2010 Murder on the Orient Express discussion

  • Thread starter Thread starter PoorKnight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PoorKnight

Guest
I just watched the 2010 adaptation of Agatha Christi’s Murder on the Orient Express starring David Suchet.

I would like to discuss this as it has some very specific Catholic themes in it.

Is there anyone here who has seen it, or is willing to see it and have a discussion? It should be available in most libraries.

:eek:Spoiler Alert:eek:***

Spoilers are definitely allowed, and even encouraged, as I would like to discuss the film - and therefore the mystery - in it’s entirety.

Questions for discussion:
  1. Are you an Agatha Christi fan, or mysteries in general or none at all?
  2. Did you read the book or just the video renditions?
  3. What your overall impression was of the film, as a film?
  4. Did it bother you, where the film adaptation deviated from the book?
  5. Do you think the overall portrayal of religion, and especially Catholicism, in the film was favorable or not and why?
  6. Did you think the opening scenes (the Lt. committing suicide and the Arab woman being stoned to death) contributed in setting up the ending?
  7. Did the solution (not to the murder but to the moral dilemma set up) satisfy you?
  8. Compare Poirot’s solution to the moral dilemma with the Catholic faith. Do you believe it was the right way to handle it? Why or why not?
  9. What roll do you believe the Rosary played in the film and do you believe that was what the writers / directors were trying to portray in it?
  10. Overall, do you think this would be a good film to show and discuss the Catholic faith in a small group setting in some way?
I will take the time to answer my own questions for you, in the following posts as time allows.
 
I love it so much ^^

I don’t know how good my discussion will be, but here goes:
  1. I enjoy mysteries, though I’ve honestly never read any true mystery stories. I have a couple of Agatha Christy books (Murder on the Orient Express and And Then There Were None), but I’ve yet to read them. I do love Sherlock Holmes, though I know those aren’t true mystery books.
  2. Video only, for now.
  3. It was an excellent film. The actors played their roles well, the setting was believable, and Poirot appeared genuinely conflicted throughout. The motives of all the characters felt genuine, and the murdered man did a good job of making it clear that he was bad. The camerawork was excellent, the atmosphere was fitting, and everything about the movie made it exceptionally enjoyable.
  4. Having never read the book, it does not 😛
  5. I think it was a neutral portrayal. They showed Poirot as devout (praying the Rosary) and made it clear that he was being guided by his religious principles. At the conclusion, they also made it abundantly clear that he felt that he had betrayed his convictions. I’m not sure if this bothers me or not… I mean, they go out of their way to show that he betrayed his convictions (as a Catholic and an officer of the law)… and it bother me that he betrayed them. At the same time, it could be interpreted as him having mercy on them, which is a fairly Catholic trait, although mercy would still require that they atone for what did… I’m conflicted on this one.
  6. A little bit, yes. I think it contributed to Poirot’s decision because he had seen what blind fanaticism did, as well as what people may do if backed into a corner. Although, if this comparison is what they were aiming for (comparing the blind fanaticism of Islam with the deep convictions of a practicing Catholic) I find it fairly insulting…
  7. Yes and no. SPOILERS While the whole group was responsible, I can completely understand why they did what they did. The man, whom was known to be guilty beyond any doubt, was let free on a technicality. Justice was never served for this child whom each of these people cared for deeply. However, they took justice into their own hands, and became murderers. While the death of the man could be argued as deserved (after all, the death penalty is allowed in certain instances), it was not their duty to enact it, and in so doing they each committed what is objectively a mortal sin… At the same time, it is readily apparent that each of them understands the gravity of what they’ve done, none of them are unrepentant killers who would kill again, and society at large is not in any more danger if they are free than if they are imprisoned. Opposite this, the person who was killed was a quintessential -bad man-, they did not kill an innocent, they killed a killer… I really don’t know, the ending left me very conflicted. Given everything I know, I’d likely have made the same decision as Poirot, and shown the same internal turmoil it created as him, because I agree with his decision, but I also disagree with it… /SPOILER
  8. I sort of covered this in the last one.
  9. The Rosary was Poirot’s grounding, the means through which he was depicted as seeking counsel. He turned to it whenever he was in need (in the evening, after being confronted, at the end when he was so completely torn…), which is a very Catholic understanding. I don’t know if they intended it this way, though given how obvious it is, I’d have to conclude that they did.
  10. No clue, sorry…
 
