Thursday’s Widows demonstrates how a film can be just as effective as a detective fiction short story in making a statement about economic and sociocultural issues. As “detective fiction,” I definitely found I wasn’t as engaged in “solving the mystery” as I was when reading Borges or Bermúdez, because I just knew that through no effort of my own the answer would be provided for me eventually – films naturally don’t require as much “work” as reading does. However, because of the use of prolepsis in the film I nonetheless found myself looking for clues and suspicious characters over the course of the movie, because we discovered early in the film the location, means by which, and victims of the crime. As a “literary device” in film form, prolepsis (foreshadowing?) was effective in providing intrigue from the beginning.

With respect to the genre and its broader meta-message, if we are to believe that the killers were in fact Tano, Gustavo and Martín themselves, the movie strays from typical detective fiction in that there is really no detective figure central to the story. I think the absence of a glorified state personnel, like a detective or police officer, as a main character, definitely serves as a critique of the state itself – especially when we consider that these men committed suicide largely because of the state’s actions (the collapsing economy). In this way, the film “flips the script” to demonize the state, whilst celebrating and sympathizing with the killers, much in the same way as Bermudez’s Puzzle of the Broken Watch, where a police officer ends up being the killer.