After reading Murder on the Links, I set out to write a comparison / critique of the differences between the two versions of the story. I apparently have a lot to say, because. I finished the book in MARCH. This essay has taken me... *checks notes* nearly FIVE MONTHS. In my defence, a lot has happened in my personal life since then. But still.
I would say spoiler alert, but...... The book is over 100 years old and the show episode came out 30 years ago, so... idk what to tell you about spoilers at this point, sorry!
That said, if you feel the need to do your own research before you read my (very opinionated) interpretation, here are some links to help you do that:
6.3 Murder on the Links (stream on PBS)
Read Agatha Christie's Murder on the Links here (internet archive)
(I read the book in Russian, but this latter link is to a version in the original English)
NOW. I'd like to start with some important caveats:
As far as the TV adaptation of Murder on the Links is concerned, I understand that the story was very complex the way it was originally written (Which happens to be exactly what I like about Agatha Christie stories), and I acknowledge that such complexity doesn't always lend itself well to a show that has to fit into an hour time slot (which is likely why the later books were made into feature-length movies). Maybe the show didn't have the budget for an acrobatics act and paying all the extra actors they would have needed to be totally true to the book version. Okay. Fair.
Although Murder on the Links is... not my favourite of Christie's works, I still MUCH prefer the original novel version of this story to the show adaptation. Specifically: the mystery itself, and the "romance" between Hastings and Dulcie* make LEAGUES more sense the way Agatha Christie wrote it than the way Anthony Horowitz (the scriptwriter) adapted it.
It is possible that the impetus for some of the decisions Horowitz made came from higher management in the production crew. But his script still fails to tell a story that is true to the source material, and it is unnecessarily disrespectful to Agatha Christie's characters. Watching the episode just. Bothers me. In a way I describe in great detail below.
*Now. I'm not gonna call Agatha Christie a romance writer. She's the Queen of Crime, not romance, and I do have to admit that my modern-day senses were sometimes.... tested by what passes for 'romance' in the book. But that's likely because. The book came out over 100 years ago.
I recognise that I have a very different worldview, life experiences, and sensibilities than many people did at the time this book came out, so; I have to say this explicitly: I have my own personal squicks based on my life experiences, so my reactions to / interpretations of the romance in the book are not criticisms of Agatha Christie's writing abilities, they're my opinions and are thus entirely on me.
HOWEVER. My objections to what passes for romance in the show adaptation are explicitly criticisms of how Anthony Horowitz adapted it, especially since his adaptation completely missed the point of what I think Agatha Christie was trying to say.
So I gotta come right out and say this: I argue here that the TV adaptation of Murder on the Links was tone deaf, badly cobbled together, and it did NOT do justice to the story or the characters that Agatha Christie wrote.
And what was the main thing wrong with it?
The show REALLY did Cinderella dirty. And by extension, the show did Hastings dirty too.
So. (With the above caveats in mind.) Let's talk about this.
FYI: I put the rest of this essay under a readmore because it has gotten quite long!
It's over 16 pages and over 7700 words long! SO! If you're still with me: buckle up for a RIDE, buttercup!
IN THE NOVEL: DULCIE (CINDERELLA) DUVEEN
Now. I will start by saying that my opinion on Dulcie Duveen (Hastings' Love Interest in the novel, whom he later goes on to marry), is... Well. Let's just say that. I think she's very annoying sometimes. And I wouldn't personally have fallen for her because I don't think I would have been able to handle her brusque nature.
I dunno. Maybe she's really beautiful and I would have pulled a Complete Hastings^TM and lost all my coherent thoughts the second I saw her. It's happened to me before. Except I think that particular past experience is exactly why some of Dulcie's behaviour gives me some pause. I've been down that road before and it did NOT end well for me. So it makes me worry for Hastings' emotional stability. Also. Hastings says he thinks she’s about 17. So she’s much too young for me. And if you ask me, I think she’s too young for Hastings, too. But oh well! I did not write this book!! So I don't get a say in it!!
My own feelings about her notwithstanding, Dulcie Duveen still clearly had depth and complexity as a character that her show counterpart absolutely had stolen from her:
Dulcie had a clear purpose for being in the story beside being The Love Interest^TM
Her actions stem from her motivations and make logical sense
She learns from her mistakes and grows as a person
Dulcie Duveen is fierce and impulsive and she has a Mouth on her (Hell YEAH, let women SWEAR), and she does what it takes to get the job done. I can clearly see what Hastings sees in her (and I gotta say. Some of the things she does—not telling Hastings certain important information, ordering Hastings around, being playfully rude to Hastings—are the kinds of things Poirot does to him. And Hastings clearly loves Poirot in spite of all of that. So. I'm just gonna go out on a limb here & say: Our Man might have been doomed to fall in love with her. Okay of course he was! He was written that way!)
Hi. I know she probably wouldn't be showing her middle finger here. It's a silly little illustration. pls let me have this.
Dulcie's Purpose & Agency
Dulcie's presence in the story is meant to mislead Hastings (and the audience) into thinking she's Bella (that's the fun little plot twist!), but Agatha Christie also went further & used Dulcie's skills as an acrobat as a plot device: Dulcie legit saves someone's LIFE because she's the only one who has the necessary skills to scale a wall and get into a second floor window (something that Poirot himself actually praises her for)!
Dulcie was therefore not just there to Be Pretty & Give Hastings Man Pain^TM, she was there to help at the conclusion of the investigation, and to be a fully-fledged character with personal agency in her own right and also to freak Hastings tf out while she’s at it LOL
Dulcie's Motivations
Dulcie's motivations are, (in a way) selfless, make sense, and her actions stem from these motivations & follow a very clear logical progression (emotionally-charged as it was).
When she suspected her own sister of murdering this Jack Renauld boy's dad, she thought, "Well fuck. My sister is going to Be Stupid and Die For This Rando Jack Who Dumped Her for Some Tart. He Doesn't Even Love Her! I Have to Do Something About This, Because if I Don't Interfere, My Sister Will Be Hanged, and She Won't Even Care!! Jeezus H FUCKING Christ on Crutches I have to do Everything in this house!"
I say that these motivations are selfless because she's not doing any of the morally grey manipulation stuff for herself. Out of love for her sister, she goes to every length she can (including leading Hastings around by his nose & stealing the murder weapon) - to stop her careless sister from going to the gallows. This makes sense as a motivation because (as Poirot is so fond of saying) it's tied to her psychology!
I do have to say: I REALLY don't like how she USED Hastings in the service of her own goals without really considering how it would affect him, at least until he starts meaning something to her personally This leaves a bad taste in my mouth due to some of my own personal experiences. But I watched the show adaptation first, and unfortunately, I think that negatively coloured my opinion of her a bit. So let's think about this.
What are Dulcie's actual offenses? When Dulcie ran into Hastings in France, she saw her opportunity to help her sister and she took it, going along with Hastings to the crime scene & fake-fainting so she could steal evidence. She also did not tell Hastings her real name at the beginning of the story when they meet on the train—She tells him to call her Cinderella. This accidentally works out in her sister's favour when they're back in London, and Hastings (incorrectly!) comes to the conclusion that Dulcie is the writer of the letter from the mysterious ‘Bella’ found on the victim even though Dulcie never explicitly says that she’s Bella. She just lets Hastings and the audience think she’s Bella.
So it's a fact: Dulcie does manipulate and lie to Hastings, which. In and of itself is kinda shitty, and I don't tend to think that of as being the foundation for a great marriage.
