S P O I L E R S
I love this movie, but I don't understand why Redfern kills Alrena? He killed his other wife for the insurance money, but what does he gain from killing Arlena?
And how did he get Horace's jewel? Did Arlena give it to him or did he steal it and, therefore, had to kill her?
Thats a good question. He doesn't really gain anything from Arlena's death, maybe satisfaction? Maybe he was sick of her. She was a bitch...but played deliciously by Diana Rigg! Oh i wish she'd done more films!!!
shareI wish she'd done more films too. She was very good in this - I just loved the way she and Maggie Smith camped it up - that lovely line: 'Arlena could always throw her legs higher - and wider - than anybody else' - deliciously bitchy. The actors really looked as though they were enjoying themselves in this film.
shareThat is correct, Redfern stole the jewel from Arlena and switched it with a fake.
shareShe was killed so she wouldn't tell the authorities that Redfern had stolen the jewel from her and switched it with a fake.
share[deleted]
Patrick Redfern strangled Arlena for the diamond. His wife knocked her out with a rock when she came out of the cave where she was hiding. Patrick Redfern went into the cave and when Arlena came to, he strangled her.
shareGreetings from the future!
Actually, there's no reason at all to kill Arlena other than to simply get rid of her. It's inferred that the Redferns already have the diamond in their possession and have had it for quite a long time.
1.) Sir Horace Blatt (a self-made man if there ever was!) gave her the jewel in place of an engagement ring.
2.) Arlena dumps Blatt after the jewel has been copied It's possible she was seeing Redfern on the side already and foolishly showed him the jewel, which he had copied and switched, or else he put her up to copying it and giving the paste copy to Blatt.
3.) Arlena takes up with Mr. Marshall, a decent man blinded by love and not used to dealing with evil wenches like her. She's still seeing Redfern on the side.
In the movie Arlena seems to care only about one thing: tossing her legs higher and wider than anyone else. She's married to a wealthy man already, so it's doubtful she would hold onto Blatt's jewel (yeah, that does sound naughty) for anything other than a souvenir. She's more than willing to spend her husband's money to put Redfern and his (seemingly) longsuffering wife up at Daphne's, so it's not much of a stretch to say that she'd probably be willing to part with the jewel during a moment of passion. It would seem that the safer way would be to simply bleed Arlena dry for the next few months at least with other expensive gifts. In that case, my next guess is that the Redferns are probably terrified that, should Patrick suddenly disappear before she loses interest, Arlena might hire a detective herself to go looking for him and discover just what Poirot discovers in the film.
===
And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written:KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
This is one of those Agatha Christie adaptations that takes quite a bit of license from the original story and suffers a bit in translation. If you don't want SPOILERS from the book, stop here...
In the book, most of the characters staying at the resort spend their time gossiping about Arlena Stuart Marshall as a very wealthy, haughty, man-eating actress who thinks nothing of wrecking marriages left and right. In fact, she does have a very open flirtation going with Patrick Redfern. After she's killed, it takes Poirot, prompted by a chance comment by Odell Gardner (whose character is nothing like the one portrayed by James Mason in the film) to reveal what she really was -- a somewhat pathetic woman who craved the attention of men so desperately that she usually ended up being used and often duped into giving them money. I think Poirot says something to the effect that "women like Arlena Marshall would cease to exist without the attention of men," or something along those lines. Men would go crazy over her, but then lose interest quickly. It's clear that her husband Kenneth no longer loves her, realized early on that he made a mistake marrying her, but feels bound by duty to stay with her and almost pities her, which is why he basically tolerates the flirtation.
In the book there there is no diamond involved in the Redfern's scheme, only that Patrick loves both Christine and money, so he sees in Arlena a chance to get money and then dispose of her, much the same way he and Christine got rid of his first wife. He gives Arlena the impression that he adores her, has gotten himself into some sort of financial jam and that with her "help" he'd be able to get back on his feet. Everyone else at the resort thinks she's playing him like a fiddle, but it's really Patrick (and Christine) playing Arlena.
One other important component to the book is that Christine is so ruthless that when she senses how much Linda hates Arlena, she tries to throw suspicion on the teenager as the killer.
As pretty as the movie is to watch, I much prefer the book.
But sticking to the movie, which is what this post is about, it remains unclear, yet open to interpretation, whether Arlena was aware that Patrick had copied the diamond and substituted the paste which had been returned to Sir Horace. I think at the very least Arlena knew that Patrick had "borrowed" the real jewel. I'm not so sure that she knew that he made a paste copy of it. She was pretty naive about Patrick's intentions. In any event, she would have to have had some idea that Patrick was involved, otherwise, how could she possibly have implicated him in the fraud? And if she knew nothing and couldn't implicate Redfern, there would have been no reason to kill her. So at the very least, I believe she knew Patrick had borrowed the diamond and at the very worst, she was a co-conspirator in his fraud.
shareIt's basically Death on the Nile all over again but Christie changes it enough to be new. But yes when they adapt these things they take what subtlety there is in Christie and throw it out completely in exchange for simplistic motives, bad jokes and horrible direction.
share