Questions for discussion:
  1. Are you an Agatha Christi fan, or mysteries in general or none at all?
I am an Agatha Christie fan, mostly, though, through the PBS video renditions, although years ago I did read several of her novels, both Poirot and Ms. Marple. I’ve also read many of G.K. Chesterton’s Fr. Brown Mysteries, which I find easily equal in their traditional mystery aspects but superior for their Catholic themes.

I have read most of Sir Arthur Conan Doyal’s Sherlock Holmes mysteries, but, again, I remember them most from the PBS renditions with Jeremy Brett
  1. Did you read the book or just the video renditions?
I don’t remember if I read the book or not. I do remember seeing the 1974 version of the movie - years ago - which I remember being very disappointed on how the whole thing was portrayed: a man is brutally murdered and it almost gave the atmosphere of a holiday…

Obviously I saw the 2010 version.
  1. What your overall impression was of the film, as a film?
I found this version captivating; showing a more complicated side of Poirot and revealing that he is not only Catholic, but seemingly devoutly so.

I liked that it made Poirot out to be kind of burnt out, worn and fed up with what he sees as humanity’s treatment of life. Some have balked at the darker tone, which I admit it is darker but I think it worked very well.

I thought the acting was superb, especially by David Suchet, showing a deeper character to Poirot than most people know (or even like, for that matter).

The cinematography, I thought, was also superb: artistic shots of the train going through the snow and mountains, poignant views of Poirot sitting on his bunk, focusing on the red cherry of his lit cigarette in one hand and his Rosary in his other, putting into picture the dilemma set before him. There are many such shots; I won’t go through them all.
  1. Did it bother you, where the film adaptation deviated from the book?
Not at all: I don’t remember the book that well - if I read it at all - but now knowing how the movie deviated from the book, especially at the end, I appreciate the movie even more:

:eek:Double Spoiler Alert**********:eek:

The plot revolves around a murder that occurs on the train from Turkey back to Europe. Poirot only happens to make it on when a passenger in 1st Class fails to show up: all other rooms are booked. As it turns out, one of the men on the train: Mr. Ratchet, is really a murderer that got let off by a judge and jury he (having mob connections) bought off. Everyone else on the train (except for the manager and Poirot) are related to the family of Mr. Ratchet’s 5 y.o. victim. They planned this whole thing to be the real jury (there are 12 of them) and excecutioners of Mr. Ratchet since they feel that justice was not done.

Problems for the gang of 12 start when Poirot gets on the train and the train gets stuck in a snow drift on the night the murder takes place.

In the book, Poirot, having figured out the plot after the fact (this according to a review / discussion website - and this corosponds with my memory of the 1974 film) almost happily agrees with the gang of 12 and lets them all go.

At least in this movie version, the writers make this a huge moral dilemma between justice (justice for whom?) and mercy, at the center they place Poirot’s Catholic faith. At least in this version, Poirot is agonized by his decision to let the gang of 12 go: as portrayed in the last moments of the film: Poirot walking away with severe pained expression, clutching his Rosary hardly able to hold back the tears.

TBC
 
  1. Do you think the overall portrayal of religion, and especially Catholicism, in the film was favorable or not and why?
There are 3 major religious players in the movie: A) Poirot (Shown praying his Rosary - which he turns to often in the movie - and praying a prayer of thanksgiving to God for making him Catholic;

B) Mr. Ratchet - the murder victim - who is viewed at discovering God, but only as “extra insurance” kind of like “carrying an extra gun” the character comments. But we also hear Mr. Ratchet saying that he’s on the train for “penance” that there’s something he must do when he reaches his destination. He fears someone is out to kill him, before he is able to complete his penance, but he doesn’t know who they are. Later, the night of the murder, we see Mr. Ratchet praying for God to forgive him and keep him safe that night.

