Why did Christine had to "act" the dead body on the beach while they could have used the real Arlena's unconscious body? They would:
- need less time
- not have to paint Christine brown
- avoid possible evidence (the bottle)
etc.
Why did they have to complicate it like that?
"Life is full of censorship. I can't spit in your eye." - Katharine Hepburn
Good point.
I always thought it would have been more natural for Christine to admit to taking the famous "bath" before her tennis game. She would have been sweaty from running anyway and a quick bath would have been a normal thing to do. It would have taken away one suspicious point.
Libbie
It would spoil the whole thing if Arlena suddenly woke up when she was unwillingly playing the part of her own corpse. Of course, she could still wake up in the cave, so they took a major chance when they didn't just kill her immediately.
"Please point that giraffe in another direction so we can get back to a pretty normal dialogue!"
Since Christine by her own wasn't able to kill Arlena (obvious reasons for that were explained by Poirot) they had to do this because Patrick didn't got the chance before.
However I thought it was quiet odd that Mrs. Gardner was a planned witness for that since it was more like a random question if she could come with Patrick - they didn't knew it before or did they?
"Cate Blanchetts scream in 'The Missing' has written Oscar all over it" Diogo Felipe a.k.a. VSW
Sorry, but if Christine were capable of knocking Arlena unconscious, there's no reason she couldn't have finished the job (either by suffocating her or bashing her brains in). She wouldn't even have had to drag her back onto her blanket. In fact it would be better if she were sprawled on the sand, obviously dead (for Mrs. Gardner's eye witness). Also, why hide a diamond (the one piece of evidence against you) in a pipe, which you conspicuously do not smoke? And then allow Poirot to take it away from you?
I have nothing against these "murder as parlor game" movies, but is it too much to ask for the story to make sense?
Yes, there are some awkward twists in the plot.
But then, there is no rule that crimes have to be flawlessly "elegant" in their planning and execution.
I always wondered, why didn't the man (sorry, forgot the name) light the pipe?
After all, diamonds can't be damaged by fire.
That would have been even more interesting. Non? :)
In Agatha Christie's novel, a fully-conscious Arlena hides in the cave when she sees Christine approaching down the ladder, and hides there until the coast is clear. Obviously, this raises different plot holes - somehow Christine has obtained a bathing costume and beach hat identical to Arlena's in advance, and the murderers run the substantial risk that the "live" Arlena might appear inconveniently from the cave whilst Miss Brewster (the witness in the book) is still on the beach.
Agatha Christie's intricate solution to the mystery is carried through into this film adaptation, but with the relatively minor alteration that Christine knocks Arlena out with a rock prior to assuming her position as the "body" on the beach. While the fact that Arlena is unconscious prior to Patrick and Mrs. Gardener's arrival on the beach renders such details as the fake tan unnecessary, they were integral clues in the novel and are as such retained.
In any case, if the murderer(s) behaved in the most logical manner and kept the details of the crime as simple as possible, it wouldn't be Agatha Christie, would it?
[deleted]
In the book, Arlena had been told to hide in the cave if she sees Mrs. Redfern coming. Arlena sees her, and then she runs and hide. We are also told that she cannot see the beach when she is in the cave, and has to wait there untill Patrick comes.
So, Christine comes down the ladder, Arlena hides, Christine takes on her swimmingsuit and lay down. Arlena is still in the cave since that is what she has been told.
Next, Patrick and Mrs. Gardiner come, see the body. Mrs. Gardiner takes the boat and hurries back.
Christine stands up, takes her clothes on and leaves up the ladder. Now, it is time for Patrick to kill. He goes to the cave where Arlena is still waiting. He kisses her and strangles her. In the book she is very much alive and well when she hides in the cave.
Patrick has bought two identical swimming outfit. One for Arlena, which he asks her to wear that day, and another for his wife.
Christine could not have told anyone about the shower she took, since that would have broken her alibi. According to her, she had no time to take a bath at all.
You are right, the plot is too constructed. Since I write myself crime stories I would have changed it this way: After Christine faked her alibi with the clock (brilliant idea by Christie) she murdered Arlena. The dead body would be found by someone then (of course not Patrick because he needs an alibi).
Even if Poirot thinks Christine did it he would have no proof.
This would be a more simple version.
The problem with this simple version is that it takes away the puzzle and little clues for Poirot to solve that make murder mysteries so much fun.
If she simply murdered Arlena and had an alibi from the changed time on the watch then it doesn't really give Poirot the brilliant reveal sequence of events at the end.
Babies kill TV shows!
Isn't there some basis for Christine NOT killing Arlena?
Arlena's body showed she'd been strangled by large hands, presumably by a man, in other words, definitely not by Christine.
[deleted]
You are right, the plot is too constructed. Since I write myself crime stories I would have changed it this way: After Christine faked her alibi with the clock (brilliant idea by Christie) she murdered Arlena. The dead body would be found by someone then (of course not Patrick because he needs an alibi).
Even if Poirot thinks Christine did it he would have no proof.
This would be a more simple version.
I might even make my own topic on this matter. It is *beep* I was sitting with two other very Agatha Christie'd uber intelligent viewers. (I guess I'm an intellectual snob). I read the book, after I watched it, because I was soooooo pissed off at how stupid the 'logic' was. Let me start:
1. In the film, Christine struck Arlena with a rock. You really think THAT wouldn't leave a mark on her head? But no, only strangulation marks.
2. The tanning bottle/bath. What the f@ck? Unless she was putting PAINT on herself, she wouldn't get tan in five minutes. This is just bad film making. And still I don't understand why Christine wouldn't admit to a bath after being out in the sun/beach for a few hours.
Okay, okay, I'll just stop. This was a disaster of a whodunit. It made no sense. I'm just going to make my own thread and give my thoughts. This was terrible.
--Liam
Jezebel! Flauntin' your flesh in temptation's raiment! You will burn. Oh, you will burn!
[deleted]
The tanning bottle/bath. What the f@ck? Unless she was putting PAINT on herself, she wouldn't get tan in five minutes. This is just bad film making. And still I don't understand why Christine wouldn't admit to a bath after being out in the sun/beach for a few hours.
I thought this. The whole thing makes little sense, especially when the set-up worked on the assumption that Refern would have a witness with him. As others have commented, there is nothing to suggest he arranged the witness.
shareBut he DID arrange the witness ... Poirot points out that he was hanging around the dock waiting for someone to ride the motorboat with him.
shareI found it weird that, as scared as Arlena was of Christine, she would literally hide in the damn cave for as long as she did. LOL? aren't you a bit curious as to what's happening outside?!
Also, what if Poirot himself joined whats-his-face on the boat? He would know immediately it's a sham.
when Patrick gave that Soap Opera looking staring across the ocean while the old lady went off in the boat I think it was obvious then he was the killer and you could pick it.
share