Obviously, in this TV adaptation it was done very deliberately.
But I got the impression from the book (and it's been awhile since I read the book) that Vera's murder of Cyril was spur of the moment and/or almost subconsciously done - she wasn't fully cognizant of her actions. Anyone else feel that way?
Security is an illusion. Life is either a daring adventure or it is nothing at all. Helen Keller
I got that feeling from the book also - that it wasn't intentional but in the moment.
sharePerhaps so many murders were hard to believe back when this was written? I mean, the book itself was dealing with the death of 10 characters we got to know. Then she had to explain all the people THEY had killed. I don't think people were as accustomed to that much death as entertainment back then. Obviously, they'd been through gruesome wars. But that wasn't entertainment and people didn't talk about the horrors of war as openly as they do now.
shareI just finished reading the book and it wasn't really spur of the moment.
A little after the fifth "soldier boy" dies Vera thinks about the Hugo situation and how if Cyril was out of the way Hugo would inherit the money and they could be together. Then she recalls that the night before she told Cyril that she would distract his mother while he swam to the rock. And how she would take her time getting to Cyril.
In the off chance he made it safely to the rock and tattled on Vera she would just say he was making up stories.
^THIS
It was cold-blooded, premeditated murder of a child for for financial gain.
Her bad luck that Hugo immediately figured out what she did and broke it off with her.
In the book, I agree with the judge leaving her death for the end. Some of the people did things that you couldn't reasonably foresee causing death (Blunt dismissing a maid who commits suicide or Blore committing perjury and the man dying in prison a year later). Some of them were accidental deaths though definitely reckless (Marston's car accident and Armstrong's drunken surgery). Even what Lombard and his fellow Europeans did was for survival and being lost in the bush doesn't automatically equate to death as people survive being lost in the wilderness all the time so all 21 of the natives dying was not a predictable outcome.
We don't know if what the Rogers did was premeditated or if they just seized the opportunity and suddenly decided to withhold the medication.
But the book made clear what Vera did was definitely premeditated murder. So for that matter was what the general did. And in both cases they killed someone they were responsible for -- though in Vera's case it was worse as she killed a child for financial gain while the Gen. MacArthur killed his own officer out of jealousy. But since it was premeditated murder, I think the general should have died later than he did.
You bring an interesting perspective on premeditation.
In the book, I agree with the judge leaving her death for the end. Some of the people did things that you couldn't reasonably foresee causing death (Blunt dismissing a maid who commits suicide or Blore committing perjury and the man dying in prison a year later). Some of them were accidental deaths though definitely reckless (Marston's car accident and Armstrong's drunken surgery). Even what Lombard and his fellow Europeans did was for survival and being lost in the bush doesn't automatically equate to death as people survive being lost in the wilderness all the time so all 21 of the natives dying was not a predictable outcome.
But the book made clear what Vera did was definitely premeditated murder. So for that matter was what the general did. And in both cases they killed someone they were responsible for -- though in Vera's case it was worse as she killed a child for financial gain while the Gen. MacArthur killed his own officer out of jealousy. But since it was premeditated murder, I think the general should have died later than he did.
If any of the ten didn't deserve to be a victim, at least in this adaptation, it was Ethel Rogers. Everybody else had it coming.
shareDisagree, Eddie. Emily was responsible for a young girl going into despair and the clinker is, she never had a moment of remorse. I felt bad only really for the general, under stress and sad as he was.
shareHe said Ethel Rogers, the cook. Not Emily Brent. And I agree with him, Ethel got a raw deal.
shareI agree on Vera but I can honestly say that I always kind of excused General MacArthur to a certain degree but when you laid it out like that, it really wasn't a crime of passion in the heat of the moment. It was a premeditated act to write out the orders for the ill-fated mission. So in that sense, yes, the General should have been one of the later victims instead of one of the earlier victims.
Also, because his victim, to a Victorian mind like Mr. Owen's, isn't the blameless innocent that the other victims are. Right next to "thou shalt not kill" is "thou shalt not commit adultery", but that's what Henry/Arthur Richmond does. This, to my mind, is why Mr. Owen decides to kill the General early (remember the part of his confession in the book where he talks about "varying degrees of guilt").
shareWho is "Blunt"? Do you mean "Miss Brent" (Miranda Richardson)? If so, she didn't 'dismiss a maid' - she was an old lesbian teacher who was in love with a student (remember when she sucked on the girl's bloody finger?) on whom she bestowed favors and moved into her house....the girl got pregnant and Miss Brent freaked - she claimed she merely threw the girl out and the girl then killed herself, but when the ghost appears to Brent later it's clear that Brent was the one who killed her.
Agatha Christie used this same plot in Marple's "Nemesis" (the book, and the Joan Hickson version) except that the girl in question was merely preparing to run off with some guy, then the old lesbian (played by the GREAT Margaret Tyzack) killed her and buried her under the family greenhouse.
