Show: Agatha Christie’s Poirot
Episode
Particulars: S1EP2, “Murder in the Mews”, original airdate January 15th,
1989.
Standalone
Thoughts: I know we should always try to cut a new show some slack in the
first season as it learns the ropes, but I have to say, this is a pretty weak
showing. It feels like a lot more time is spent on inconsequential matters,
like Poirot’s shirt collars being too starched, than on investigating the
crime. And while I know Poirot’s fussiness is a big part of his character, we
didn’t need two scenes to discuss it, especially since it never ties into the
main story. Furthermore, the show tips its hand way too early about what’s
going on, so much so that I was initially convinced they were trying to set up
a red herring. I suppose the fact that they weren’t
is a surprise for those of us who are familiar with how Agatha Christie
stories work, but it was very sloppily done, I feel.
There’s also the little matter of the casual racism.
Poirot expresses horror that his laundry is done by Chinese people, there’s
some pidgin English (though I don’t think it descends into full Engrish), and a
nightclub we see in a later scene is probably not one that would ever be
considered acceptable today. I actually kind of thought we were going to find
out it was an opium den, that’s how bad it got. I’m honestly not sure how to
feel about this; on the one hand, the show is (presumably) staying true to the
original story, and it’s good that they aren’t shying away from the more
unpleasant aspects. On the other, well, it doesn’t exactly make for comfortable
viewing.
If there’s one thing I like about this episode, though,
it’s Chief Inspector Japp. Hastings doesn’t really get a lot to do this
episode, so Japp has to be Poirot’s foil. But instead of doing Hasting’s shtick
of getting wild ideas or saying something ignorant, Japp is very professional,
and picks up on Poirot’s train of thought fairly quickly. He also gets some
good banter in with Poirot, and is overall very personable. Then later on, he
gets a scene where he’s interviewing a suspect, and he becomes extremely
serious, almost threatening at times. Jackson does a fantastic job this
episode, and I think single-handedly keeps the episode from being outright bad
for me. Not the most impressive accomplishment, but an accomplishment
nevertheless.
One other thing of note. My favorite part of mysteries is
the reveal scene, when the detective gathers everyone together and lays out how
the crime was done. So far, the show’s rendering of those scenes hasn’t been
very strong, but at least there’s evidence that they’re improving. In “The
Adventure of the Clapham Cook”, Poirot just explained what happened to Japp,
with very little fanfare or flashbacks. Today, we get some flashbacks, but only
one of the suspects (along with Hastings and Japp) is around to hear it. We’ll
have to see if it gets better next time, or if this is a formula the
showrunners are going to have to play with for a while before they figure it
out.
Number of Tropes
Followed/Subverted: We’ve got a 2/15 for tropes, a 2/15 in subversions, and
an indeterminate position for “Playing Fair”. One of the tropes and one of the
subversions are spoilers, but there’s a clear case of “Fingerprints or Lack Thereof”,
and “Got a Light?” pretty obviously comes into play on the subversion side.
Originally, I also put “Playing Fair” in the subversion list, because I felt we
get some of the clues but had some of the key pieces of evidence hidden from
us. But then I rewatched the scene where Poirot and Japp investigate the scene
of the crime, and realized that it’s entirely possible that time has changed so
much that clues that would have been obvious to people in the 30’s just sail
completely over my head. What looks like a period appropriate prop to me might
actually be a very important clue (as was the case here), but I wouldn’t
recognize it. As such, I withhold judgment on the matter this time around.
Other: *After
Hastings mentions several times that someone could be shot on Guy Fawkes Day
and no one would hear it, he leaves Poirot and Japp and walks down a darkened
street to either get or check up on his car (I’m not sure which). The next day,
Japp calls Poirot and informs him that Hastings’ musing had come to pass…right
in the area where they left Hastings. I was gearing up for Hastings to be the
prime suspect, but nothing ever comes of it; it never even seems to cross Japp
or Poirot’s minds. I admit to being a little disappointed, actually. Sure,
Agatha Christie fans will know it couldn’t have been Hastings, but it would
have been interesting to see how having Hastings as a suspect would have played
out.
