Day 174: Poirot, The Adventure of the Clapham Cook

As I not-so-subtly hinted yesterday, my next set of reviews will be for the Poirot TV series, which I think we can all agree is the polar opposite of a futuristic sci-fi show. So let's get down to it.

Show: Agatha Christie’s Poirot

Episode Particulars: S1EP1, “The Adventure of the Clapham Cook”, original airdate January 8^th, 1989.

For those of you wondering why I’m including the original airdates this time around, the answer is because there were some significant gaps between episodes, especially in the later years. Therefore, the dates are worth noting, and could wind up leading to talking points in the reviews. But it’ll be awhile before we get to that point, so for now, just sit back and enjoy.

 Summary: Belgian detective Hercule Poirot (David Suchet) is looking for an interesting case worthy of his time. He initially has no interest in helping Mrs. Todd (Brigit Forsyth) find her cook, Eliza Dunn, but changes his mind after a few well-chosen words. Beginning his investigation, he learns that Ms. Dunn left the house on Wednesday night and didn’t return, though she sent a letter asking the Todds to send her her things. Poirot dedicates a lot of time and effort into searching for Ms. Dunn, and the more he looks, the more he begins to suspect that the case had bigger ramifications than he thought. Not that anybody he interacts with sees it that way, of course.

Standalone Thoughts: On the one hand, the episode itself is perfectly fine. As a pilot episode, it’s an odd choice. It very much doesn’t feel like a pilot; other than a slow pan to gradually reveal Poirot’s face (something that’s rendered moot if you watched the opening credits), the episode is just…matter of fact. Poirot and his friend Arthur Hastings (Hugh Fraser) already live together, Poirot already has his secretary Miss Lemon (Pauline Moran), and Chief Inspector Japp (Philip Jackson) has clearly encountered Poirot before. You’d be forgiven if you thought this was one of the episodes from the middle of the series—in fact, some DVD collections (mine included) do put it somewhere in the middle. Since I have no idea how the British schedule TV shows (and I don’t believe there’s any sort of Poirot Companion out there), I have no explanation for their choice. All I’ll say on the matter is I would have thought they’d have started off their show either with the story that first brought Poirot and Hastings together (which Wikipedia tells me is “The Mysterious Affair at Styles”), or gone for one of the more famous stories (although I’d probably have held off on “Murder on the Orient Express”). Like I said, though, there may have been reasons for choosing this story instead, so this is just my two cents.

Anyway, despite having a lot of things already established, if you do watch this episode knowing that it’s the pilot, there’s one sign that this was the first outing, and that’s Poirot himself. Suchet already has a lot of Poirot’s mannerisms down, but Poirot seems a little nicer than I remember. He’s got less of an ego, he doesn’t seem perpetually exasperated by Hastings, and when Mrs. Todd calls him out on thinking he’s too good for “common” cases, he admits to being wrong, apologizes, and graciously takes the case. Whether or not this is the usual first season (or series, as they call them in Britain) rough edges or a case of me misremembering Poirot’s character remains to be seen.

Focusing on the episode itself…like I said, it’s fine. The pacing is pretty good, Suchet, Fraser, and Jackson all play their roles well, and the mystery goes in some interesting directions. That being said, the supporting cast is bare bones (there are ultimately only five characters of any real note), and a few developments happen a little too fast. If you tuned into it randomly, you’d probably like it. Seeing it as a pilot, it would hold my attention, but wouldn’t necessarily make me want to tune in next time. Then again, this seems like a show you’d catch sporadically anyway, so maybe that was what the showrunners were going for.

Number of Tropes Followed/Subverted: Because Poirot is more episodic and about each individual case, there isn’t really an overarching plot in this show the way there was in Deep Space Nine (and will be in the other material I watch after this). So for the duration, “How it Relates to the Whole” has been replaced by this segment, where I will be drawing from a collection of tropes I’ve compiled from various sources and determining how many of the tropes appear in that episode, and, where applicable, how many were brought up but then used in a different way. Be warned; I won’t give away specific details (and will occasionally not name some of the tropes used to avoid spoilers), but just the names of the tropes may be enough to spoil some elements for you. Keep that in mind if you’re interested in watching and deducing the mystery for yourself.

(For the curious, I took my tropes from this post by Zoe Fraade-Blanar, “Twenty Rules for Writing Detective Fiction” by S. S. Van Dine, and Ronald Knox’s “Ten Commandments”. As you can see if you follow those links, I’m not applying all of them, partially to make my life easier but partially because some of them only apply to books/authors. And yes, a lot of these tropes probably come from the source material, but I thought this was an interesting idea, so…)

The tropes I’ll be looking at are as follows;

1. Playing Fair—Is the story presented in such a way that a viewer could put the pieces together before the big reveal? This will be a harder one to judge since I’ve seen most of them before, but I’ll do my best. I probably also won’t mention it directly unless it doesn’t play fair.

2. Funhouse Manor—Are there any secret passages or hidden rooms involved?

3. Actors Insulting Themselves—Is a character revealed to be an actor, and in turn, does that play a large part in the story?

4. Fingerprints or Lack Thereof—Either there are a complete lack of fingerprints, or the fingerprints are there to frame someone. Subverted if fingerprints are found, but there are good reasons for them to be there.

