Show: Agatha Christie’s Poirot
Episode
Particulars: S3EP7, “The Double Clue”, original airdate February 10, 1991.
Summary: Inspector
Japp has called upon Poirot to solve a case that could lead to Japp losing his
job; someone has been perpetrating a series of large jewel robberies lately.
And soon, there’s another robbery to add to the pile, when an emerald necklace
that belonged to Catherine de Medici is stolen from a safe at a party given by Marcus
Hardman (David Lyon). The only clues are a glove and a cigarette case with the
initials “B.P.” on them. When Poirot starts investigating, he meets one of the
guests who attended the party, a Russian emigrée named Countess Vera Rossakoff
(Kika Markham), and is immediately smitten with her. He starts to court her,
leaving Japp in the lurch and Hastings and Miss Lemon to pick up the slack.
This doesn’t go as badly as you expect, but then again, the episode doesn’t
seem all that interested in exploring it.
Standalone
Thoughts: I take back what I said in “The Plymouth Express”; that episode’s
biggest sin was pulling in a villain out of nowhere, not that it was boring.
No, this episode’s biggest sin is
being boring. At least the “Plymouth Express” got an annoyed reaction out of
me, whereas this one has barely anything that stands out.
Oh, there are a few bits here and there, both good and
bad. There’s some banter between Hastings and Poirot at the very start of the
episode that’s charming, while the singing scenes that are there to establish
what everyone is doing while the robbery is taking place definitely go on for
far too long (longer if you’re not an opera fan). Most of the time, however,
the episode is on a very muted register. There are long stretches where Poirot
and Countess Rossakoff are just walking and talking quietly, with soft, almost
romantic music playing in the background, and no witty lines or pretty
surroundings to add some life to proceedings. On a related note, Hastings and
Miss Lemon seem both shocked and saddened by Poirot’s sudden interest in
romance, with one exchange in particular making it sound like they’ll never be
able to see him again if he decides to get married. Miss Lemon losing her job I
can sort of believe, but why would Hastings have to start wondering what to do
if Poirot got married? Sure, he’d have to find his own place (although as I’ve
mentioned, it’s not always clear if he actually lives with Poirot or not), but
that can’t be as expensive as going travelling or moving to South America. And
while Poirot would probably be wrapped up in his relationship in the early
days, he’d eventually want to go back to solving mysteries or spending time
with his friends. The point is, they’re treating it as something much more
dramatic than it actually is, and by blowing it out of proportion, it just
starts sounding ridiculous.
As for the mystery, there’s not that much there either.
They spend way too much time on the robbery itself, then it feels like they
dedicate more time to Poirot’s romance than looking for clues or trying to
solve it. It also features an astounding coincidence involving multiple
suspects with the initials B.P. and an ending that might not sit right with
everybody. In fact, I had a similar reaction back in “The King of Clubs”, but
it didn’t faze me today. Which just goes to show that the episode was so dull
that it couldn’t even spark a reaction in me, despite it being a topic that
clearly doesn’t sit well with me. I suppose that’s an accomplishment, but not
one to be proud of.
Number of Tropes
Followed/Subverted: We have a fair few pop up in this one—while there’s
only 1/15 tropes, there’s a whopping 3/15 subversions and one that could go either way. The trope is an arguable case of
“Suspects in Love”, although in this case, it’s not two suspects so much as it
is Poirot and one of the suspects. Still, romance is involved, and so I’m
willing to count it. Subversion-wise, we’ve got one spoiler, but then there’s
also a “Got a Light?” frameup and a very clear case of “There’s More to Life
Than Murder”. The either way is “Playing Fair”, because while there’s at least
one blatantly obvious clue, another clue hinges on you knowing something that
I’m not sure is common knowledge (either in the 30’s, the 90’s, or now). If you
pushed me, though, I guess I’d say “Playing Fair” falls on the trope side…but
only because the material makes it kind of obvious.
Other: *This
episode has two potential recurring elements. I haven’t read a lot of the
Poirot stories, but I’ve read or listened to enough audiobooks of them to know
that Countess Rossakoff is a semi-recurring character, who appears in at least
one other story. At the same time, Hastings makes a mention of wanting to go to
South America and be a farmer, and while I don’t know if he ever does that
specifically, I’m almost positive that he does eventually move to South
America. Continuity isn’t always Poirot’s
strong suit, but there’s a good chance the episodes will follow the books
in this case, and I will be sure to report back if that turns out to be true.
*I was informed by a history buff I know that Rossakoff’s
claim that she used to have a large house in Petrograd makes no sense, because
while St. Petersburg has gone through numerous name changes over the years, it
was only known as “Petrograd” for a brief period (ten years according to
Wikipedia), and Rossakoff would probably have grown up knowing it as “St. Petersburg”.
I must assume this was an attempt at being historically accurate that failed
miserably.
Most Interesting
Character: We’ve got another case where a character wins this category
solely by virtue of having more personality than everyone else;
Bernard Parker (David Bamber)
Admittedly, the fact that he stands out has less to do
with Bamber’s performance and more the fact that you keep tilting your head at
him, wondering if he’s playing Parker as drunk, shifty, or gay. Arguments can
be made for all three of these, and there’s no direct answer given. But at
least it gives you something to focus your attention on.
No comments:
Post a Comment