But. I have to admit, I don't think lying by omission is as manipulative as fake-fainting so she can steal something, and these two things are technically her only offences. She is young, and bound to make stupid, sometimes mean-spirited mistakes (Haven't we all?) and she still has some big redeeming qualities here:
Dulcie Duveen only lies and manipulates Hastings in the service of her motivation, which is protecting her sister at any cost, and when her motivations reach their conclusion, she stops. She does not start out planning to manipulate him, she only takes advantage of the opportunities that presented themselves, and then she goes the extra mile & sincerely apologises to Hastings for her actions.
Dulcie's Romance with Hastings & Her Personal Growth
So! I'm not keen on their romance, mind you, but I can still see how it happened! It still makes sense as a romance! What I like about Dulcie's romance with Hastings is that it's built on a genuine connection that is meaningful to Dulcie because of her motivations.
For most of the story, Hastings is just some rando to her. Manipulating & lying to a stranger seems to be a pretty small price to pay for protecting her sister! ...But she falls in love with Hastings when he makes it absolutely clear to her that he's willing to go to the exact same lengths to protect her as she is going to for her sister.
And who could resist Hastings' big blue puppydog eyes here?? Not me!!
Once Dulcie falls for Hastings, she can clearly see how her actions affected him, and she feels bad about it! With her newfound perspective, Dulcie is given an opportunity to mature a bit, and she writes him a very sincere apology letter.
It's still clear that this letter is written by someone young, but the letter clearly shows her integrity and conscience: she explains how her motivations led her to take the actions she did, she acknowledges how her actions affected Hastings, and she considers his position and feelings about it!
...
Christie, 1967 [1923]; Murder on the Links, Pgs 200-201
A letter like this takes maturity! She doesn't say the words "I'm sorry", but this apology feels sincere. And the fact that she tried to explain herself without expecting something from Hastings in return—not contact, nor forgiveness—she shows that she learned and grew from the experience.
She may not be my cup of tea, but I can absolutely understand what Hastings sees in her, because Dulcie Duveen is, at her core, a decent person. She's fiercely protective of those she loves and her motivations and actions grow from the soil of that love. Her main problem is that she’s young, full of fire, and starts out the story with no real sense of how her actions affect others. At the conclusion of the story, she learns that her actions have real consequences for other people and she grows as a person because of it.
THE TV ADAPTATION
Now. If you ask me. The greatest mistake the showrunners made when they let Anthony Horowitz adapt the Murder on the Links script was in combining Dulcie Duveen & her sister Bella into a single character. If they had not done this, they could have avoided a LOT of problems with the story they ended up telling. This mistake, coupled with the fact that her character was re-written to be more 'ladylike', caused a cascade of new issues to sprout, namely:
It tore SO MANY gaping holes in the plot of the story that Anthony Horowitz had to fabricate his idea of an elaborate explanation to bridge the chasms (and the bridges he gives us are rickety & feel cobbled together at best)
The ultimate effect was that this fabricated plot completely ruined the only redeeming qualities of the romance between Hastings and the woman he goes on to marry (and what's worse is: the way it was re-written was terribly disrespectful to the characters)
Within the confines of the fabricated plot, Hastings' love interest is presented in one light only, which kinda makes her feel like a cardboard cutout of a woman that only knows sing, steal, eat hot chip, & lie, and she never gets a chance in the story to learn from her mistakes and grow as a person
Stripping her character of her motivations had the unfortunate side-effect of placing every single SCRAP of her character's agency into the acts of lying and manipulation
Stripping her character of her main reason for being in the story had the unfortunate side-effect of reducing her entire character to simply being The Love Interest^TM
Isabelle (Isabella) Duveen has NONE of the firey wit that gave Dulcie her charm. It seems that those things were deliberately written out of her character in the service of making her more 'ladylike' (and I mean that in the most Victorian sense of the term). The only things she has in common with Dulcie are that she's pretty and she sings.
She doesn't swear, because that's not ladylike.
She's not an acrobat, so she can't go scale a wall to save someone's life. She thus effectively loses this path for her personal agency.
She's technically Bella, so she has no sister to protect. Thus her motivations can't stem from protecting someone she loves from doing something stupid, and they have to be explained in some other way.
She isn't billed as young & inexperienced, so she's not set up by the narrative to learn & grow.
She was re-written as demure, subdued, quiet, and calculating.
She's manipulative from the start, she continues to manipulate Hastings until the very last, and given what her character's actions tell us about her psychology, that doesn't show any signs of stopping.
By essentially cutting off all of the parts of her character that made her who she was, Anthony Horowitz put himself in a position where he had to fabricate her motivations to cover all the huge gaps he left in the plot. So what does he do? He effectively decides to fall back on the motivations that Hastings INCORRECTLY(!) assumed of Dulcie in the book when he thought she was Bella: that she's doing everything To Protect The Jerk Boy Who Dumped Her Ass (WHAT??)
And I think THIS is what bothers me most about Horowitz's adaptation:
In effect: It took the original plot twist in the book... untwisted it?? And then tried to use that untwisted version??? as the new plot???
There are. SO. MANY. Problems with this decision.
HOROWITZ'S HAPHAZARD FABRICATIONS
Now. If you pay attention (and Christie fans often pay very close attention), you can actually see where Anthony Horowitz tripped all over himself trying to cobble together this elaborate set of... ✨THREE PHYSICAL CLUES✨ in what feels like quite a desperate attempt to try and retcon Isabelle's motivations into making sense with the untwisted version of the original plot... And he does a terrible job of it.
Horowitz (ironically) gives us clues that are 1) physical clues that completely ignore the interplays between the broader context of the mystery and the psychology of the characters, and 2) physical clues that any Christie fan worth their salt could immediately dispute:
Jack's Muddy Shoes
Jack's muddy shoes, a fabrication for the script, were supposed to prove that Jack had been standing in the grave his dad was digging. Which. At face value? Fair enough. That's plausible.
There is a HUGE problem with this fabrication, however: it ignores the presence of Detective Giraud, a character who prides himself on being extremely detail-oriented, and who (at least in the book) basically gets on his hands and knees & scours his crime scenes for physical clues.
So, Anthony Horowitz. You're trying to tell us. That a man who is confident enough in his skills at detective work to basically CHALLENGE Hercule Mo#erfucking Poirot to a very high stakes battle of wits, suspects this Jack Boy of murder. Searches Jack's room. and. COMPLETELY MISSES. A SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING PAIR OF MUDDY SHOES THAT POIROT LATER EASILY FINDS? RIGHT THERE? IN PLAIN SIGHT? IN JACK'S FUCKENING WARDROBE??
Come. the FUCK. on.
The Cut on Isabella's Hand and the Scrap of Fabric at the Scene
This cut, another fabrication for the script, was supposed to: a) place Isabella at the scene of the crime and b) give Jack a reason for believing that she herself had committed the murder.
However. It is a) circumstantial & unprovable as presented and b) is an elaborate setup that never truly gets connected to the payoff in the scenes of the show.
On the basis of a previous scene (also a fabrication for the script) where Hastings cuts himself pulling a piece of fabric (with no blood on it) off of a bramble, we're supposed to believe that Isabella cut her hand and tore her dress on that same bramble and bled So Badly that it would make Jack think she murdered someone... when he saw her? In the dark?? On a shoddily-lit Golf course??????
Okay. Let's say for the sake of argument that this is sorta believable (it's not, but let's humour him for a very extremely short moment).