C) Greta, a Swedish Missionary, non-Catholic (though she wears and kisses a St. Christopher medal while boarding the train) who “found Jesus” after the murder of the 5 y.o. girl - she turns out to have been the girl’s live-in nurse - and detests Catholicism for having “priests who forgive what not even God can forgive” - maybe hinting that she believes Mr. Ratchet was forgiven in confession.

Certainly, Greta’s style of Christianity is not portrayed favorably. It is portrayed as black / white thinking only - too simplistic - a means to justify whatever she has already decided is right, and making her (and those on her side) better than anyone else.

After taking a day to think on it, I believe Catholicism is actually portrayed very well: Poirot is obviously going through a period of questioning, burnout and weariness in his life. He turns towards his faith to help him at the beginning of the train trip, as he tries to figure out what to do and as he agonizes over his decision at the end. While he never defends the Catholic belief in God’s forgiveness and mercy (given to all who are sincerely repentant and ask for it) I believe given the way Greta is portrayed and how she acts while denouncing that belief, speaks volumes to the audience.

Mr. Ratchet is confusing to me. I believe he’s an example of a “work in progress” (aren’t we all?) He’s Italian and the inference is that he’s Catholic, though this is never expressly stated. It’s inferred that he’s confessed the murder of the 5yo girl - and the subsequent deaths as a result. But he states that he used to not believe in God, but now he does, yet he sees belief in God as extra insurance or protection like an extra gun; yet later we see him, alone, praying fervently - presumably sincerely - for forgiveness and protection.

He also says he is on the train to complete his penance, though never elaborates. It is hinted that it is related to the large amount of money he has in a suitcase. I extrapolated it to be that the money he has is the ill-gotten ransom money he got after demanding ransom for the 5yo girl he had already killed.

Some people - on another discussion forum I briefly read - thought there was a writing error, a disconnect between Mr. Ratchet’s stated beliefs and his later prayer. I see it more as a work in progress: Mr. Ratchet may have recently come back to the faith and is in process of purging his life, and figuring out where God fits in his life. I think the prayer and the statements can fit a more complicated person than what some people like to see in a movie. Mr. Ratchet had just dismissed his bodyguard and secretary (both actually in on the plot) and so he has no protection for the night, besides a pistol. Knowing that many people are out to kill him, he is very scared. Fear has a way of making our prayers more fervent, more real, more raw.

The pinnacle scene comes when Poirot gives the solution with all present. The 12 people involved in the cold, calculated, premeditated murder of Mr. Ratchet - each person stabbing him while he is paralyzed, but awake (as helpless as a child) by a poison in his whiskey, while the elder woman taunts him with the murder he committed and got away with - are pleading with Poirot that since they were denied justice they are justified in administering justice (i.e. murdering) on Mr. Ratchet.

Poirot denounces them soundly saying that if their “kangaroo” justice is allowed, then we are no more than savages. If justice falls and fails us, then we do not take it into our own hands except to lift it higher than it was before. Greta tries to tell Poirot that this was God’s will, God’s justice. Poirot rightly yells at her, “Then you let HIM administer it, not you!”

Greta - I believe - says that Christ says that any without sin can throw the first stone. Greta then says, “We were… I was without sin.” implication I got is she recognized is now they have sinned; also misunderstanding Christ’s message and the end of that biblical story: “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.”

The solution and Poirot’s discussion with the passengers, I believe, make this film from excellent to superb, until the ending, but I’ll discuss that later.

In a much less angry discussion, another woman approaches Poirot to plead for him to let them go. She says she believed that killing Mr. Ratchet would make her complete and everything alright again. Poirot asks her, if she now feels complete. She doesn’t answer the question but instead she says she prayed to Jesus to tell them what to do about Mr. Ratchet. She says Jesus told her “do what is right.” She then states “I did what was right” but the body language is such that, to me, it seems as if she’s no longer sure.

All in all, I think Catholicism comes away looking good while whatever version of Christianity Greta espouses (not named, and I don’t think it’s meant to be a portrayal of one particular denomination - nor do I believe she has a true faith in Christ) comes out looking very bad.
 
