is more mystery than macabre, including courtroom scenes, reminiscent of PERRY MASON, without too much surprise. Anne Francis (just before her HONEY WEST series) is caught up in the poisoning death of her husband. Of course, it's the young wife/ old husband angle, coupled with the bitter housekeeper and close friend (well played by Ruth Roman) and the suspicious mother (Gladys Cooper).
Put that all together and figure it out, as only Hitch would want you to do.
Popular 1940s actor Steve Dunne is in the cast, always on tv as smooth types, also a Hollywood DJ to his credit, here playing the handsome gentleman caller. "Call me any time you're in trouble...." he says to Anne Francis. Emmm?
Cheers to Ruth Roman, whose style always reminded me of Joan Crawford, to a degree. She later became an author. Gladys Cooper was nominated three times for an Oscar and would next appear in two classic films, THE LIST OF ADRIAN MESSENGER and MY FAIR LADY (her third Oscar nomination). Tim O'Connor plays the dogged prosecutor.
This episode was also ahead of its time with the "suggested" lesbian theme, again credit Hitchcock.
10 STARS. Recommended. SEASON 1 EPISODE 16 remastered Universal/ CBS dvd box set.
Not to be mistaken by that internet website with the same name
kapelusznik1826 November 2016
Warning: Spoilers
***SPOILERS**** The "Master" Alfred Hitchcock tries to put one over the audience by giving us two different versions of it in how Eve Raydon,Anne Francis,dealt with her husband Howard's,Gene Lyons, money that lead him to throw her in house maid Adelalde "Addie" Strain, Ruth Roman, and her 8 year old son Gilly, Michael Crisalli, out of his mansion. This lead Addie to take matters into her own hands and poison Howard's warm milk that he sips before going to bed that in the end killed him.
We know all that right from the start-That Addie is the killer- but where soon to find out that real reason that Eve was so friendly to both Addie and Gilly that had her husband Howard feel that something screwy was going on between the two that ended up costing him his life. It's Mama Raydon, Gladys Cooper, who smells a rat in all this after she caught Eve smooching with friend of the family Jack Wentworth,Stephen Dunne, on the living-room couch one afternoon when she showed up unexpectedly. It's the big hearted Wenthworth who in fact later bailed Eve out over a $7,000.00 debt that she owed a local department store that she kept from Howard. And it was Eve not Addie who was indicted in her husbands murder after it was found out that he was poisoned not died of his bleeding ulcers.
***SPOILERS*** What we in fact do find out is that Eve was hiding the shocking fact that Gilly is actually her son not Addie's whom she kept from Howard all these years. With Eve now facing life behind bars or even worse Addie at first tried to kill herself with the same poison that she killed Howard and then leaves a confession that she in fact did Howard in squaring her and everyone involved in this mindless murder plot! It was too bad for her that she survived and had to face the music in what she did in murdering Howard Rydon! P.S A murder plot so bizarre and off the wall that only the "Master"-Alfred Hitchcock- himself could have dreamed it all up.
We know all that right from the start-That Addie is the killer- but where soon to find out that real reason that Eve was so friendly to both Addie and Gilly that had her husband Howard feel that something screwy was going on between the two that ended up costing him his life. It's Mama Raydon, Gladys Cooper, who smells a rat in all this after she caught Eve smooching with friend of the family Jack Wentworth,Stephen Dunne, on the living-room couch one afternoon when she showed up unexpectedly. It's the big hearted Wenthworth who in fact later bailed Eve out over a $7,000.00 debt that she owed a local department store that she kept from Howard. And it was Eve not Addie who was indicted in her husbands murder after it was found out that he was poisoned not died of his bleeding ulcers.
***SPOILERS*** What we in fact do find out is that Eve was hiding the shocking fact that Gilly is actually her son not Addie's whom she kept from Howard all these years. With Eve now facing life behind bars or even worse Addie at first tried to kill herself with the same poison that she killed Howard and then leaves a confession that she in fact did Howard in squaring her and everyone involved in this mindless murder plot! It was too bad for her that she survived and had to face the music in what she did in murdering Howard Rydon! P.S A murder plot so bizarre and off the wall that only the "Master"-Alfred Hitchcock- himself could have dreamed it all up.
Weak....weak...weak. Didn't anyone read this script first to see if it was any good?!
planktonrules5 May 2021
A servant often brings her young son to work. The problem is that the husband who pays her', Mr. Raydon, demands the child NOT be there. Later, when the housekeeper brings the child to work and the kid accidentally breaks something, the man is angry and fires the lady. In retaliation, she poisons him. However, the wife is blamed for this by her vengeful mother-in-law and soon the widow stands trial for his murder.