There was no blood on the bramble, so the cut thing wouldn't actually be provable... and as far as we know, Poirot never actually saw her with the bandage on her hand. They NEVER interact in the one scene where she's wearing that bandage!! It would have been so easy to fill this plot hole! He could have just bumped into her and acknowledged it!
So where is the thread to help us see how Poirot came to this conclusion? Where is her blood-drenched dress with this specific piece they found on the bramble ripped off of it? We know that Poirot is a stickler for only using evidence he can account for with reasonable proof! So why didn't you make him do that here, Anthony Horowitz?
BUT!!! IT GETS EVEN WORSE!!
WE SEE ISABELLE AFTER SWIMMING IN THE FUCKING SALTWATER OCEAN. like a day after she gets a cut that was supposedly so awful that it made someone suspect her of murder.
But look! Here she is! Covered in saltwater! NO bandage on her hand!
And she goes the rest of the time talking to Hastings at the beach and then GOES OUT ON A DATE WITH HASTINGS. Without so much as SHOWING that she feels a twinge of pain in her hand?? Or hiding her hand from him?? I'm sorry. What???
Her bandaged hand appears in ONE scene, goes UNMENTIONED for almost the entire rest of the episode, and doesn't become a plot device until Poirot's summation, when the audience has already completely forgotten about it?? Where is the chaining of setups & payoffs that we got in the book!!??? The cut on her hand and the added scene with the scrap of fabric was a HUGE setup with only a TINY FRACTION of a half-assed payoff! Now that reads as inexperienced, or at the very least, unedited writing!
If you ask me, this half-baked attempt at filling in the gaps in the plot with physical clues is just insulting to Poirot fans. After all of the harping Poirot does in the stories (and this story especially!) about only placing stock in physical clues that match the interplays between the psycological dispositions of the characters and the wider context of the mystery, Mr. Horowitz gives us... three throwaway physical clues that are easy to dismiss and don't even do a good job of moving the narrative along!
Terrible!! Flimsy AF scripting!! You are the weakest link, Mr. Horowitz! I don't care if the main impetus for all this came from the producers and that actors & director seemed to go along with it all! You were given a masterpiece painting and you said, Oh! thanks! I think I'll take a knife, cut out the subjects' faces, rip the rest of the painting to shreds, and ""repair"" it with kraft glue, dyed feathers, googly eyes, & silly string!
Romance?? Where? What Romance?
Something that really pickles my onions about this episode is that some people will watch it. and think it's SooOOOooo Romantic.
I guess that's fair. It's got all the usual suspects:
Boy sees girl
Boy thinks she's hot (okay. fair. she's not my type, but you do you.)
Girl gives boy time of day (Hmm... unclear whether she's actually interested...)
Girl manipulates boy (wait. Wait a minute. WHAT?? That's not romantic!!!)
Boy falls in love with girl anyway (Because.... She's... hot?? I Guess?)
Girl only starts to like boy because her only other option is Dogshit
Girl runs to boy at the beach (After an older man!? Tells her to!?)
Boy & girl kiss at sunset (this. is the only romantic thing on this list.)
Boy & girl get married and live happily ever after (...are you sure??)
Alright, fine. I can see how a story like this could be some people's cup of tea. But for me, an intellectual, this attempted romance is missing one small, but VERY important piece: A Real GENUINE CONNECTION.
The connection Hastings & Dulcie have in the book was a very strong one: Dulcie's love for Hastings blooms because it was connected to her deepest motivations: to protect the people she loves. She doesn't fall for him until she realises that he's protecting her for the same reason she's protecting her sister: to stop her from throwing her life away. This speaks to her at a visceral level and creates the psycological conditions for a strong emotional attachment to form.
But the show doesn't even give Hastings a chance to protect Isabelle! At most, all he does is pretend not to recognise her and pretend to forget her name once, and she doesn't even know he did these things. So, whereas the BOOK has a more or less solid foundation upon which to build a romance, the SHOW builds it on... sexual attraction... lies... and.. manipulation?? Huh?? How is that romantic??
Isabelle doesn't even have a reason to fall in love with Hastings that's connected to her deepest motivations! She only sorta seems interested in him. And. Okay, let's be real. As a BIG fan of Hastings', I can definitely understand why: Captain Arthur Hastings is a sweetheart golden retriever man with big blue eyes, who WOULDN'T fall in love with him??
But! Isabelle doesn't seem to genuinely fall for Hastings until her motivations dry up, she drags Hastings through the mud, throws her life away for Jack while he's still going out with the girl he dumped her for, and it's only at the end that she finally realises. Oh. Jack is Kind Of Dogshit Actually and Hastings is Better.
Dulcie may make some stupid mistakes, but her piddly list of two mistakes have NOTHING on the way Horowitz wrote Isabelle.
In the TV adaptation, Hastings supposedly experiences this silly Love At First Sight sort of thing when he sees Isabelle for the first time. But it's clear that, at this point, he hasn't actually met her yet, so his interest in Isabelle rests squarely in her singing ability and her beauty.
And then, before their relationship even has a chance to start, the TV adaptation decrees that it will be built on lies, half-truths, and manipulation.
What this tells me is that Horowitz basically looked at Dulcie's character and said, "I can make her worse."
Manipulation Doth NOT a Strong Romance Make
Now, as I mentioned above, the way Dulcie & Hastings met wasn’t manipulative in and of itself. Hastings was just some rando she met on a train, and it wasn’t until Dulcie met him again and realised that he was involved in the investigation of the crime (which she suspected her own sister of committing) that she saw it as her chance to help her sister and took it (which she clearly felt guilty about afterwards).
Isabelle, on the other hand, USES Hastings from the word 'GO', and she doesn't particularly seem to feel any remorse about it.
Before Hastings even has a chance to interact with her, Isabelle sees Hastings with Poirot, recognises Poirot, and decides right then & there that she’s going to USE HASTINGS FOR INFORMATION. This is how their relationship begins. And this is not just my interpretation of the situation! She later says this explicitly! TO HASTINGS' FACE.
She purposefully sets up their first meeting at the beach. She notices he's soft & caring and plays his emotions like a violin. When they're at breakfast, she sees that he's very interested in her and decides to use that, too. She asks him needling questions about the case. She knows JUST what to say to keep Hastings talking. She asks him! If he's MARRIED for god's sake!! She reveals no information about herself, except for just enough to keep Hastings interested in her. When the conversation veers too close to being about her, she steers it back towards the case. And it's only after ALL OF THIS PREVIOUS, DELIBERATE MANIPULATION that she THEN goes even further and uses Hastings to gain access to evidence and takes the opportunity to steal it.
The difference between the book & the show versions here is STARTLING: Isabelle is not just seeing a passing opportunity and taking advantage of it. She's calculating every move and designing the outcomes, which she does LEAPS & BOUNDS more than Dulcie ever does.
Within the confines of what her character is allowed to be in the TV adaptation, these deliberately manipulative actions are the only chance that Isabelle gets to exercise her agency and show us who she is. And the message this sends is: this is just the kind of person she is.
Now. It gets much worse, because, where Dulcie's intentional manipulation stops at the stealing of the knife, Isabelle's just KEEPS ON GOING.
If we're supposed to believe that Isabelle has been starting to develop feelings for Hastings up until the part where she steals the knife? The scenes don't actually do anything to SHOW US this.
The two of them kind of. Only talk about the case, and little else. And Isabelle actually makes sure of this. Maybe this is just my own personal experiences talking, but... given the precedent set by Isabelle's actions, I watch them on their dates together and get this terribly prickly, uncomfortable impression that she's simply a spider waiting to snare Hastings in her web.