  1. Did you think the opening scenes (the Lt. committing suicide and the Arab woman being stoned to death) contributed in setting up the ending?
At first I believed them to be gratuitous, graphic and unnecessary. But now I believe they did contribute quite a bit. The point of the Lt. committing suicide Poirot states later: There is always a choice. The Lt. didn’t have to commit suicide and later, the gang of 12 did not have to kill Mr. Ratchet and Poirot’s choice on whether to tell the authorities the truth, or the lie.

I believe the woman being stoned is even more poignant: here is a gang of people taking justice into their own hands and administering it. I think it is meant to illicit thoughts of the woman caught in adultery (which is exactly why she’s being stoned) and that exact story is referred to by Greta at the climax.
  1. Did the solution (not to the murder but to the moral dilemma set up) satisfy you?
No it did not satisfy me, but that satisfies me - if that makes sense. In the end, Poirot decides to lie to the Yugoslavian authorities about what happened, letting the gang of 12 go free. The last seconds of the film show him walking away from the authorities with a look of agony on his face, while he pulls out his Rosary from his pockets.

While I know the whole dilemma is God’s Justice “vs” God’s Mercy, and I feel sympathy for the gang of 12 (the film makes them very sympathetic) I feel that Poirot chose wrong. I will discuss that more in the next question.

The reason I believe my being dis-satisfied is satisfying is that, to me, it creates such opportunity to discuss our Catholic faith in a very difficult situation. It also speaks to forgiveness and mercy to all - murderers and saints alike (in our faith they can be one and the same) as well as justice for all.
  1. Compare Poirot’s solution to the moral dilemma with the Catholic faith. Do you believe it was the right way to handle it? Why or why not?
While I do see both sides, and can sympathize with the gang of 12, and the family of the 5yo girl, I do not believe Poirot made the correct decision. As Poirot made the point so perfectly, God’s Justice (and by default also His Mercy) is not for us to administer. God deals perfectly (Justice and Mercy) with all at their personal judgment and the general judgment. While they may have hinted that the country the crimes took place in (Yugoslavia) was lawless and ruthless, I don’t believe the movie made a big enough case for this to be the lesser of two evils. There was no direct mention that the gang of 12 would have been unfairly tried or punished in a gravely evil way (tortured, grossly mis-treated etc). To me, this was Poirot falling into exactly what he properly excoriated the gang of 12 for doing: taking justice into his own hands and thereby making a mockery of it.

My wife brought up a very interesting point that Poirot may have been thinking: let the forgiveness start with me: There’s the question of whether or not Mr. Ratchet was truly repentant; the friends / family of the 5yo girl were certainly not forgiving and they were also not repentant of killing him. Poirot may have known they would get the death penalty (which is allowable in the Catholic faith) but was so sick of killing and death that he wanted the forgiveness to start with him.

I’ll grant that may have been his justification, however, the two things that tell me this was a wrong, and therefore, sinful choice was 1) He lied to the Capt. of the guard when they arrived and 2) the agony he was feeling after he lied to the Capt.

I believe the right response was to let the truth - the whole truth - come out and let God balance everything in the end. But I would have had a similar look on my face doing that as well. Both my wife and I decided that if one is deep in their Catholic Faith, EITHER decision should be made with at least some agony. God is Justice (and mercy), and Justice was mocked in so many ways.
  1. What roll do you believe the Rosary played in the film and do you believe that was what the writers / directors were trying to portray in it?
I believe the Rosary represents Poirot’s Catholic faith. It is focused on in poignant times: his prayer the night of the murder, when he is making his decision on the moral dilemma and after he walks away from the Capt. I believe it is a sign that he views all of this through the lens of his Catholic faith.
  1. Overall, do you think this would be a good film to show and discuss the Catholic faith in a small group setting in some way?
When I wrote this question, I wasn’t sure. Now having answered the above, I’m already working on a amateur study guide and thinking of approaching my parish to do a small study on this film.