5. Ambiguous Foreigners—Are there characters from other countries involved, and if so, are they initially considered the prime suspect? If they do turn out to be the killer, I’ll consider this a subversion, though obviously I won’t mention that directly to avoid spoiling you.

6. Murder Obscura—Is the face of the victim destroyed, indicating that there’s something amiss? Tying this in with another trope, is there a dentist involved, and if yes, do dental records ever come into play?

7. The Butler Did it…Again—Is a servant initially considered to be the prime suspect? As with Ambiguous Foreigners, considered subverted if they actually are the killer, though I won’t mention that if that turns out to be the case.

8. Coincidental Comment—Does Poirot finally put all the pieces together because of an offhand comment by someone else, or by happening to see something that sparks an idea in his mind?

9. Stopped Clocks Are Wrong—Is the time of death that’s initially given eventually proven to be incorrect?

10. The Spy Who Killed Me—Was the victim murdered because they were part of some secret society, a spy, or some other shady group? Furthermore, is there any mention of Communists or Nazis that tie into the mystery? Will be considered subverted if that topic is addressed, but they turn out to be murdered for a different reason.

11. Family Resemblance—Does the answer to the mystery involve twins, long lost relatives, or illegitimate children?

12. Got a Light?—The criminal is revealed because they use the same cigarettes/perfume/shoe polish/etc. as were found at the crime scene. Subverted if it turns out to be a frame-up.

13. An Affair to Forget—Does any part of the plot involve a secret relationship between two characters, or possibly a pregnancy? It doesn’t have to be the reason for the murder; if the maid and the heir to the manor are seeing each other and both turn out to be innocent, that counts too. Which ties in nicely to…

14. Suspects in Love—Do two of the suspects fall in love with each other over the course of the mystery? Bonus points if one half of the couple does something risky (like confess to the crime) to protect the other.

15. There’s More to Life Than Murder—Is the plot about something other than a murder, or does the death turn out to be an accident or a suicide (this doesn’t count if the death was caused by somebody by accident, but they tried to cover it up; that’s still murder, but of the manslaughter variety) I don’t expect this one to come up as much, but it’s worth including on the subversion side if nothing else.

So, with all that being said…our first time out of the gate winds up making things difficult for me, due to the nature of the case. After some consideration, though, this episode contains 2.5/15 tropes, .5/15 subversions, and one that I’m not entirely sure how to classify. While I was able to put most of the pieces together on my own, the way Poirot deduced some of the answers weren’t actually shown to the audience, hence the 50/50 split when it comes to “Playing Fair”. As for the rest, I can’t mention the uncertain one without spoiling things, but there’s unquestionably some “Actors Insulting Themselves” and “Coincidental Comment” at play. I think we can all agree that this show’s relationship with tropes is off to an…interesting start.

Other: *Since we’re starting a new show, let’s talk about the opening credits. Unlike Deep Space Nine, where the visuals and the music were relatively uninteresting, Poirot’s opening is amazing on both counts. The jazzy piano and saxophone score is catchy, and it’s both short enough and has enough variety that it doesn’t get boring. As for visuals, it’s a glorious celebration of Art Deco and also offers up variety (as opposed to DS9, which was basically just shots of the station from several different angles). While I always skipped over the DS9 opening credits to save some time, I’m willing to take the extra minute or so to watch the credits for Poirot, if only to enjoy that music. Perhaps I’ll get bored after the twentieth time, but for now, it doesn’t seem like that unpleasant of a prospect.

*While Hastings is clearly meant to be slow on the uptake, I do appreciate that Poirot acknowledges that Hastings is better at one thing; the proper words for a situation. While Poirot is dictating a letter, Hastings offers a different word to use, and Poirot accepts it without question. Enjoy it while you can, Hastings; you aren’t going to be this lucky in most of the episodes.

*At one point, Poirot tries to reassure a bank manager that he shouldn’t feel too bad about a recent robbery, because, to paraphrase, it’s comforting to know that banks are fallible. I’m not sure what year this is supposed to take place, but speaking as an American, I don’t think people in the 30’s would have been quite that blasé about banks being robbed. Although to be fair, this could very well be a schadenfreude thing; no matter the era, I’m sure there were always people who enjoyed seeing wealthy, famous, or corporate types being brought down a peg.

Most Interesting Character: My unique feature for this show will be looking at the one-off cast of characters that populate each episode and choosing the one I personally deem the best. It could be for personality, dialogue, or maybe even simply fashion sense. I will attempt to justify my choices, but as always, these things are subjective.

There weren’t actually all that many characters with big roles in today’s episode, and very few of them did anything to make them stand out. So by process of elimination, our winner is;

Annie, the maid (Katy Murphy)

Annie takes this one for several reasons. She provides information that helps move the plot forward, her first scene is amusing (she believes Ms. Dunn was taken by white slavers), and her interactions with Poirot in her second scene are sweet (partially because Poirot is very nice to her). It’s a small part, but Murphy does well with it, and certainly stood out compared to the rest of her compatriots. I probably would have ignored her in an episode with more flamboyant characters, but at least here, she gets some time to shine.