I found it very odd that Mr. Raydon was killed immediately after firing the housekeeper and before she actually left the Raydon home....and the District Attorney's office didn't assume the housekeeper was the murderer. Certainly she had an obvious motive...plus she actually DID kill the man. This is a shortcoming of the episode as the best 'evidence' they seemed to have against the wife is that her meddlesome mother-in-law hated her and assumed the worst. And, much of the old woman's testimony seemed inadmissible...opinions and hatred but no real evidence. And, the stories the old woman recounts on the witness stand all seem ridiculous and hard to believe. As a result, the episode seemed very weak...extremely weak in fact. And, because of that, it all seemed irregular and highly improbable.
In some ways, "What Really Happened" is a variation on Akira Kurosawa's "Roshomon"...where different folks recount the same story...and recount it VERY differently. But "Roshomon" is a brilliant film...a real groundbreaker...and this episode of "The Alfred Hitchcock Hour" just isn't. The twist towards the end was interesting...but otherwise everything about the court scenes seemed flimsy.
Overall, not especially logical...and a very weak episode from start to finish.
I found it very odd that Mr. Raydon was killed immediately after firing the housekeeper and before she actually left the Raydon home....and the District Attorney's office didn't assume the housekeeper was the murderer. Certainly she had an obvious motive...plus she actually DID kill the man. This is a shortcoming of the episode as the best 'evidence' they seemed to have against the wife is that her meddlesome mother-in-law hated her and assumed the worst. And, much of the old woman's testimony seemed inadmissible...opinions and hatred but no real evidence. And, the stories the old woman recounts on the witness stand all seem ridiculous and hard to believe. As a result, the episode seemed very weak...extremely weak in fact. And, because of that, it all seemed irregular and highly improbable.
In some ways, "What Really Happened" is a variation on Akira Kurosawa's "Roshomon"...where different folks recount the same story...and recount it VERY differently. But "Roshomon" is a brilliant film...a real groundbreaker...and this episode of "The Alfred Hitchcock Hour" just isn't. The twist towards the end was interesting...but otherwise everything about the court scenes seemed flimsy.
Overall, not especially logical...and a very weak episode from start to finish.
A story seen from different angles - but who cares...?
binapiraeus11 August 2014
Sorry, but IMHO this is certainly not one of the better episodes of "The Hitchcock Hour" - it's a drama simply TYPICAL for 60s' US TV, filled with silly women of all sorts, an innocent little boy, and 'good' and 'bad' men; but they all leave you more or less uninterested...
The whole plot about women (maybe with just a little lesbian touch, which was admittedly quite uncommon, and usually forbidden, back in those TV days) - some addicted to buying expensive things, some addicted to gossiping, and others to I-don't-know-what - , men and children finally results in a murder, the culprit of which we know from the start; and so the ONLY thing of interest are the VERY different ways the facts are being told in court by the various persons involved.
The whole plot about women (maybe with just a little lesbian touch, which was admittedly quite uncommon, and usually forbidden, back in those TV days) - some addicted to buying expensive things, some addicted to gossiping, and others to I-don't-know-what - , men and children finally results in a murder, the culprit of which we know from the start; and so the ONLY thing of interest are the VERY different ways the facts are being told in court by the various persons involved.
Much Ado about Nothing
PhillyBen2 May 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I agree with the reviewer planktonrules: this is one of the lesser Hitchcock Hour entries by a good margin. The "surprises" don't really matter much for the overall outcome, and there's neither great tension nor chills. It's hard for me to understand just why they placed this script alongside so many better offerings, and why so many viewers here seem to have rated it almost as highly as the better episodes. If you're looking for a suspenseful whodunit, or for something that'll keep you thinking long after you view, look elsewhere.
***********SPOILERS************
As a couple of reviewers have already mentioned: right near the outset we know "whodunit." The police and prosecutors seem to act illogically in overlooking the fired housekeeper and in arresting the wife, when there's zero hard evidence that she killed her husband. She may have had motive and opportunity, but the housekeeper had just as much of both-- more, quite obviously, since she was just fired and would have to leave with her "son." But she doesn't factor for a moment. As has also been mentioned, the murdered man's mother gives strongly biased character testimony against the man's widow, but that would have to be taken with many grains of salt and it didn't do anything to establish guilt or eliminate all doubt. The whole thing was more of a character study than anything else, or an opportunity to test out the technique of retelling a story from more than one perspective, but it should take more value to snag a place on the Alfred Hitchcock Hour. Possibly my least favorite episode to date.
***********SPOILERS************
As a couple of reviewers have already mentioned: right near the outset we know "whodunit." The police and prosecutors seem to act illogically in overlooking the fired housekeeper and in arresting the wife, when there's zero hard evidence that she killed her husband. She may have had motive and opportunity, but the housekeeper had just as much of both-- more, quite obviously, since she was just fired and would have to leave with her "son." But she doesn't factor for a moment. As has also been mentioned, the murdered man's mother gives strongly biased character testimony against the man's widow, but that would have to be taken with many grains of salt and it didn't do anything to establish guilt or eliminate all doubt. The whole thing was more of a character study than anything else, or an opportunity to test out the technique of retelling a story from more than one perspective, but it should take more value to snag a place on the Alfred Hitchcock Hour. Possibly my least favorite episode to date.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
