For this weeks blog post I listened to episodes 3, 4, and 5 of A Murder on Orchard Street. Episode 3 was centered on the accused murderer of Burke O’Brien, Forest Bloede, where he actually acts as the narrator for about half of the episode. Episode 4 was on the shorter side and focuses on the investigators of precinct 7 who were trying to find a witness who could corroborate or outright invalidate Forest’s interrogation. Episode 5 starts with the investigators following up on a call they received from a new witness, but shifts focus midway through to O’Brien’s family as they ask Detective Kenny Silvia to describe Burke’s murder to them.
Overall, the presentation and editing of these sets of episodes were similar to episodes 1 and 2, but honorable mention to episode 3 for being the standout; more on that later. On the other hand, episodes 4 and 5 had the same presentation as 1 and 2; Christina Kylie opens the episode and guides viewers through the main scenarios of the current episode. Audio clips from modern-day interviews, phone calls and video footage from the original investigation are edited in-between Kylie’s narration, while music and sound effect usage is kept to a minimum. One stand out thing I’d like to mention about episode 4 is the general flow of the episode. I’m not entirely sure how intentional it is, but it feels like it goes in a circle which is fitting because the investigators themselves seem lost trying to find a witness that could further their investigation. Even in the narration, Kylie even discusses how her feelings changed over time as she went door to door with the investigators; initially, she felt more optimistic that the next person they find would be “the one”, but eventually these feelings turned into those of frustration.
As I mentioned earlier, episode 3 is a standout in its presentation when compared to the other four episodes, which is fitting for reasons we will get into later. Episodes 1, 2, 4, and 5 are generally very one-sided episodes, where the story is told primarily from the perspectives of Kylie, the investigators, and O’Brien’s family members. Episode 3 however, focuses heavily on Forest Bloede, Burke O’Brien’s friend who was accused of murdering O’Brien. After Kylie opens the episode as usual, audio from Bloede comes into play. Initially, I thought this would play out similarly to the other times when audio from other people were cut in where it would shift back to Kylie after awhile. However, Bloede ends up narrating for about the first half of the episode as he describes his experience and his feelings of being mugged and then blamed for O’Brien’s murder. What makes this important is that the audience is finally given the other side of the story, when the previous two episodes were told from the perspective of the victims. Interestingly enough, the vibe of the podcast changes for Bloede’s section of narration. Music use becomes more apparent to set the mood, and a gunshot sound effect was used when Bloede recalls the moment in time when O’Brien was shot. However, disregarding the music and sound effects, the presentation is still similar, primarily in that audio clips from interviews etc. are editing in between Bloede’s narration. These aspects allow episode 3 to stand out while still feeling familiar to the audience, reflecting that while this is still the same story that was being told previously, this is a different perspective from the one that we were shown before.
Word Count: 591
Great analysis Jacob! Your detailed summarization of episodes 3, 4, and 5 of A Murder on Orchard Street and comprehensive analysis of the narrative features included make for a very compelling blog post on how the features and story work together to entice the listener.
One of the key narrative features you mentioned was also important within my analyzed episode The Golden Chicken, perspective. As you mention, A Murder on Orchard Street has many different interviews, phone calls, and other various audio clips which allows for the story to be told from multiple perspectives. Similarly, in The Golden Chicken, multiple interviews of different people are included in the story to provide perspective from all sides of the story also.
Another narrative feature you seemed to find important was how the “feelings” of individuals were highlighted. This was also made possible through the various interviews and was key in my analysis as well. For example, you mention how Kylie described her feeling of optimism quickly shifted into frustration and how Blonde also described his experience and feelings when narrating. In The Golden Chicken, our narrator Sarah Koenig also gives insight to her reactions when interviewing individuals. Furthermore, emotions are strongly addressed by the American Soldiers who searched for Bowe Bergdahl in their interviews.
The narrative choice of using perspective gives the podcast the advantage of telling multiple sides of the story. This is key for keeping a comprehensive storyline but also makes for a more compelling listen if done well like in A Murder on Orchard Street and The Golden Chicken. The narrative choice of including emotions felt by the narrator and those interviews give the podcast the advantage of being more personalized which helps relate to the listener and therefore keeps them engaged in the podcast.
Again, very insightful review Jacob! I’m glad I was able to spot some similarities between our two blog posts. Keep up the great work and I look forward to reading more soon!
Word Count 327
Hi Jacob! I found your description and analysis of episodes 3, 4, and 5 to be very insightful into what the a A Murder on Orchard Street entails. I found that it has a lot of similarities to the podcast that I had chosen to analyze, Alice Isn’t Dead. In it, a truck driver is transporting cargo around the country and detailing her sights and thoughts through a radio in the hopes that her wife, who was presumed dead but might actually still be alive, will come across it and find her.
Where I found similarities between our two podcasts was that like A Murder on Orchard Street, the story/narration is not told linearly nor very cohesively, instead switching between descriptions of whats taking place in the present, to the protagonist’s inner thoughts (which she says aloud into her radio), leaving the audience to piece together all of the different story beats to try and get a stronger understanding of what is really going on. This puzzling structure, while confusing, I think adds to the listening experience as the protagonist’s reality within the fictional universe is constantly shifting as eerie, unsettling events unfold, the protagonist not being entirely sure what is real and what isn’t, the audience getting an immersive sense of how disoriented the protagonist is.
Another advantage to this style of narration is, similar to A Murder on Orchard Street, is that we get both the protagonist’s perspective and thoughts, as well as pieces of context that clue in on her relationship to her missing wife who may actually be dead, though that still remains a mystery that drives the story.
Great analysis! It was interesting to see the similarities between our two podcasts as they both fall into the category of fictional mystery where bizarre scenarios take place.
Word count: 302