Not quite accurate. Beatrice, as Emily herself says, was Emily's "maid of all work". And yes, Beatrice killed herself. Emily fires her, which means that Beatrice loses not only her job but her home in one fell swoop.
shareI figured maybe since she was clearly a little messed up after shooting Lombard, her brain kinda over dramatized the scene. Like, maybe it was intentional, but maybe in real life, she quickly changed her mind about the whole thing, but by then it was too late. But after everything that happened, her mind sort of concocted an alternate, slightly more deranged version of what she had done.
*Shrugs* Maybe that's just how I saw it, as I didn't like her being that evil.
Vera's murder of Cyril in the book wasn't spur of the moment, but it wasn't nearly as cold-blooded. There were witnesses who DID see her swim and go after him. I could easily believe that when she dived in, she WAS trying to save him, never mind about what she had originally planned. She seems to have genuine more guilt about her actions than most of the others on the island. But this production makes crystal clear that Cyril was murdered, and I have no sympathy for Vera---ESPECIALLY the way she tries to talk her way out of the noose.
Every film production of this story---even "Desyat Negrityat"---ends with a confrontation or near-confrontation with Vera, the killer, and a noose. This is the FIRST time I've actually rooted for the killer.
This is the FIRST time I've actually rooted for the killer.
Read the book, two days ago, to double-check a lot of things I had remembered. For instance, I remembered (correctly) Rogers' death was by a single blow to the back of the head, not multiple blows to the body. The way he died in the film it's almost certain he'd have had time to scream for help before he bled out. Furthermore I also remembered (As it turned out, INcorrectly) the figures were of white and not green jade in the book. (They're of bone china in the book and not jade at all). But with Vera, from what I read, she had CONVINCED herself of her lies and innocence and wouldn't think of the truth, before the truth that she'd let him die deliberately finally was forced back to her. She had done it all quite deliberately and therefore she WAS the worst of the lot.
Also, yes at least two of her less-than-pleasant characters were games mistresses - Christine Redfern in "Evil Under the Sun", who helped her husband commit murder, and Miss Springer in "Cat Among the Pigeons", who was a victim but also a blackmailer, hence her being murdered.
I think Christie must have had something against games mistresses. Wasn't one of her other villains a games mistress?
=====================================
British thriller writers seem to enjoy getting revenge on their pet peeves when they write their villains' scenes. Orwell hated the skyscraper where his wife worked, so he turned it into the "Ministry of Truth" in 1984 ( they actually used the building in the Richard Burton/John Hurt movie of the novel). JK Rowling had a grudge against a certain newspaper, so she tells us that Harry's Uncle Vernon reads it every day.
*** SPOILER ALERT ***
In the other novel you mention, making the character a games mistress is definitely a plot device, not a pet peeve. It means that the character, who seems physically delicate, was in fact capable of running across a wide stretch of ground and swarming down a long ladder in a short time.
I think it's the same with this story. If the character has the speed, stamina, and skills of a games mistress, her version of past events becomes unbelievable.
Agatha Christie was not averse to reusing devices. Other examples include the psychological invisibility of people in service occupations and of course the "experience in amateur theatricals" that enables characters to perform any feat of impersonation required by the plot.
Other examples include the psychological invisibility of people in service occupations
=============
Just wanted to point out that the "psychological invisibility of people in service occupations" trope was invented by G.K. Chesterton in "THE INVISIBLE MAN". Someone is murdered and numerous witnesses say they saw nobody go into the house. But somebody did go -- the mailman, whom everybody took for granted. As Chesterton wrote it, there was some deliberate satire involved of upper classes ignoring the humanity of other people.
[deleted]
It wasn't just because she had a lot of American fans; her father was American. She referred to Americans on one book as "not really foreigners, just a queer kind of English."
shareSpoilers should not be used in subject headings. Not everyone knows the book/movie.
And all the pieces matter (The Wire)share
But I got the impression from the book ... Vera's murder of Cyril was spur of the moment and/or almost subconsciously done - she wasn't fully cognisant of her actions. Anyone else feel that way?No, I think she killed the child very much on purpose. I believe her murder of Lombard was as you describe and this made her act of shooting Lombard all the more tragic. Because I think they actually loved each other and were finding solace in each other for their past deeds. But in that moment, the horror of Vera's past caught up with her. Because she knew the extent of her own personal horrifying act against a child no less, she believed Lombard fully capable of being the Soldier island murderer, when in fact he was not. Argh!!! It's such a masterful story, a psychological thriller of epic proportions. This diagnostic of guilt in each and every character and, in this adaptation, especially of Vera. share
Murder of chidren by women were nearly inthinkable at that time. Of course, they existed, but were seen as rare, done by metally ill people, or in half conscious states.
Now,we sadly know that most children murders are made by women, an particulary by women with a position of authority on the child...
(I don't quite remember the CDC stats for murdered kids are something like: 35% by women alone (usually the mother, but sometimes the nanny or a school teacher), 30% by women and their compagnon, 25% by the conpagnon, and only 10% by a total strangers)