Show: Agatha Christie’s Poirot
Episode
Particulars: S3EP8, “The Mystery of the Spanish Chest”, original airdate
February 17th, 1991.
Standalone
Thoughts: I believe there’s a saying out there that the beginning and
ending are the most important parts of a piece of media. The beginning has to
get you interested, and the ending needs to make you think the media was worth
your time. In the case of this episode, the beginning and the ending are the
most memorable parts of the story…but that’s not necessarily a good thing.
The reason the opening is memorable is because it’s
bizarre. It’s shot in sepia tones, and features a fencing duel, which is on the
one hand neat if you like that sort of thing (for the record, I do), but just
winds up raising a lot of questions. What does this have to do with anything? Why
is the guy who’s officiating the duel German, when we find out later that this
duel took place in England? And most notably, what is with the outfits they’re
wearing? I mean, look at this;
It looks like something out of steampunk or a cheesy
horror movie from the 50’s. I presume this was normal fencing gear for the
time, but it just looks surreal.
At any rate, the opening does catch your attention, if
only because you want to know what this has to do with the mystery.
Unfortunately, it takes a while before it connects to the story, and when it
does, it’s not hard for the viewers to put all the pieces together and figure
out what’s going on, despite still having at least ten minutes of the episode
left. In the meantime, the mystery itself isn’t very engaging, with several
different pieces of information that are obviously connected but are presented
in such a way that they all feel somewhat unrelated to each other, so it’s hard
to get invested in what it all means. For example, there’s a scene where a
character makes some plans, and then we have the party scene. There’s enough of
a transition that we suspect we know how one relates to the other, but they’re
so distant from each other that they could probably be dropped into different
episodes with little trouble. I guess the best way to describe it is that it
forms a coherent whole, but while you can see the connecting tissue, it’s a
pretty flimsy connection.
There are other problems too. There’s not much
opportunity for any of the regulars to have a character moment, which I’ve
already established weakens Poirot
episodes considerably. None of the supporting characters are interesting or
likable, so it’s hard to care about them. Key pieces of information are
introduced late in the game. And while the reveal does include flashbacks, it
still feels pretty lackluster. Though I suppose that’s fitting given everything
else about the episode.
Fortunately (depending on your point of view), we then
get the climax, which features another swordfight. It injects some excitement
into proceedings, but is undermined slightly by the nagging thought that this
entire situation exists only for the sake of drama. In the real world, it makes
much more sense to call the police, not orchestrate a duel. So while part of me
is grateful the scene exists, another part feels like it’s just a cheap trick.
Still, it does allow the episode to end on a high note; without it, I’d
probably consider this episode on par with “The Double Clue”. Instead, it’s
ranked slightly higher, though not by much.
Number of Tropes
Followed/Subverted: Only 1/15 tropes, no subversions, and two I’m on the
fence about. The trope is pretty clearly “An Affair to Forget”, because while
it’s not directly spelled out, there’s more than enough material present that I
say it counts. As for the uncertainties, there’s a moment that very much feels
like “Coincidental Comment”, but we’re never given any indication of what made
Poirot realize the truth. And then there’s “Playing Fair”; the episode kind of
telegraphs who the killer is early on, but at the same time, there’s enough
uncertainty that it’s not obvious. Furthermore, the mystery is poorly laid out,
so even if you correctly guessed who it was, it doesn’t necessarily make sense
or feel satisfying. I guess it would ultimately count as a subversion, but
opinions will probably vary on this one.
Other: *At one
point, a character makes a very gratuitous racist comment about Jazz music.
This serves no purpose to the story at best, and at worst calls this person’s
character into question, which has a bit of impact on the plot. It would have
been better for multiple reasons to leave that line out entirely.
*Whoever designed this jail has a warped sense of humor;
That is clearly an eyeball painted in the middle of the
viewscreen for the door. As if being in jail wasn’t bad enough without having a
clear indication that you’re constantly being watched. It’s like something Big
Brother came up with.