And this is where the minefield of plot holes that Horowitz opened up when he combined Dulcie & Bella into a single character becomes what I consider to be the main destroyer of any scrap of romance in this story: Isabelle actively SQUASHES any hope that her interest in Hastings is genuine when she tries to protect Jack by confessing to the murder of Jack's father.
By doing this, Isabelle effectively tells Hastings that she doesn't give a damn about his feelings and that he was merely a plaything to her, a means to an end. By doing this, she essentially throws Hastings in the garbage. Dulcie never does anything remotely as mean to Hastings as this!
To make matters worse, Isabelle doesn't seem to show that she's ever going to learn from this ordeal and grow as a person, because she only "apologises" to Hastings when she thinks she's going to be hanged for the murder, and there seems to be no genuine remorse in it!!!
The terrible things continue to snowball: Her ""apology"" to Hastings considers none of Hastings' feelings, nor does it acknowledge and apologise for the extremely terrible position she put him in!! On purpose! And it explains none of her behaviour! And yes, this IS an issue with the script and its retconning of the narrative! It makes no sense to put the apology scene in this part of the episode! Because at this point in the narrative!! She literally can't tell Hastings the truth and serve her interests at the same time!! Because!! She's Still! Lying!!! TO PROTECT JACK BOY!!! Putting it here ACTIVELY REINFORCES THE IMPLICATION THAT SHES A LIAR, ALWAYS HAS BEEN, AND ALWAYS WILL BE!
And Isabelle's """apology""" isn't even an apology at all! It basically boils down to 'Yeah when I first saw you with Poirot I totally decided to use you for information LOL but in my defence' "the things I said were true".
But!? What did she actually say that was true though??
Go back and listen to the words she utters to Hastings if you can stand to. Most of her words to Hastings had the sole purpose of getting him to share information with her!! SHE SAYS VERY LITTLE AND TELLS HIM EFFECTIVELY NOTHING!! She does say once that she enjoys his company, but who knows if she's being sincere about this or not! Nearly all of her actions on screen have repeatedly proven to the audience that she's a liar! In other words, the way the story is told, we have no textual precedence to believe that she's telling the truth!
Looking back on her words after the fact, I found that the only really meaningful and HONEST thing she said about herself was: "The right girl, the right man… no one can hurt you more."
I can understand, in retrospect, that this was likely supposed to be a hint at her '''true''' motivations, but... You know what message this line sends to me? This sounds an awful lot like foreshadowing, hinting that, even if she's being billed as "the right girl" for Hastings to marry? SHE'S GOING TO END UP HURTING HIM.
AND GUESS WHAT?? SHE DOES.
Psychology? What's that?
Thing is? These gaping plot holes are not a failing of the character per se; rather, they're the direct consequences of the terrible decision to combine Dulcie & Bella into a single character: due to this, Isabelle is essentially forced to take an action that is inconsistent with the character she's been built up as over the entire course of the episode.
When Isabelle confesses to the murder and gives Hastings her half-assed ""apology"", it effectively sends the message that her interest in Hastings had nothing to do with Hastings himself at all, and everything she did was related to her goal of protecting the person she's really in love with: Jack Renauld.
And the haphazardness of this horrible scripting decision is palpable.
During her ""apology"", when Hastings says, “You said you were in love with Jack Renauld.”
She answers, “I was. Once.”
Then Hastings responds with, “and Now?”
And she says, “Just forget about me, Arthur. You’re a kind man. If only we had met before. *whispers* Maybe.”
The problem with this, though? Is that people who "aren't in love" with someone anymore. DON'T TEND TO THROW THEIR LIVES AWAY TO PROTECT THAT PERSON.
Let me say that again for the Mr. Horowitz in the back:
If Isabelle is really not in love with Jack Renauld anymore, confessing to the murder to protect him doesn't make sense from a psychological standpoint.
Even though Horowitz throws in the little tidbit about Jack and Isabelle seeing each other on that golf course, suspecting each other of murder, and then trying to protect each other (almost as an afterthought), Isabelle confessing to Jack's father's murder still tells the audience that Jack is important enough to her that she is willing to THROW AWAY HER LIFE. and DIE. for this boy. Never mind that he dumped her. Never mind that she thinks she's going to hang? As long as she?? can still protect him???? And for what?
Does she confess out of some misguided sense of obligation? Because he technically tried to protect her first? THAT's rich! And it doesn't make logical sense, because she didn't know he was trying to protect her. She knows she didn't commit the murder. She thinks Jack committed the murder. If she doesn't love Jack anymore, why should she care if he hangs for a murder that she actually believes he committed??? He's even still dating the tart he dumped her for!! If it was me and I found out he was trying to protect me, I would have told him to go fucken choke on it.
Does she confess because she has sunk a cost in this and she... confesses? to the murder?? To explain away her reasons for stealing the dagger???? This makes even LESS sense! You're trying to tell me that she's going to throw her life away for this instead of telling more lies like 'oh yeah, I stole the dagger because it was cool and I wanted to own something that killed somebody.' y'know. because I'm "all for the horrors"???? She's not likely to hang for theft, but she IS likely to hang for actually committing a murder!
To use some words we hear Poirot utter often: In what way does this action benefit her, confessing to the murder?
I honestly don't see that it does.
Confessing to the murder is the act of an irrational mind. Someone who needs protected from her own folly. But the way the narrative in the show is set up, there's no one there to protect her. Not even Hastings. She only doesn't go to the gallows because Poirot solves the murder first.
Now, If Isabelle had been acting daft and impulsive before confessing, such an action would have made more sense for her character. But it doesn't, because Isabelle has spent all her screen time up to this point showing us that she's rational and calculating enough to plot out an elaborate set of circumstances to manipulate Hastings into helping her.
So what is the audience supposed to believe here? We're given very conflicting information about her character once she confesses. Is she impulsive and irrational, or is she calculating and rational??
True, people are complex and they can be both under different circumstances, but... I feel like attributing this interpretation to Horowitz's script would be entirely too charitable, especially when we consider how haphazardly the plot holes he ripped open were covered up. I don't think this particular interpretation even crossed his mind.
With this final nail in the coffin, the message has been sent: Isabelle still cares about Jack, and she's willing to use Hastings up like an old rag and toss him in the garbage to do it. This girl is DEFINITELY not wife material. And she certainly doesn't deserve Our Beautiful Beloved Boy Hastings!
Oh! But! Shit! There's one more thing to do: Hastings & Isabelle are supposed to get married! Romance sells! Think of our show ratings!
So, after thoroughly fucking up with his minefield of plot holes what was originally a romance that made sense, Mr. Horowitz now has to scramble to find a way to get Hastings and Isabelle together at the end!
Forcing Matters ALSO doth not a Strong Romance Make
So! To make matters. Even WORSE. Which. I never thought would actually be possible. but. here we are. The show goes on to write our Wonderful Hastings as being broken up over this girl that essentially threw him in the garbage and didn't even sincerely apologise about it. Baby boy! Get over her! You deserve so much better!
And because of the way they fucked up the romance, it looked... for a beautiful, fleeting moment... Like they were going to leave it at that. Like they were going to let these two characters go their separate ways! But then. The script has Poirot playing matchmaker and effectively forcing Hastings & Isabella together.