Thank You for participating.
God Bless, :signofcross:
Poor Knight for Christ and His Church
 
I love it so much ^^

I don’t know how good my discussion will be, but here goes:
  1. I enjoy mysteries, though I’ve honestly never read any true mystery stories. I have a couple of Agatha Christy books (Murder on the Orient Express and And Then There Were None), but I’ve yet to read them. I do love Sherlock Holmes, though I know those aren’t true mystery books.
  2. Video only, for now.
  3. It was an excellent film. The actors played their roles well, the setting was believable, and Poirot appeared genuinely conflicted throughout. The motives of all the characters felt genuine, and the murdered man did a good job of making it clear that he was bad. The camerawork was excellent, the atmosphere was fitting, and everything about the movie made it exceptionally enjoyable.
  4. Having never read the book, it does not 😛
  5. I think it was a neutral portrayal. They showed Poirot as devout (praying the Rosary) and made it clear that he was being guided by his religious principles. At the conclusion, they also made it abundantly clear that he felt that he had betrayed his convictions. I’m not sure if this bothers me or not… I mean, they go out of their way to show that he betrayed his convictions (as a Catholic and an officer of the law)… and it bother me that he betrayed them. At the same time, it could be interpreted as him having mercy on them, which is a fairly Catholic trait, although mercy would still require that they atone for what did… I’m conflicted on this one.
  6. A little bit, yes. I think it contributed to Poirot’s decision because he had seen what blind fanaticism did, as well as what people may do if backed into a corner. Although, if this comparison is what they were aiming for (comparing the blind fanaticism of Islam with the deep convictions of a practicing Catholic) I find it fairly insulting…
  7. Yes and no. SPOILERS While the whole group was responsible, I can completely understand why they did what they did. The man, whom was known to be guilty beyond any doubt, was let free on a technicality. Justice was never served for this child whom each of these people cared for deeply. However, they took justice into their own hands, and became murderers. While the death of the man could be argued as deserved (after all, the death penalty is allowed in certain instances), it was not their duty to enact it, and in so doing they each committed what is objectively a mortal sin… At the same time, it is readily apparent that each of them understands the gravity of what they’ve done, none of them are unrepentant killers who would kill again, and society at large is not in any more danger if they are free than if they are imprisoned. Opposite this, the person who was killed was a quintessential -bad man-, they did not kill an innocent, they killed a killer… I really don’t know, the ending left me very conflicted. Given everything I know, I’d likely have made the same decision as Poirot, and shown the same internal turmoil it created as him, because I agree with his decision, but I also disagree with it… /SPOILER
  8. I sort of covered this in the last one.
  9. The Rosary was Poirot’s grounding, the means through which he was depicted as seeking counsel. He turned to it whenever he was in need (in the evening, after being confronted, at the end when he was so completely torn…), which is a very Catholic understanding. I don’t know if they intended it this way, though given how obvious it is, I’d have to conclude that they did.
  10. No clue, sorry…
👍👍 You’re a cop too?!? AWESOME! :knight1: Great insights. I’ll respond in more depth when I get off shif… when I have more time 🙂
 
Just a couple of thoughts: First of all Poirot is not an officer of the law. He is a private detective with no jurisdiction in any case except as a witness for either the defence or the prosecution.

And secondly, I think Poirot didn’t tell the Yugoslavian officials anything because he had no solid evidence that would convict any of the killers. I think he merely wanted to bring home to them the enormity of what they did and prick their consciences towards their eventual repentance. If he’d had solid evidence that would stand up in court, I think he may have acted differently. Still, it pained him that the 12 were so unrepentant and that he couldn’t really do anything about seeing them pay for their crime nor get them to see the wrong they had done.
 
👍👍 You’re a cop too?!? AWESOME! :knight1: Great insights. I’ll respond in more depth when I get off shif… when I have more time 🙂
Wait, a cop? No, sorry, I am an architect, or, I will be when I finish my tests and hours… I’m glad you enjoyed my post, although I have to admit,your series of posts is making me rethink my opinion on the conclusion…
 
Sorry Prodigal, I mis read something you stated. You referred to Poirot as “an officer of the law”… I thought you were referring to yourself 🙂 Well the cat’s out of the bag on what I do for a living!

In thinking about it though, this is probably one of the reasons why I liked this movie so much. Most cops I know - myself included - get to a point where we struggle to find where the balance is between Justice and Mercy; as well as get burnt out with the job, and people’s reactions to our job (Ferguson MO anyone?).