Most Interesting
Character: I had barely anything to work with in regards to the four
biggest supporting characters. It took some thinking before I finally decided
on;
Major Rich
Part of this was entirely for shallow reasons; he looks a
lot like Andrew Ryan from the game Bioshock, and since I like that game, it was as good a reason as
any. Fortunately, he also helps his case by participating in one of the
swordfights, which shows both skill and a certain nobility. It’s still not much
to work with, but I’ll take it. Especially since…
We Interrupt These
Reviews for a Breaking News Bulletin: After careful consideration, I have
decided to abandon this TV series. While it hasn’t been truly awful to watch,
it also hasn’t held up at all, and my memory of the later episodes suggests
that it’s not going to get better. So instead of wasting my time and yours, I
will be moving on to another show. Fortunately, by sheer coincidence, I have
watched just enough episodes of Poirot that
I will still have 366 reviews on this site, so the basic idea of this project,
at least, will continue as planned, even if I needed to change my original list
of shows to review.
I do feel like I should give this show somewhat of a
wrap-up, though, so here’s my best attempt. The reason I’m quitting is mostly
because the stories aren’t very engaging. Even though the acting of David
Suchet, Hugh Fraser, Philip Jackson, and Pauline Moran is excellent, it’s not
enough to make up for the plots they’re in. Despite three years of practice,
the showrunners can’t seem to nail down a proper formula. Some episodes
contained too much padding, while others focused solely on the mystery and sucked
the life out of the characters. Some episodes made it blatantly obvious who the
killer/thief was, and some didn’t even remotely play fair. I’d gone into this
thinking the mysteries were smart enough to give us all the facts but still
surprise us at the end, or put creative twists on the usual tropes. That
doesn’t seem to be happening, and while perhaps it’s a problem with the short
stories instead of the novels, I don’t want to have to keep pushing through the
weaker stuff to find out. Especially since I know some of the more modern
episodes really messed with Christie’s original plots.
Perhaps I brought some of this on myself by paying really
close attention to the tropes, and thus consciously or subconsciously started
noticing patterns that detracted from my enjoyment. It seems unlikely, though,
because it wasn’t the tropes that were the problem, it was the execution.
Besides, as I’m pretty sure other people have said before me, you can’t shut
your brain off for a mystery story. The entire point of a mystery is that you’re playing along, trying to guess
who did it. I suppose you can just kind of let the story wash over you without
participating in it, but you lose some of the fun that way. In the case of Poirot, it’s not very fun to play along,
again because it’s either obvious or because it’s withholding information from
you. And even if you aren’t keeping an eye on the tropes like I was, I think
that would still be the case.
Despite all this, though, I can’t quite bring myself to
say this isn’t worth watching. Maybe it’s lingering affection for having seen and
enjoyed the show as a teenager, maybe it’s the acting or the setting that keeps
it from being straight out bad, but I don’t actively hate the show or think
it’s a complete waste of time. Besides, the show does seem to be pretty highly
regarded, so it’s entirely possible I’m just going against the grain again, as
I so often unintentionally do. So the best I can suggest is this; try a few
different samples of the show, which is thankfully possible in this case thanks
to the fact that the stories aren’t directly interconnected. Check out the
summaries of the various episodes and watch at least three of them. Make sure
you get one of the shorter episodes, one of the full length movies from the
90’s, and one of the full length movies from the 2000’s. That way, you get a
taste of the three different styles. If you like what you see, you can go from
there (although I wouldn’t recommend binge watching them, which may be another
one of my issues). If not, well, at least you can take comfort that you didn’t
sink as much time into the show as I did.
And with that, I bid a bittersweet au revoir to Hercule Poirot. But we aren’t moving away from
mysteries entirely. Instead, I’ll be replacing Poirot with a different detective, one who’s a bit more unorthodox
and the exact opposite of fussy…
No comments:
Post a Comment