*I will say one thing in this episode’s favor; it’s got
some great sets and décor. In particular, there are little glimpses of Art Deco
scattered about, especially in Miss Plenderlieth’s apartment. And given that
that’s a style I appreciate, well…
*We finally get a date for the show; 1935. Which just
makes me all the more convinced that Poirot’s comment about banks in “The
Adventure of the Clapham Cook” was probably out of place.
Most Interesting
Character: We’ve got another case with very few major players, so much so
that none of them are ever in the same room together. Still, one of them made
an immediate impression, and that one was;
Freddie (Nicholas Delve)
He’s only in one scene, but he’s memorable. Part of it’s
because he talks fast and has an accent that it takes my American brain a few
seconds to parse, but mostly it’s because he’s observant, helpful, and has just
a hint of sass when he’s paid for his efforts. He’s the only supporting
character who shows any real personality, and perhaps that’s why I like him.
I enjoyed this episode very much and thought that there was a lot running below the surface. I agree with you about Japp, he was very good and we see a bit of why he is a Chief Inspector. I also agree that Freddie was well played and well written.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found interesting about this episode is that is made the world of Poirot a more fully realized and interesting world. The physical settings remain impressive...I particularly loved the look and the details of the victim's house; it felt right.
However, there was more than the physical settings - there was attention to the social setting of this world that also felt right for the times. There is of course the constant references to the Chinese or more properly the Orient as it was known to many at the time. Britain had a fascination with Orientalism and with India and that fascination was loaded with stereotype and more than a touch of racism. That shows in Poirot's shock that his English named laundry is owned by a Chinese person, in Hastings having been in China and NEVER learning any of the language (hence the Pidgin) and of course by the tawdry bar which if not dispensing opium, was clearly offering the companionship of the "Oriental" bar girls who were sitting in the guys laps. Every aspect of that bar seemed seedy and disreputable and Japp clearly disapproved of the manager and gave him a proper verbal working over. I think all those references were not intended to be funny but to show yet another part of the world Poirot inhabits and not a pretty one either.
Which is also true of the exploration of attitudes toward homosexuality. I think we are supposed to assume that Jane is a lesbian with strong feelings for the "murdered" woman and that the actual moral "crime" that the woman are afraid will be exposed to the fiancé is that his bride to be was having a lesbian relationship. Everyone talks something else and more conventionally acceptable, but I feel that homosexuality is the real subtext.
There is so much pointing in that direction. Think how Japp explains Jane's "profession" with barely concealed contempt - "a photographer - or something like that." Think of the "art" photographs taken of the dead woman by Jane. Think of Jane's anger at the marriage and her quick "Oh, of course it was blackmail...why didn't I see it before?" And then how no one asked Jane what her friend was being blackmailed over? And of course the blackmailer met her in India where the two women also met.
And then there is the fiancé. Why would a beautiful woman want to marry such a dead fish? How about money and power and social standing with little fear of having to get too involved sexually with the man? A great choice if you don't like men too much. It seems that the MP has at least some inkling of the possible interests of his fiancé since he does point out that when they got married, he would bar a number of her friends (including Jane I am sure) from their house.
Viewed in this light, there is much more of interest such as some sly contrasts with Poirot's relationship with Hastings. Hmmm, OK looking guy with no discernable job or talents hanging around the rooms of a wealthy single gent. Likes to put on overalls and do manly stuff like tinker around (knowledgeably too) with cars while the other man fusses about his appearance and his scratchy collars? What really IS the difference between the relationship between the two ladies and our two heroes? What the show shows us is that men could live with men and women with women but social conventions had to be preserved. If they weren't, society would extract a price. Either Poirot and Hastings were properly observing those conventions or men were cut more of break then women then or both.
Another interesting perspective that I didn't pick up on, or only scratched the surface of. Perhaps my problem with Poirot was less that they haven't aged well and more that I didn't grow up with a knowledge of coded messages about class or sexuality. Then again, we never really learned much about 1930's society in school, so maybe that has something to do with it too. All the more reason why it's good to get a different perspective. And it least it means that Poirot is still enjoyable to some people, if they know how to approach the material.
ReplyDelete