Was there any foreshadowing for the killer? I mean clues which indicates that Charles Dance is the killer before revealing himself?
shareWas there any foreshadowing for the killer? I mean clues which indicates that is the killer before revealing himself?
Right, I think this count too.
shareMy husband, who had never read the book, was watching this for the first time. He was convinced from the start it was the judge based on the wording of the vinyl record and the fact that who ever U. N. Owen really was they had to have a substantial amount of money to enact the plan. There were only a few of the character's who would have had the means. Even when the judge shot himself, my husband correctly deduced (mostly) what had really happened. He isn't even a mystery aficionado, so I was annoyed he got it so quickly and never really wavered in his opinion the judge did it, although the how was a surprise (He wasn't convinced that Vera would shoot Lombard, for example)
shareThe money, yes. People who think that Vera would be pegged as U.N. Owen as the last survivor make me laugh. She was a broke gym teacher at a third rate school.
I always figure that -- in real life -- the police would be able to figure out it was the judge based on the money. I know in the book, the money trail was hidden from the Indian Island end..............but when the judge's estate was settled there would be the question of where all his money suddenly disappeared to. As, within months of his death, what had to be his life savings disappeared at the same time Indian Island with its millionaire's mansion was bought and furnished.
Besides the judge, only Marston, Armstrong and (maybe) MacArthur could have had the wealth to pull this off. And with the "legal" aspect of it, don't see it being Marston, Armstrong or MacArthur. So the judge would take a good long looking at.
Kudos to your husband for figuring it out.
Surely the guy who killed a whole tribe over diamonds figured out a way to get his hands on some money over the years.
shareIn the movie.
I was going by the book when I was describing the financial circumstances. In the book, Lombard and his fellow Europeans didn't kill for diamonds, but for survival. (That's one of the changes from book to movie that I didn't care for.)
my website -- http://maggieameanderings.com/Archive.htm
And in the book, Lombard describes himself as "literally down to his last square meal" before Morris offers him the money to go to Indian Island.
shareIn the book, Lombard and his fellow Europeans didn't kill for diamonds, but for survival. (That's one of the changes from book to movie that I didn't care for.)
Not in Christie's book. In the novel, Lombard only left the natives to die in order to make it out alive. The movie establishes he didn't abandon the natives to survive, but participated in the murders of 21 of them for diamonds. ("It seemed like a good idea at the time. They had something I wanted, in this case, it was diamonds, worth more than a few lives.")
shareI must have remembered that scene in the movie wrong. Did he maybe at first claim it was for survival? I could swear that was in the movie somewhere.
BBL
Nope. Not in the movie. In the novel he makes it clear, but in the movie the record accuses him of the murder of 21 men (Rather than the "deaths of 21 men" in the novel), and in the scene following dinner, he just says he thought someone would blab eventually, and that he's "holding his hands up" to being a butcher.
shareClues or not, it was not difficult to guess. I have never read the novel and am not familiar with Agatha Christie's work but I knew it was the judge pretty early on. Was a bit disappointed to be right, I would have loved to be misled.
shareKeep in mind that in this version, Blore (or was it Armstrong?) commented that Wargrave personally watched the executions of all the people he sentenced to death.
This hints at the TRUE motive for the murders, which I don't think any other version, including Desyat Degrityat understood.
Wargrave is a sadist, and likes to see other people suffer, so long as they are guilty and truly "deserve" their punishment, at least in his mind. Wargrave isn't so much upset that so many killers "get away with it" as other versions imply, but really delighted because now he can safely get his "create a murder masterwork" off his bucket list without pricking his conscience.
Personally, I don't think it would take much to assuage this madman's conscience.
While it is very subtle, they show a LOT of reaction shots of the killer's face at the beginning when the grammophone record plays and everybody else is angry and doesn't know what is going on. The killer's reaction to Anthony Marston's unexpected death (unexpected to everyone else) is particularly revealing.
Another clue comes when the killer explains how they have been "haunted" by the death that they are accused of in the grammophone record.
Changing Edward Seton from someone who bumps off an old woman for money to a serial killer, may seem to be a stretch, but when you consider Wargrave's words about how Seton was convinced that he would be immortal while everyone else would forget Lawrence Wargrave, hints at the ENVY Wargrave feels towards Seton. Regardless of whether Wargrave unfairly pulled judicial strings to ensure Seton's execution, it seems clear that Seton's crimes were the genesis of the idea for the Soldier Island murders.
The ending of the movie is set up by the repeated scenes of the killer talking kindly to Vera, lulling her to sleep as to this person's true menace. While I can see some people guessing who the killer is based on the gramophone record, the identity of the killer isn't as screamingly obvious as in other versions where producers have cast someone like Donald Pleasance in the killer's role. To me, this version is a bit like the 1945 movie where they go out of their way to make the killer seemingly likable and sympathetic.