Della, that’s an interesting point. I would contend that we all have a responsibility for reporting the truth. The gang of 12 admitted to him what they did and why. He is a witness to that as well. The implication is that he did not tell that information to the Capt.

I like the insight that the 12 were so unrepentant that turning them in would not have gotten them to see the grave sin they committed. I’m still not sure that is the right answer here.

We seem to agree that the gang of 12 were wrong in killing Mr. Ratchet.

A few more questions: Were the gang of 12 both morally and legally wrong in the killing of Mr. Ratchet?

Do you think Mr. Ratchet was truly repentant and would that knowledge make a difference in whether or not the killing of Mr. Ratchet was moral?
 
We seem to agree that the gang of 12 were wrong in killing Mr. Ratchet.

A few more questions: Were the gang of 12 both morally and legally wrong in the killing of Mr. Ratchet?

Do you think Mr. Ratchet was truly repentant and would that knowledge make a difference in whether or not the killing of Mr. Ratchet was moral?
I have read the book and seen the 1970s film, but not this version. The discussion has been really good and I hope I get to see the film at one point.

I’d like to share a few thought on the above.

We can’t know if Ratchet was truly repentant and perhaps it doesn’t matter. As Catholics we don’t judge whether someone was saved or not. The question of forgiveness and salvation seems to bother the missionary, but not Poirot. He knows he is not supposed to make these judgements, unlike her. So this is another Catholic theme.

I don’t think that proof of his true repentance would have made a difference on the 12. They were not guided by Christian principles anyway, except for the flawed protestant understanding. I think they would have killed him anyway.
 
I have read the book and seen the 1970s film, but not this version. The discussion has been really good and I hope I get to see the film at one point.

I’d like to share a few thought on the above.

We can’t know if Ratchet was truly repentant and perhaps it doesn’t matter. As Catholics we don’t judge whether someone was saved or not. The question of forgiveness and salvation seems to bother the missionary, but not Poirot. He knows he is not supposed to make these judgements, unlike her. So this is another Catholic theme.

I don’t think that proof of his true repentance would have made a difference on the 12. They were not guided by Christian principles anyway, except for the flawed protestant understanding. I think they would have killed him anyway.
Great points.

I agree that the gang of 12 would have done the same thing whether or not Mr. Ratchet was truly repentant. They had made themselves ‘god’ and plainly believed that no one could or should be forgiven of a crime like his (although they seemed to be ok with adultery - as a few of them had or were at the time participating in adultery).

But isn’t this true of all of us. We assume God wants Justice in this situation and Mercy in that (our definitions of Justice and Mercy). So how do we know what to do?

I would contend we know our Catholic Faith, make decisions prayerfully and continuously analyze what we’re doing. I think that Poirot had to lie about (or not reveal) what he knew to be true - evidence or not (though I believe he had ample) - shows his decision to be morally wrong. Though watching the fallout from the reverse would agonize me as well.

I would highly encourage you to see the 2010 version with David Suchet. In some ways it is just like the 1974 version (and the book) but I think in some very poignant and Catholic ways it is very different. Thanks for contributing.👍
 
Sorry Prodigal, I mis read something you stated. You referred to Poirot as “an officer of the law”… I thought you were referring to yourself 🙂 Well the cat’s out of the bag on what I do for a living!

In thinking about it though, this is probably one of the reasons why I liked this movie so much. Most cops I know - myself included - get to a point where we struggle to find where the balance is between Justice and Mercy; as well as get burnt out with the job, and people’s reactions to our job (Ferguson MO anyone?).
Thank you for your service to us! :tiphat: The reality of what you have to put up with was brought tragically home locally when a vetern police officer, whom everyone loved, even those he had arrested, was senselessly killed by a hardened criminal with a vendetta against cops. The policeman was shot for no reason except he was a cop, who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I pray daily for our police, fire, emergency, health care people knowing traumas they see and experience in their work. My mom was a nurse’s aide (as they were called then). I saw the toll it took on her and her life wasn’t constantly in danger.
Della, that’s an interesting point. I would contend that we all have a responsibility for reporting the truth. The gang of 12 admitted to him what they did and why. He is a witness to that as well. The implication is that he did not tell that information to the Capt.
Yes, that was his duty even as a private person. That’s one of the reasons why he agonized so about letting the 12 get away with murder–he went against his own sense of justice. If he’d had more solid evidence instead of his own insights to go on, he may have turned them in. But then, that would have drastically changed the ending, which I think Mrs. Christie gave us so we would agonize along with Poirot and ask, “What would I have done if I had Poirot’s gifts and knew what he knew?”
I like the insight that the 12 were so unrepentant that turning them in would not have gotten them to see the grave sin they committed. I’m still not sure that is the right answer here
.