In the book, yeah, Hastings IS sad about Dulcie, but he comes out of the whole thing thinking 'Well. Okay. I love her. And maybe it didn't help anything. But I love her anyway and I'm truly the better for it. I wish she loved me back. But alas'.
Poirot's only interference in Hastings' & Dulcie's romance was getting Hastings to see that the mere fact that she wrote that sincere apology letter showed how much she cared about him. Which Poirot is familiar with. He's done a lot of implying that he loves Hastings over the years, only to have it fly right over Hastings' head, so... he knew he'd have to get as explicit as possible about this.
Christie, 1967 [1923]; Murder on the Links, Pg 203
In the book, there was no forcing involved. Poirot only gently helps Hastings see what is right in front of him.
In the show, Poirot physically goes to Isabelle's house, convinces her to come with him to the beach where he knows Hastings is brooding...
And, we don't know what Poirot actually tells her to make her go, since this all happens off-screen. But I can only assume it boiled down to something like this: That man is a Prince Among Men, and for some reason, he CARES about you, and you would be EXTREMELY STUPID to let him go (but of course. It's Poirot. So he would have said it more politely).
And it ""works"". Of course it works. It was written that way.
...... ugh.
Now. I get that the message in this part of the show was that Hastings Was Sad^TM and Benevolent Poirot wanted to Make Him Feel Better. And to be honest, that's kind of a sweet, sort of selfless thing for Poirot to do for his friend.
However. Outside of the in-show context? As an audience member? Watching this scene felt like watching someone slap a bandaid on the ending of the episode to soften the blow of how godawful the plot looked after it was untwisted and retconned back together.
From my perspective, it also read a little bit like a man giving another man a woman like an object so he wouldn't be sad anymore (yet another thing that feels like it strips Isabelle of her agency). And it positions Poirot as a man who controls almost every aspect of Hastings' life, right down to choosing his WIFE for him (which has the effect of diminishing Hastings' agency as a character, too).
ALSO. I have already talked EXTENSIVELY about how this action feels like a repressed gay man throwing a woman at his crush, thinking that this will make everything All Better^TM. Only to have that TERRIBLY backfire on him when Hastings is Sad^TM later on in the series because His Wife. Y'know. The one that Poirot picked out for him?LITERALLY SENT HIM OUT OF THE CONTINENT because she "needed a break". Like. Um. OWch? This only lends credence to the impression I got that Isabella is NOT Wife Material. And! Like! She's a cocktail bar singer! & you want me to believe Little Miss Pretty Dresses, Lies, Manipulation, and Sad Songs is going to be content helping run a Dusty Ass RANCH in Argentina? Okay. Sure Jan. At least being an acrobat would be a useful skillset while dealing with animals and ropes & pulleys in barns & stuff, but they took even that away from her. Can't have Shit in London or France, apparently.
So. All of that to say: The message sent by what passes for the """romance""" between Isabelle & Hastings in the TV adaptation is that Isabelle likes her men stupid and easy to manipulate, and thus implies that Hastings is Actually Stupid and Easy to Manipulate.
All of Isabella's on screen actions make me think that she is inherently manipulative and catty and would throw Hastings' ass away again in a heartbeat if he set even one toe out of her box labelled 'ideal man'. Clearly, she did that with Jack when she went off and married Hastings!! So what assurance do we have that Hastings is safe from suffering the exact same fate?
Now. I'm not Hastings. I've had VASTLY different life experiences and I was lucky enough not to be raised to believe that my truest purpose in life is to get married, settle down, and raise a family. But if I was him? When she confessed to the murder? That is where I would have said, "Alright. You have made your choice, and I'm clearly not it. You are not worth the heartache, babe. Go have the life you deserve."
IN SUM: Addressing the Elephant in the Room
Wow! *PHEW*! That was a lot! I hope that I've effectively communicated what bothers me about this adaptation and BLESS YOU if you have made it this far in this long ass post! Now. If you'll allow me to sum up and then address what I think is a pretty large Elephant in the room:
Anthony Horowitz's script for Murder on the Links took a perfectly sensible story and fucked it up beyond recognition.
Once Horowitz erased Isabelle's background and re-wrote her character to be more ladylike, he effectively made sure that Isabelle's only way of exercising her agency within the confines of the story was to manipulate and lie to Hastings.
Once Horowitz erased her motivation to protect her sister by combining them into a single character, Isabelle's only reason for being in this episode literally became bound to being an object of desire for Hastings and Jack.
Let me put that another way.
Horowitz untwisted the plot and rewrote the story so that:
Isabelle's Entire Purpose for being in the story. Was connected to the actions of the men.
Isabelle's Entire Character was thus effectively reduced. To being The Love Interest^TM. Lying. Manipulating. and Existing for the man pain.
You know what that is, lads & ladies??
Now. The way Isabella Duveen turned out in the show is likely because this adaptation of the story was made by a British television company in the 90s. We can't forget that, in the context of the time when this adaptation came out, women (and especially women on television) were 'supposed to be' portrayed as prim, proper, and demure, and studios had been making sure women would be portrayed like this for literal decades. Women were allowed to be mysterious and manipulative, but only in certain contexts. So it's very likely that some of the scripting decisions came from the highest management and that everyone in the production crew was kinda just forced to do something with this crappy script because they were likely on a deadline.
But if you ask me? This adaptation had no business being so terribly disrespectful to the characters and the story that Agatha Christie wrote.
In the book, Hastings is trying very hard NOT to fall in love with Dulcie. She's crass & rude & very young, and Certainly not Suited to Hastings' Victorian Sensibilities^TM. In the book Agatha Christie actually wrote, Hastings expected to fall in love with a prim, proper, demure girl like Isabelle was re-written to be, and instead, he falls in love with Dulcie, who is exactly the opposite: crass, rude, loud and terribly sad.
Christie, 1967 [1923]; Murder on the Links, Pg 182
In using Horowitz's script for the adaptation, the showrunners ACTIVELY ignored the stereotype-subverting character Christie originally wrote, and gave us.... more of the same stereotypes!!
The point I'm trying to make here is: what makes this adaptation so damn TRAGIC is that The Character of Dulcie in Agatha Christie's novel actively pushed back against these exact stereotypes of women... and Anthony Horowitz turned around & tripped over himself trying to double down on them.
And, if you'll allow me a moment to yell: THINK ABOUT!! WHAT WE COULD HAVE HAD!! IF THE SCRIPT HAD ACTUALLY BEEN TRUE TO THE CHARACTERS & STORY THAT AGATHA CHRISTIE WROTE!!
WE COULD HAVE HAD A FEIRCE, FIERY, FUN DULCIE WHO ACTUALLY GREW & LEARNED FROM HER MISTAKES!!!
^^Look at this FUN dynamic!!^^ We could have had it all, lads!!! :')
INSTEAD OF ^THIS^, WE GOT DEMURE DECEPTIONS MCLIEFACE WHO REPEATEDLY DISRESPECTED HASTINGS & THREW HIM IN THE GARBAGE, AND THEN HAD THE AUDACITY TO IMPLY THAT SHE LOVES HIM!!
THAT'S NOT ROMANCE! IT FEELS MORE LIKE EMOTIONAL ABUSE!
WE WERE ROBBED, I TELL YOU. ROBBED!
IN CONCLUSION
Part of what I love the most about Agatha Christie's stories is that she follows the lines of emotion and motivation in characters' struggles SO well that each character has a clear role to play that moves the plot of the story forward. When you look at all of those roles together, they all make up the grand design in the tapestry of the narrative itself.
