MovieChat Forums > A Haunting in Venice (2023) Discussion > Irritating stupidity at the end... (SPOI...

Irritating stupidity at the end... (SPOILERS, obviously)

posted a year ago by sati_84 (467)
8 replies | jump to latest

SPOILERS, since I'm talking about the ending.

So after all events have transpired in the house, the police is coming, they carry away the tree bodies, some of our characters are getting on a boat, some of them are walking away to their homes (like Poirot), etc, so we can have our wrap-up. But... COME ON.

Are we seriously to believe the police, happening upon this scene just ... let them all walk away? Three people died!

And for the sake of discussion, let's assume the police is perfectly content with Poirot's solution to the two initial murders. But that is as far as they should have accepted it - because that person is also dead - so... I don't know... investigate?

I mean it's ridiculous. As far as all the witnesses are concerned, Poirot exposed the killer, then the killer ran up the stairs to that roof garden / balcony area, Poirot followed her, then came back in a few minutes, saying: "Well, our killer tripped and fell to her death, so I guess we can all go home now". The witnesses not questioning that is one thing, but the police? Seriously???

Otherwise, the movie was decent, there were some details that seemed shaky (how did the kid get the blackmail money exactly without revealing himself?) - but I guess those might be clarified in the book. But this? The ending was beyond ridiculous for me that everyone just walked away. I get that from a characterisation standpoint, we needed to see Poirot "getting back into the game". But sacrificing common sense for that was not the best decision.

[–] emori (3661) a year ago

Yes. Its was beyond ridiculous. I would like to know how things actually worked with those detectives in those times. Were they really celebrities like Agatha Cristie and others in their books make it seem? In book of American writers we see that Nero Wolf and alike are not celebrities that are being worshiped and police actually hate them.

While in UK books pretend that Poirot and other detectives are basically like above the police. They investigate crime and then police just takes it at their word. Like it was here.

I don't think it was like that. On the other hand times were different. People were bored and could be obsessed with detective stories, rich people. Aviators were supestars for just flying around continents. People worshiped them and they were big deal.

Agatha Christie need the plot to happen. So all her "murderer reveal" is happening with all 10 people involved gathering in some one space where he can point out murderer. BUt I don't see it happen in real life. Not to mention he can never prove anything. Its all hearsay.

Those detective books were fun but I doubt they had anything with reality.

[–] sati_84 (467) a year ago

Agatha Christie need the plot to happen. So all her "murderer reveal" is happening with all 10 people involved gathering in some one space where he can point out murderer. BUt I don't see it happen in real life.

I don't have a problem with that. AC is the writer of the story, she can shape the events and character behaviors to an extent. Of course it's a bit contrived, but in-universe, let's say everyone involved is sticking around just for curiosity's sake, to find out who the murderer was. Of course, in this movie, this was also depicted rather poorly. When Poirot's bodyguard guy locked the gate and Poirot said no one can leave, that is called kidnapping, or at least a gross violation of personal freedom. Poirot had no authority to do that...

Not to mention he can never prove anything. Its all hearsay.

Again, I can accept Poirot presenting his ideas and conclusions as a coherent narrative, and expecting the killer to outright fess up or otherwise exhibit some telling sign that he is right. In court it would be hearsay, but in universe, it makes sense why he does what he does. My problem with the AC books in this regard is that the killer somehow always says / does something that confirms Poirot's suspicion. The culprit never hides behind the fact that this is all hearsay, never takes the subtle "see you in court" approach (or at least not in the 20+ books I read from AC anyway, but feel free to point to an example where this happens).

So yes, in that era, Poirot is a superstar detective, but did the police really ate up everything he (or anyone with such high societal status) said? Besides, anyone can be mistaken or... god forbid, Poirot could have been involved in some of the murders that took place, so even he could be aiming to deceive the police, right? And the police never conducts a thorough investigation at a crime scene where - again - three people died? Ridiculous.

[–] emori (3661) a year ago

Yeah. I rewatched scene. And bodyguard call police and then says they can't come in because canal are dangerous because of storm. And then Poirot closes doors and says no one can leave and says: "And all back the police. Say that Hercule Poirot is on the case".

I LOLed at that. Like, dud, who do you think you are? That whole Italian police will listen to your orders.

Technically they tried to pin it on "It was storm. No one could leave house anyway". But reality is that movie need plot to happen. By AC canon they all should be trapped in one place until Poirot will solve crime.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6360) a year ago

In the Poirot universe he is so respected that he can do things like that.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6360) a year ago

The movie made major changes to the story. It's probably not Christie's fault.

[–] TylerAArse (2871) a year ago

Kinda reminds me of watching Columbo (which I love). Dude is cool, but everything seems so circumstantial in the end. Is there really enough actual proof to send someone to jail?

[–] M1sterDoct0r (4423) a year ago

Noticed that in A LOT of police procedurals in the 2000s. Man, there were a butt load of cop shows back then.

Anyways, most times, they wouldn't have any "real" evidence. Most of it wouldn't even hold up in court.

But as always, the suspect almost always just "magically" confesses in great detail. Every freaking time.

[–] emori (3661) a year ago

Yep. Watching detectives shows eventually I wondered why everyone would just confess. When there is no real evidence.

I guess shows must give satisfying ending and we just gave to roll with it. Otherwise who will watch. They can't all end with: "And there was no proofs. Criminal walked free".

Or give long explanation how trial went. And all those boring CSI proofs. And trials do end up with guilty verdicts often. Marvel actor Joanathan Majors really was convicted recently when he didn't confess to anything and there wasn't that much proofs. But somehow DA convinces juries.