"One for the Angels" (October 9, 1959) is the second episode of The Twilight Zone's first season and it's one of my favorites. And one reason I like it is that it's possible to interpret it in two different, equally valid ways.
Ed Wynn is a salesman named Lou Bookman who talks Death into
letting him live until he makes the best sales pitch anyone has ever made, then
retires so that he'll never make the pitch and thus never die. He effectively
runs a con on Death (superbly played by Murray Hamilton).
But Death has a quota to meet and life for Bookman means an 8-year-old girl will die in his place.
When Bookman learns about this, he delays Death past the girl's appointed time
to die by making the best sales pitch ever, so that Death keeps buying things
from him and loses track of time. This mean Bookman now has to die--he has
deliberately sacrificed himself to save the girl.
That by itself would have made it a classic episode. It's a story of loving self-sacrifice, brought to life by two actors giving great performances and Serling's strong script.
But I think there's a deeper interpretation of this episode. Death knew that Bookman was a Friend to All Children. We've already seen that he can teleport wherever he needs to be, so had no need to walk by Bookman to get to the girl's apartment.
It is possible that Death ran a reverse con on Bookman,
deliberately setting up a situation where he could take Bookman and let
the girl live? This doesn't change the fact that Bookman gave his life to save
a child, but adds a deeper dimension to the character of Death.
It makes Death a nice guy, as he is in the later episode "Nothing in the Dark." (written by George Clayton Johnson.) Death will do his job, but if he has a chance to help save a little girl who doesn't HAVE to die at this time, then he'll do so.
On the other hand, if Bookman doesn't legitimately outsmart Death, then does this defang the original con-artist dynamic because Bookman's actions do not cost Death anything? One can argue that I'm trading story friction for emotional warmth and--well, whether that's a fair trade is debatable.
I full realize that my view of the episode is my own self-insert into the story. In either case, I like it and I'm going for it. It's not a hidden canon fact, but I think its a valid interpretation.








