When you fuck with the design of that tapestry—when you pull out threads, combine colours, change patterns, etc.? You fuck with the cohesiveness of that tapestry. And, while many of the writers for the Poirot TV series were able to beautifully do justice to, or even elaborate upon, the tapestries woven by Christie, not everyone can do that well.
And that's what happened with the TV adaptation of Murder on the Links: the way the script was written destroyed the design on the tapestry, and they fell flat on their faces scrambling to make up a new one.
Lads. I love this show, but.... the episodes can't all be winners.
Hi, there! if you like what I do, please consider dropping some pocket change in my tip jar on ko-fi!
Actually! If I can request your assistance - would you happen to know the type of fabric Poirot's clothes would likely be made out of? Or at least his night clothes? I am doing research but you are still well ahead of me in hours of staring at him. Thanks either way though!
OKAY YES because I actually do WAY more thinking about this man's clothes than is probably healthy LMAO but this gives me an excuse to talk about some of the things I've been thinking about, so thanks! :))
Now! I don’t claim to be an expert on these things (and I certainly invite anyone who has more knowledge of 1930s fashion & fabrics to come add on to this post), but I can offer my own ideas about this, being someone who used to work in a store that sold jackets, shirts, ties, and hats!
Fair warning: long post incoming!!
I put most of this post under a readmore because uh. I am. Obsessed obsessed. So. I have a lot to say :)
THE FABRICS OF (some of)
POIROT'S CLOTHES
WOOL –
This man wears a lot of wool! I’m sure you’ve seen Poirot with his clothing brush, so here’s a likely reason why: The nice thing about felt, worsted wool, and tweed is that they’re kind of naturally dirt-repellant, which is why clothing brushes work very well for caring for these. You can literally brush dirt and bits of lint & things off of them without too much trouble!
(These materials also take well to steaming, which is great if they need a quick little clean.)
WOOL FELT
Poirot’s hats and cold weather coats are likely to be made of wool felt – Wool is good at trapping heat close to the body, which is a good thing to have during an English winter.. or an English fall... or an English spring... ehh.. actually maybe it's good to have year round haha
LIGHTWEIGHT WORSTED WOOL
Some of Poirot’s more everyday wear suits are likely a lightweight worsted wool – these come in both plain, solid colours or all sorts of neat patterns (including stripes and the like). (He might have some everyday wear bowties that are worsted wool, too, but he seems to like to wear fancier ones most often).
MID- TO HEAVIER WEIGHT WOOL (& TWEED)
We don't see Poirot in Mid- to heavyweight wool or tweed very often, but it's a treat when we do. Some of his fancier, more patterned suits are likely made of a heavier weight wool and/or, in some cases, tweed (these tend to be heavier-duty for cooler times of the year, and if they have a pattern, they tend to come in fancier patterns than the lightweight worsted wools do)
LINEN
Linen (which is often made of 100% cotton or a blend of cotton & other fibres) is more breathable and doesn’t hold onto heat like wool. It's also great for keeping the sun off which is great when you don’t want to have to try all those new-fangled sunblock lotions they’re selling to find one that works for you without leaving you feeling greasy & disgusting
So, the lighter-coloured suits you see Poirot wearing when he’s in warmer climates are more likely to be light to medium weight linen (and he tends to pair these with straw hats, which are also WAY more breathable than his felt ones)
It’s also likely that many of Poirot’s dress shirts (with wingtips of course!) are made of lightweight linen as well (I would assume he has some fancy silk shirts too, but I don't really have any screencap evidence to back this up, it's just a 'yeah-he-would' sort of thought haha)
SILK*
Poirot is well-enough-off that he’s likely to be able to afford silk – Silk is lightweight, cooling, and is so fine that can be woven in all sorts of really intricate, and ostentatious fancy designs! Poirot’s fancier bowties and his fancier pyjamas are likely to be made of silk
*COMBINATIONS OF SILK & OTHER MATERIALS
Having said that, silk is so fine, it doesn't hold its shape on its own very well, so lots of Poirot’s clothes (incl. his silk bowties, actually) are likely to be a combination of interfacing material (some other, stiffer material that keeps its shape better) and then covered or accentuated with silk. For example:
His fancier waistcoats may have front panels made of linen or something stiffer, which are then covered with silk after the fact. (The back panels of the waistcoats, however, are likely all silk, because the shape of the garment comes from the front panels).
Many of Poirot’s suits are also likely lined with silk!
His tuxedo is likely to be a combination of worsted wool and silk (e.g., the coat and pants themselves would be made of a lightweight black worsted wool, the lapels would be a stiff material covered in silk, and the lining of the jacket and the back of the waistcoat are likely all silk)
Some of his dressing gowns are likely made of a thicker material (possibly linen?) and then covered entirely or embellished with silk accents
And his housecoats look like they're made of worsted wool with Silk-covered lapels
Just look at these augh he's SO HOT in his dressing gowns & housecoats sorry brb drooling so bad I need to go drink 12 litres of water to stay hydrated ... ..... ............ okay I'm back
SOFT WOOL OR COTTON
I will have to guess about Poirot's undergarments (sadly I do not have screencaps of his undergarments because we don’t get to see them in the episodes I’ve watched so far… which is most of them, so. The chances aren’t good that we get to see them at all… Man. They do not undress that old man NEARLY enough for me. which is fair. I would probably die & go to heaven if I saw him in his underpants LMAO Oh Well), but Poirot is so meticulous about taking care of his clothes that I can safely assume he wears at least an undershirt and underpants, if not some form of combo. Rather than washing an entire three-piece suit after each time it’s worn, these undergarments would be what get washed most often.
Anyway! Considering the period when the show takes place and the other undergarments the show lets us see, Poirot's underclothes are likely to be made of soft lambswool, a soft cotton knit (which can be... kind of similar to what modern t-shirts are made of today just. without the plastic), linen, or silk.
SOFT WOOL OR COTTON KNIT
It would make sense for Poirot's undershirt to be a soft cotton knit since that was what most of them were made of back in the day. And we actually see that Japp wears what looks like a soft cotton knit undershirt or union suit [Wikipedia] (or what might be called 'combinations' in the UK at the time) in Hickory Dickory Dock...
So it's likely that Poirot would have some sort of thing like this (or one without sleeves / made of a cotton knit mesh for when it's warmer).
LINEN
We also DO get to see Hastings' underpants in The Adventure of the Egyptian Tomb for which I would like to thank the showrunners for my LIFE...
These look like either boxers or a short-length union suit [photo], and would likely be made of linen.
But. If I ask my heart, I see Poirot as wearing a soft cotton knit combination for everyday wear (short in the summer & long in the winter). BUT. He is enough of a diva that. He probably likes to feel Fancy sometimes. So. I headcanon him as owning MANY pairs of silk underpants that he wears in the summer when he wants to be a little cooler down there
And maybe. One day. Hastings. Sees him in them. and Dies of the Hotness
ANYWAY!! I. understand that this was A Lot of Information for. What was. essentially a nice & simple question. But. Uh. I am Very Good at making a short story long!!
Thank you for enabling my Attention-to-Detail Autism 🫡
Hi, there! if you like what I do, please consider dropping some pocket change in my tip jar on ko-fi!
Thrilled to share that I sold this painting of Arthur Hastings last weekend!
This painting is from last year when I was deep in the album Lullabies From the Wild Side, by Emily Axford. I chose the song The Moon’s Elegy for this painting of Hastings because he is, in many ways, like the moon to Poirot’s sun. And while I like to imagine Hastings and Poirot in a happy, loving relationship, I am not above a little yearning now and then. This painting is also from my collage era, when I was looking at collage and scrapbooking and trying to bring those layers into my art.