Not so much an answer, but an excuse, perhaps. We all use excuses when we violate our consciences. Poirot’s struggle is our struggle. I also think Mrs. Christie realized that we would understand that even if the 12 got away with murder they would never be free of the consequences no matter what they told themselves. And that might have been a more severe judgment on them than even jail or execution. An ancient curse against someone guilty of betrayal was: “May you live forever.” It meant: “May you have to live with your vile deed for the rest of your life and never find peace.”
We seem to agree that the gang of 12 were wrong in killing Mr. Ratchet.
I agree. I can see how some would/could excuse them, but faithful Catholics really can’t do that knowing that there is such a thing as intrinsic evil not just moral ambiquity. Mrs. Christie was a faithful Anglican who believed quite strongly in the traditional definition of right and wrong.
A few more questions: Were the gang of 12 both morally and legally wrong in the killing of Mr. Ratchet?
Yes. As Poirot pointed out, his judgment was no longer in their hands. They were operating under the mistaken idea that revenge would bring them peace and Ratchet justice. Justice perhaps since he was actually guilty, but getting revenge does not heal emotional and spiritual hurt–it only makes it worse. That’s what they were left to learn after the fact.
Do you think Mr. Ratchet was truly repentant and would that knowledge make a difference in whether or not the killing of Mr. Ratchet was moral?
He seemed repentant, but only God would be able to judge that. Nothing makes killing him moral according to the circumstances of the story. If they had been deserted on an island then they would be the law, but they were merely stranded for a short while in a legitimate country with legitimate authority over them. So, no, they had no moral right because they didn’t have the legal authority to try Mr. Ratchet, especially since he has already been tried in a legal court of law.
 
Great points.

I agree that the gang of 12 would have done the same thing whether or not Mr. Ratchet was truly repentant. They had made themselves ‘god’ and plainly believed that no one could or should be forgiven of a crime like his (although they seemed to be ok with adultery - as a few of them had or were at the time participating in adultery).

But isn’t this true of all of us. We assume God wants Justice in this situation and Mercy in that (our definitions of Justice and Mercy). So how do we know what to do?

I would contend we know our Catholic Faith, make decisions prayerfully and continuously analyze what we’re doing. I think that Poirot had to lie about (or not reveal) what he knew to be true - evidence or not (though I believe he had ample) - shows his decision to be morally wrong. Though watching the fallout from the reverse would agonize me as well.

I would highly encourage you to see the 2010 version with David Suchet. In some ways it is just like the 1974 version (and the book) but I think in some very poignant and Catholic ways it is very different. Thanks for contributing.👍
I agree with this.

The gang of 12 would not have changed their course of action, I think everything they say during their interviews makes this clear, especially during the reveal. They all believed they had acted correctly, even if they also knew that morally they had done wrong… although I only think a few of them actually believed they had acted wrong morally, which illustrates how deluded and set on their course they had become.

I think you’ve managed to convince me that Poirot’s decision was the wrong one. While I understand the motives of the 12, they murdered someone. They took the law into their own hands and made themselves ‘gods;’ and for that Poirot should have turned them in. As someone said early (I think it was you), let God sort them out. I think Poirot knew that he had chosen incorrectly as well, given the pain he felt with the decision, and the way he grasped his rosary as if he couldn’t stand without it, as if the only thing that kept him walking was that he knew God’s mercy.
 