Keep in mind that in this version, Blore (or was it Armstrong?) commented that Wargrave personally watched the executions of all the people he sentenced to death
====================
Actually, think of Lord Stark in GAME OF THRONES. He actually carries out the executions that he decrees, not because he likes killing but because he says that it would be hypocritical to assign the dirty work to somebody else. And he was treated as the hero of the story. So Wargrave might argue that it would be hypocritical to sign a death warrant and ignore the grisly results. (All of this, of course, presupposes a culture where a death penalty is considered acceptable. And we know that Wargrave really IS a sadist)
Gilbert in THE MIKADO has a satirical line comparing "the august judge who orders an execution and the lowly mechanic who carries out", which may have given Martin the idea.
I don't know if this was intended as foreshadowing or just a coincidence, but when Lombard asserts in the library that U.N. Owen is on the island, and he intends to find him, he points at his forehead and says, "I'm going to make him number twenty-two."
Judge Wargrave is "killed" by a shot through the forehead. That was intended as a clue by Christie as a reference to the mark of Cain.
Thanks Eddie C, I did catch some of what you mentioned as foreshadowing but not all. For example, I never connected Lombard's gesture to Wargrave's actual death even though now that you mention it is glaringly obvious. When I watch it again I'll pay specific attention to Charles Dance's reaction shots.
shareI thought it was the judge when I noticed his strength change. At the beginning of the series, he is too feeble to carry his own bag and requires Vera's help to walk up stairs. Later on, he is strong enough to wade into choppy water and half-drag Vera back to shore. That made me think that he was pretending to be more feeble than he is in order to avoid suspicion (as some of the crimes required strength, such as the suffocation one or the axe one) - but drops this pretense when he is desperate to get Vera back to safety in order to ensure his game continues.
But then when he seemed to get shot I dropped that theory.
Even though I read the book (albeit years ago!) and already knew what was going to happen/who the killer was, I was a bit underwhelmed by Charles Dance's portrayal of the Judge and his general composure throughout the whole thing. The other characters were obviously rattled by the deaths, but he seemed way too calm. Based on that alone, if I were watching this show for the first time, I probably would have suspected the Judge from the get-go.
share(SPOILERS AHEAD)
Even though I read the book (albeit years ago!) and already knew what was going to happen/who the killer was, I was a bit underwhelmed by Charles Dance's portrayal of the Judge and his general composure throughout the whole thing. The other characters were obviously rattled by the deaths, but he seemed way too calm. Based on that alone, if I were watching this show for the first time, I probably would have suspected the Judge from the get-go.
The book can hide a guilty reaction through clever phrasing.
================================
Slightly off-topic: there's a wonderful example of this in a mystery by Isaac Asimov, who admired British whodunits: "His face seemed to melt with sympathy". The first time you read it, you think Asimov is doing a simile about the facial expression. When you reread it after knowing the ending, it means the guy is faking the kind-hearted reaction.
"Melt with sympathy". Great description! I remember in And Then There Were None, there is this fantastic sub-chapter where you read everyone's thoughts including the killers (and Agatha Christie just doesn't tell you who is thinking what).
shareThe biggest and earliest one we saw was when Vera moved into the same train cabin as the judge. Rather than a plain pull string on the window shade, it was fashioned into a noose.
The judge didn't necessarily know that she would go in there, but the fact that he was a "hanging judge" was not the only reason he did that. I think he was unable to resist the hint to everyone.
"I keep forgetting words like 'Thursday' and 'customer.'"
There's also a really great subtle clue it's the first moment of the third episode the five left are sitting in the dark. There is a storm outside and the thunder starts to roar. The camera gets a close up of their faces one by one when it gets the judge the lightening strikes illuminating his face. The lightening only strikes when the camera is on him. It's so subtle but if you know the book or play or movie adaptations beforehand it's a nice little touch.
beauty freedom love truth
I suspected the judge at the age of eight, watching the 1965 version on black and white tv. He was the only one with a motive.
shareActually, when Vera is in the big carriage, she sees a shade-pull fashioned into a noose. I'm re-watching it, and the sequence is: Actor in recording booth; shot of "noose," big and center-screen as, gradually, sound of moving train is apparent; shot of Vera's face, eyes flickering open and looking upwards at something (sound and movement make clear she's on a train); then shot of the "noose" shade-pull, small, in the train window, presumably the window she's looking thru. It's not the same window as that in the judge's compartment; latter has curtains as well.
That said, I missed the one in the judge's compartment -- no such camerawork emphasizing it -- so good for you that you saw and thanks for sharing the info.
"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of people."
Yes, you're right. I'm assuming the same type of shade-pull was in every compartment of the train. And the train wasn't personal to the killer, it was just a train, so while the pull itself is definitely symbolic of Vera's end, it's only a reference to the killer by chance, as they happen to be traveling by train with the others.
share