Everybody wish Hastings well on his journey to his new home! And if you’re curious what else I have for sale, check out my Etsy store.
Prompt me ships/fandoms and days of the November drabble challenge and I might write you a little sth!
Please send an ask with your prompt so I have them all in one place, I won't do prompts from replies, reblogs, messages or ao3 comments etc!
You can also prompt me something from another prompt list, I also really like the look of comfyvember for example, just make sure to specify the tumblr post you're talking about in the ask :) or just add your own prompt! I'll probably mostly stick to writing drabbles, but I might also write some longer-ish fics if I have the time and energy, or make some moodboards/picspams or manips, feel free to specify what you'd like best :)
Fandoms I take prompts for are in the tags, or you can check out my fandom masterlist!
Askbox • old prompt fics • Ao3
As always prompts from people whom I know and/or who reblog and comment on my stuff in the past get prio over anons and blogs that don't reblog!
What would happen if Hastings tried to grow a mustache
So! In the books, Hastings DOES, in fact, grow a moustache! (He has one before going undercover in The Big Four, for example)
and uh. I think?
Our Man Hercule Poirot? had to be showing THE WORLD'S GREATEST self-restraint not to be doing THIS the whole time:
(and then? In my world? he kisses him silly and their moustaches get momentarily stuck together and then they laugh really REALLY hard about it and then they basically HAVE to get married about it. the end beginning)
Transcript under the cut:
Poirot: Mmm Hastings, I am glad you took my advice to grow the moustache... you look dignified... and... handsome... and... ......
Hastings: ..... ...Ehh... Yes?
Poirot: .... Your tie is still crooked. But everyone will be so enamoured with your moustache that they will not notice.
Like. Let me caveat this by saying I know I have got to be Reading Things Into These Scenes That May Not Even Be There, but. This does seem like the kind of Subtle Hinting at Poirot's Possible Queerness^TM that the showrunners and/or David Suchet sometimes like(s) to do. So. Maybe there is something to it. But Uh.
The part where Miss Lemon laments that Poirot never considered marriage and he responds: "There were occasions, Miss Lemon, when I did have la tentation, hein? The temptation" --
Notice. He never actually says anything about marriage? He just says. The Temptation. Like. The sort of thing you might feel when you look at a Forbidden Fruit.
& that's exactly what Hastings is to him. Desired, coveted, yet in his mind completely unattainable & there's not even a serpent around to offer that Tall Glass of Forbidden Fruit to him. Rude?? FINE, I will be the serpent who offers his desires to him in my art *ahem* anyway
So. It KILLS me when Poirot says "But now, Alas... *looks DIRECTLY at Hastings* I think it is too late"
Because. As far as Poirot is concerned. It *IS* too late now. Because Hastings is even more out of reach than he was before, now that he has that shiny golden wedding band on his finger and is swearing up & down that he's A New Man^TM now, thanks to his wife
And--side note from 6.3 Murder on the Links here, but--don't even get me STARTED on the fact that Poirot is the one who pushed Hastings & his wife together! Poirot did that. HE'S the one who interfered. AND HE SECRETLY REGRETTED IT FROM THE GET GO!! BUT HE THOUGHT IT WAS THE """RIGHT""" THING TO DO so he DID IT ANYWAY
Which makes me think he basically looked at his ever-growing feelings for Hastings and was like
WELP I AM BUT A SHORT CATHOLIC MAN TIME TO GET SOMEONE TO PUT THESE FORBIDDEN FEELINGS^TM UP ON A HIGH SHELF WHERE I CANNOT REACH THEM OH YES HELLO MADEMOISELLE I SEE THAT MY FRIEND IS INTERESTED IN YOU I THINK YOU CAN HELP ME WITH SOMETHING I MEAN HAVE A NICE HAPPY LIFE WITH HIM YES HE IS SOMETIMES A BIT STUPID BUT HE IS A VERY GOOD MAN & HE WILL TREAT YOU WELL...
and I think Poirot may have thought that pushing Hastings away from him & into a marriage would Make It All Hurt Less^TM. Because at least then, Hastings would get his 'Happily Ever After'. But. Then Hastings comes back from Argentina. & reveals that he's not actually having much of a 'Happily Ever After' after all. & Poirot suddenly realises that he severely miscalculated and it all hurts SO MUCH WORSE than he had originally anticipated
Still. Poirot is like. Welp. I helped do this. & Hastings Swears that His Wife is a Lovely Person & that They Are Happy Together. So although this hurts. I will Suffer in Silence for the Good Of My Friend^TM
AND THEN HASTINGS HAS TO GO & OPEN HIS BIG MOUTH AND SAY okay. I mean. He doesn't TECHNICALLY SAY it this way. But I watch this Scene & this is what I hear:
Hastings: Don't Worry Poirot, Maybe Someone Will Come Along Who Wants To Marry You
Like Maybe That One Hot Lady Who Really Seems To Like You?
Really, this is coming from a place of caring. Hastings is trying to tell Poirot that He Is Obviously Desirable Because A Hot Lady was Totally Giving Him the Time of Day & Hey Poirot Maybe This Means You Can Be Happy^TM Like Me
Hastings really is a sweetheart of a man who just wants his best friend to be happy too. Unfortunately for Hastings, Poirot finds it SO EASY to lead him astray that he doesn't realise that Poirot actually wants HIM, not that hot actress lady. So his suggestion falls TERRIBLY flat
& Poirot's reaction is:
Poirot: ... ...... *immediately changes the subject* WILL YOU HAVE SOME WINE CHIEF INSPECTOR
NOT TO 'PSYCHOLOGY' THIS, LADS, BUT UH. THAT'S CLASSIC AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOUR. JUST LIKE HE AVOIDED HIS FEELINGS FOR HASTINGS BY HANDING THEM OFF TO THE FIRST MADEMOISELLE HE SAW THAT GAVE HASTINGS THE TIME OF DAY
& then there's Me, sitting there watching this scene & thinking too hard about it like:
I wrote you all an essay about the main conflict in 12.3 Murder on the Orient Express. Because we all know how I love to overthink things. And this got long, so the rest of the essay is under a readmore below.
The major conflict of the story in Murder on the Orient Express is not the solving of the murder. It is Poirot struggling to balance his own identity, resolve, & convictions with his faith and his senses of morality & justice that stem from that faith.
And this episode does NOT fuck around when showing us this conflict.
This episode hits the ground running, with Poirot finding a person guilty of being mixed up in a huge scandal, and then WITNESSING that person commit suicide.
We hear Poirot's own understanding of whether or not justice was served when he talks to the dead guy's crewmate in the next scene, but... the answer to that question is left vague... undefined... unbounded. In other words, Poirot begins the episode struggling with whether or not he handled the situation well... and this sets the whole tone for the entire remainder of the story, because he struggles with a series of this exact kind of dilemma for the rest of the episode.
Immediately following that scene, we have a scene set in Istanbul where he witnesses an ""adulteress"" (and who knows if she was an actual adulteress or a victim of rape...the story doesn't tell us) being stoned to death by an angry mob. Poirot witnesses this, and then, with a deep frown and a sense that he's as disturbed by this as he is about the suicide he witnessed... he turns and walks away.
Then, Poirot is called back to London, and he's shoehorned into the first class car on the Orient Express at the last minute, and we're given... THIS interesting scene.