Big Christie/Poirot fan. I’ll try to answer the questions here soon, but if you’re looking for more moral dilemmas in Poirot novels, try the last one - Curtain: Poirot’s Last Case.
 
I would contend we know our Catholic Faith, make decisions prayerfully and continuously analyze what we’re doing. I think that Poirot had to lie about (or not reveal) what he knew to be true - evidence or not (though I believe he had ample) - shows his decision to be morally wrong.
I suppose Poirot was aware that God would judge them in the end, and that his justice matters more than that of people. As for his own culpability of having let them go free, I suspect that as a devout Catholic he took his guilt to God and asked for forgiveness. It’s just what we do. I know that when having had to make a difficult decision where no option seemed to be a good one, I simply did the best I could and left it in God’s hands, with prayer and humility.
 
Thank you for your service to us! :tiphat: The reality of what you have to put up with was brought tragically home locally when a vetern police officer, whom everyone loved, even those he had arrested, was senselessly killed by a hardened criminal with a vendetta against cops. The policeman was shot for no reason except he was a cop, who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I pray daily for our police, fire, emergency, health care people knowing traumas they see and experience in their work. My mom was a nurse’s aide (as they were called then). I saw the toll it took on her and her life wasn’t constantly in danger.
Thank you. I wasn’t fishing for appreciation, but especially this day and age I’m very grateful for it.

Back on topic, great points all, especially that last one: when no option seems good, we must make a decision and leave the rest up to God.

I like that insight and I agree with it, but I’m not sure this is what Poirot had. We have: 1) The murder of a 5 yo, the subsequent deaths and suicides of family / friends as a result (a violation of justice and God’s plan)
2) The murderer gets off by buying off the jury / judge / prosecutor (a violation of justice and God’s plan)
3) The murderer gets murdered by 12 vengeful people (a violation of justice and God’s plan)
4) Poirot lets them off by not telling all he knows - and I do believe there is ample evidence. It seems to be a continuation of a violation of justice…

Dunno, just more insights.

I’m really enjoying this. Thank you all for participating.
 
Something to keep in mind is that Agatha Christie was not a Catholic. She didn’t have a Catholic sensibility even if she used Catholic characters in her stories. Like many other Anglicans of her day she had biases and skewed understanding of Catholic teaching about justice and other such issues. Indifferentism had begun to take over people’s thinking in her day, although she didn’t accept that like people do today. Still, she was a product of her day who could not write black and white characters like those before her who wrote crime fiction.

AG often let off the bad guy through his/her suicide. She seems rather capricious in which ones she has brought to the law for justice. I think she was conflicted herself about who should be hanged and who should take poison to keep them from the noose.

As you point out, PoorKnight, no one seems to have a proper sense of justice and moral obligations as the Catholic Church understands it in MOTOE. No amount of clinging to beads can justify allowing criminals to go free. That’s not how Catholics view mercy and justice. Unless the law itself is unjust the right thing is to turn the criminal over to lawful authorities who have the duty to decide such matters.

For a comparison, Sherlock Holmes, as I recall, only let one thief off the hook because he feared sending the man to prison would only make a hardened criminal of him. Watson strongly objected, but he didn’t turn the man in, either. And Holmes didn’t always tell the police all he knew, to spare someone whom he felft deserved mercy whom he felt would not receive it in the courts of his time. Arthur Canon Doyle had been brought up in a strict Catholic home, although he didn’t practice as an adult. Still, Catholic teachings about justice and mercy were no doubt a part of his childhood education, so he had a very different approach to crime stories than did Christie.
 
watch American Horror Story Season 4 Episode 6 : Bullseye live stream
How to Get Away With Murder Season 1 Episode 8 “He Has a Wife” full episode stream
Mysteries at the Museum 6x07 Nazi Art Hoax, Hunger Strike, Skull in the Ashes live stream
Watch Once Upon a Time Se4/Ep8 “Smash the Mirror” online full episode
Watch The Ultimate Fighter episode Splushi 8x08 HD

facebook.com/events/1552863228284863/
facebook.com/events/364153383754473/
facebook.com/events/1494645507481383/
facebook.com/events/1521427401438107/
facebook.com/events/1503288026604602/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top