Friday, 11 April 2014
POIROT - LOOPY LAPSES IN LOGIC DEPT...
I'm a big fan of the POIROT TV series, wherein the Belgian super-sleuth was definitively portrayed by DAVID SUCHET. Of course, PETER USTINOV did a fine job prior to Mr. Suchet, and ALBERT FINNEY won an award for his role as the detective in MURDER On The ORIENT EXPRESS. I don't really understand why, to be honest, as - good actor that Mr. Finney undoubtedly is - his version of Poirot was awful. His accent was all over the place, he sounded like he had a sore throat, and his performance was more suited to a pantomime than a big-budget movie.
But that's by the by. I've just watched The MYSTERIOUS AFFAIR At STYLES and was reminded of a glaring absurdity that no one seems to have picked up on. I read the book quite a while back, but I'm unsure after all this time if the TV episode takes certain bold liberties with AGATHA CHRISTIE's plot (as TV programmes often do) or whether it's faithful to how the authoress described events. If it's the latter case, then Agatha made a big-time boo-boo. (In fact, 'twas the TV show's oversight. See comments for details.)
So get this: The desperate murderer is in his victim's bedroom sometime after the fact, recovering a letter which incriminates him. He hears Poirot and company approaching along the hallway, stops to tear the letter into three vertical strips, twists them into tapers ('spills' Poirot calls them) for lighting the fire and pops them in with some others in a vase atop the fireplace. Then - get this - he exits through an adjoining door and makes himself scarce.
So here's my problem: Why didn't he simply take the letter with him and destroy it at his convenience, rather than leave it for Poirot to eventually discover and identify him as the murderer? To say nothing of risking getting caught by taking the time to tear the letter into strips. It makes absolutely no sense and is a 'crime' against logic, to say nothing of common sense.
It's a crime I'd like to see Poirot solve, but why not play detective and see if you can come up with a reasonable-sounding explanation for this loopy lapse in logic? You all know where the comments section is - so what are you waiting for?
(Incidentally, "Because then there wouldn't have been a story" won't be considered an acceptable answer.)
Posted by Kid at Friday, April 11, 2014