Being a last minute guest, he's forced to share this cabin with another person, who happens to be a strapping young man... and we see Poirot looking like he's trying not to stare at his half-naked young cabin mate, but... looking anyway. ...and then feeling uncomfortable about it.
And at first, it wasn't clear to me why this scene would even be in the episode, but personally, I think this scene was included to show us that there are sides to Poirot's identity that he may like to deny or ignore, but... they're still there. We've seen in the series that he tends to put those sorts of feelings up on a high shelf where he doesn't have to think about them... but sometimes, like in this scene, he's forced to confront these uncomfortable truths about himself, and when he is (just as he is when we see him struggling with whether or not he handled the scandal situation well), nine times out of ten, he chooses to either ignore the answers to these questions, or leave them undefined.
Then, after this scene, he talks to one of the people on the train who also witnessed the stoning of the "adulteress". The other witness asks him why he didn't interfere and stop those horrible people from stoning that woman, and he says,
"In the case of other cultures, I find it is best not to interfere."
And she walks away, appearing disgusted with him, but... what was he supposed to say? What could he have done? He tries to explain to her that he was disgusted by the situation, too; the situation rattled him too, but what was HE, Hercule Poirot, supposed to do? Interfering in that situation could have literally gotten him killed! And for what??
Kind of in the midst of this conversation, he introduces himself to another person who is passing in the hall, and he says his name kind of quietly.
But when that person leaves, he repeats his own name, aloud. To no one at all.
At first, I wasn't sure WHY he did that, but I've done a lot of thinking about it, and... I think, everything that's happened up to this point in the episode has really shaken his convictions about his own identity. He repeated his own name here because he needed something to affirm who he is. But if you go back, you can see on his face that, when he says his name as he's introducing himself, when he says it so softly and quietly, it must sound so hollow to him. Empty.
Who is Hercule Poirot anymore?
Is he someone who knows the difference between right and wrong? Is he someone who does the right thing? Is he someone who knows where his own responsibilities begin and where the responsibilities of others end?
"Hercule. Poirot."
He repeats his name as if to say: He is Hercule Poirot. He is a detective. He is a catholic. He is one man. He is not the supreme arbiter of justice.
Then, we see Poirot affirming his identity again when this sleazy guy Cassetti tries to buy his services (in a really... fucked up way)...
"Do you believe in God, Mister Poirot? ... I think he's like an extra gun. Extra protection..."
You're gonna do a job for me, Mister Poirot ...
You're gonna protect me ... You start now.
& Poirot says NO. He refuses this guy. Because Hercule Poirot cannot be bought with brusque, self-important bribery in a religious hat.
Then, we have this scene that shows Poirot reaffirming his identity yet again, this time through his own faith. He is a Catholic. From the place of his faith and the moral code that comes with it, he knows what is right and wrong. What is just and unjust. He knows his place in the world, and he knows what is his own responsibility... and what is God's.
So when we have him investigating the murder of Cassetti, the sleazeball who tried to hire him, and we watch as he slowly realises what was done...
12 different stab wounds... 12 different killers....
And we watch him as he realises what he has before him is a group of people who has taken upon themselves the roles of judges, jury, and executioners. And to be honest? Personally? I am on their side 100%.
And in that moment, Poirot is forced to ask himself... how is the murder committed by this group of people any different than the one committed by the crowd of people who stoned that woman at the beginning of the episode?
In one sense, yes, we have more information about the details of this particular person's crime than we do about the "adulteress'" alleged crime. ...but the group of people who took it upon themselves to administer their idea of justice & kill someone? That part of the scenario is exactly the same. So what is the right thing to do here?
And Poirot is OBVIOUSLY struggling to answer this question. On the one hand, his strict conviction--his very FAITH--tells him that it is wrong to murder people under any circumstances. As far as he's concerned, whatever a person may or may not have done is between that person and God. To Poirot, God is the only one with the authority to administer the kind of justice that would cost someone their life.
"THEN YOU LET GOD ADMINISTER IT!!"
This moral code--this integral part of his faith--is the source for his belief that it was wrong for the man at the beginning to kill himself for his involvement in the scandal. It's the source for his belief that it was wrong for the people at the beginning to stone that woman to death for being an adulteress.
But he also decided it would be wrong to interfere in those first two scenarios. In the first, he could not interfere, partially because it happened too fast for anything to be done about it. But in the second, he did not believe that it was his place to interfere.
And now, he's faced with this third scenario. And it is so frighteningly similar to the stoning, but here, there is a major difference: in this case, unlike with the stoning, he IS in a position to interfere.
Where he was not involved in the stoning, he is involved in this case, whether he likes it or not. In this case, he is the detective who investigated the murder, and he knows the most intricate details of it. He knows exactly why it happened. He can SEE that this is a group of twelve mostly GOOD people who have been terribly wronged. And they've been wronged twofold: first by Cassetti, who ruined all of their lives, and second by the system that let that man walk free when he should have been removed from society for his horrible crimes.
Poirot can absolutely understand why these 12 killers felt the need to do what they did, but he has his faith (and from it his moral conviction): it was STILL WRONG for them to administer that justice themselves. It was not their responsibility. It is God's.
And as he's standing on that precipice, asking himself the burning question: I have to power to interfere here... do I interfere? Do I walk away?
And in that moment, he resolves to interfere. To do what he believes is right. To reaffirm once and for all that murdering someone is wrong under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
...and yet.
...He still struggles with whether or not that's the right decision.
And in the scene after he makes that resolultion, when he's talking to the woman who planned it all, she explains a bit about why she felt it was necessary.
"When you've been denied justice, you are incomplete. It feels that god has abandoned you... in a stark place. I asked god--I think we all did--what we should do, and he said: 'do what is right'. And I thought, if I did, it would make me complete again."
And Poirot (who has been struggling with the same question he knows she has to have been struggling with, too) hits the nail on the head when he asks:
"And are you?"
And she doesn't answer him.
The unspoken answer is NO.
She did what she thought was right... and she doesn't feel complete again at all.
"....But I did what was RIGHT."
And Poirot's unspoken response, the one written in his eyes, is:
Yes. You did what you felt was right. But in the end... was it worth it?
And this is the same question Poirot has been stuggling with.
You have the power to either destroy these people's lives or let them go free. Do you interfere, or do you walk away? Do you make the decision for them, or do you treat it as if it was never your choice to make in the first place?
...Okay, so you've resolved to do the "right" thing... but... in the end...
Will it be worth it?
And I think that's why he walks away.
He walks away from this mess just as he does from the stoning because... in the end. It won't be worth it to interfere. And as far as he is concerned, whatever these people may or may not have done, it's not his responsibility--it is NOT the responsibility of Hercule Poirot--to administer justice to these people.
It's God's.
But you can see on his face, as he's walking away... going against his resolve because it's not up to him to make the ultimate decision for somebody else? And to have that be a lesson he had to endure learning THREE TIMES IN RAPID SUCCESSION?
It all hurts him SO MUCH. It CUTS him right to his CORE.
And it's a lesson that hurts because it's been forcing him to question things he had always thought he was SO SURE of. And these are really tough questions:
What is right and what is wrong?
What is justice? What is morality?
Who gets to decide what all of those things are?
Who has the right to administer justice under what circumstances?
And... most devastatingly...
Who is Hercule Poirot?
And he learns...
That the answers are just as complex & messy as those questions.
Hi! if you like this essay, please consider dropping some pocket change in my tip jar on ko-fi!
