I'd say Vera was the most evil because she knew the little boy couldn't swim and yet she let him go into the sea and drown. I like how she starts out as seemingly being the most innocent among the group and then turns out to be a really nasty woman.
Wargrave was terrible too. He was twisted and enjoyed what he was doing and that makes him very evil and scary.
Go to bed Frank or this is going to get ugly .
in the book, the judge explicitely states that he wanted those who commited the most horrible crimes to last for as long as possible, to be tormented the most, and to face their demons the longest.
thus it's actually him who dies last, because he recognizes he's the most perverted and horrid of them all.
personally, i think that lombard is the most despicable.
i donno what to feel about vera tbh. maybe it's all boiling from so many books and movies i read and watched, but she was in a love with a man who was not destined for her, and even opposed by his family (the mother of the kid made it clear she didn't want him to marry her). so her plan was the fruit of passionate and true love in a way. sometimes life makes sinners out of the best people. donno why the judge thought she was one of the most evil since she is one of the only ones living in deepest shame, regret and sadness.
in the book, the judge explicitely states that he wanted those who commited the most horrible crimes to last for as long as possible, to be tormented the most, and to face their demons the longest.
Vera, Lombard, Blore and Mr. Rogers all act for mercenary means -- to get an inheritance or to get diamonds or to get "the man" -- and do not even think about the life they are taking to get what they want (although one could argue that Vera's delusional vision of Cyril just before she goes to hang herself indicates some measure of guilty conscience).
Armstrong, Marston and Brent suffer from hubris -- a sense of being "above it all" or too good for conventional rules to apply to them. Brent has self-righteousness on her side -- a warped sense of morality that what she is doing is for the victim's own good. Marston also blames his victims -- if they hadn't foolishly been playing in the road, his speeding would not have killed them. Armstrong believes he is a superman -- able to leap tall buildings, so to speak, or conduct surgery, even when impaired by alcohol. He didn't kill Mrs. Clees, he reasons to himself, it was the alcohol.
Macarthur and Mrs. Rogers are weak people who act impulsively. Both feel guilt for what they have done, as does Blore, for the updated version of his crime. Blore, in the novel, perjures himself to advance his career; there doesn't seem to be any real motivation for his crime here except homophobia and hate. This was the one change to the film that I just couldn't agree with. It is far too impulsive and stupid a crime -- one where his guilt would immediately be known unlike the others, whose crimes could be speculated about but never proven.
Though cold-blooded, I don't think Wargrave is more evil than the others. They are all guilty of crimes for which, under the law, they should have been hanged. Only Macarthur and Mrs. Rogers ever express genuine remorse about what they had done; the others hardly give it a thought. Marston cannot even remember his victims, Blore is only sorry that he won't get to enjoy is annuity, Dr. Armstrong is too strongly in the grips of his alcoholism to care about anything or anyone but himself, Rogers is clearly angry that his "inheritance" wasn't as big as he had hoped since it keeps him in "service", Brent is convinced that God is on her side in everything she says or does, and Lombard clearly has no regard for human life if it stands in the way of what he wants. For this last reason, I maintain that Lombard is the most evil and, of course, it is Christie's ironic nature that he is then killed with his own gun!
The three who are left until last are the worst - Lombard killed so many without remorse, Vera killed an innocent child out of selfishness, and Walgrave was a sociopath who sentenced many to death (albeit legally before the beginning of the story).
Of course, they are also the ones we are encouraged to have the most sympathy for, which is part of Christie's art. Lombard because he's charming and honest about his crime (and in the adaptation, for torso reasons), Vera because she's a young, pretty woman, and Walgrave because he's a dignified professional with cancer.
You don’t have to be angry to have an opinion worth hearing.
Of course, they are also the ones we are encouraged to have the most sympathy for, which is part of Christie's art. Lombard because he's charming and honest about his crime (and in the adaptation, for torso reasons), Vera because she's a young, pretty woman, and Walgrave because he's a dignified professional with cancer.
Viscerally, I found myself at the very end almost wanting the stage play ending and I think that was due to a large part in the casting of Aidan Turner. AT played the part as written amoral, charming, honest, intelligent and totally selfish. But,I found almost wanting him to escape death because he was honest - he knows who he is and what he has done, and correct about not being the only white killer in Africa (his attitude is not that far off from a lot of imperialists thinking {not exclusively historically white either it applies to any conqueror to the conquered} of the indigenous people as being lesser, which is, of course, indefensible. As someone else posted Lombard is the only one who became humanized and maybe redeemable by the experience so for me it was a paradox and a war between intellect telling me Lombard deserved exactly what he got, killed with his own gun by someone he semi-trusted or didn't respect the capabilities of and emotionally as a reaction to the actor, who I knew and liked from other work. The casting worked against me although I thought AT's performance (with or without clothes) was spot on for the character.
I didn't even bother trying not to root for him, and I'm almost 99% sure it had nothing to do with the towel scene.
Well, I did want the novel ending but was still rooting for him anyway. I felt conflicted.
Kind Hearts and Coronets is a black comedy from 1949. It's my favourite film, but nobody I've recommended it to has liked it as much as me. I therefore don't recommend it to people anymore.
You don’t have to be angry to have an opinion worth hearing.
Well, I did want the novel ending but was still rooting for him anyway. I felt conflicted.
Kind Hearts and Coronets is a black comedy from 1949. It's my favourite film, but nobody I've recommended it to has liked it as much as me. I therefore don't recommend it to people anymore
I loved Kind Hearts and Coronets myself.
shareThanks for the film recommendation.
Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel
Viscerally, I found myself at the very end almost wanting the stage play ending ...Same here. I liked how they set it up so that I honestly had no idea which ending they were going for until it became obvious. Even when Vera shot him once, twice, I was still hoping! "He can survive that...damn, she just shot him a third time. Guess we're going with the book ending..."
Wargrave. Of the ten, he's the only one who kills because the act of killing itself delights him, and I cannot help but be particularly disturbed by that.
You could argue that his victims already had blood on their own hands and that Wargrave is merely enforcing justice wherever the law had failed or had no power, but then Wargrave isn't motivated so much by vigilantism or a desire to avenge their victims as he is an intense lust to commit murder upon the only people whom his conscience will allow. The whole notion of murder and of becoming a serial killer appeals to him enormously, and yet his strong sense of justice would not allow him to take the lives of innocents - specifically targeting those who were accountable for death in some way but whom the law could not not touch was his means of getting around this. Ultimately, he just wants to experience first-hand the thrill of being a killer, which up until now he had only experienced vicariously through his career as a judge.
Wargrave operates according to a strict moral code - such is the paradox of his character. In addition to being unable to kill innocents, he also orders his murders very deliberately so as to prolong the suffering of those whose crimes he views as being particularly heinous (Marston and Mrs. Rogers are dispatched as quickly and humanely as possible, as Wargrave deems their guilt to be lesser than the others, while Lombard and Vera are saved for last).
Naturally, Agatha Christie is deliberately looking to test our sensibilities and our notion of what constitutes "justice", and to create ambiguity as to who the real villain of the story is. All of the characters are quite deplorable for one reason for another, and yet ultimately it's the most ostensibly high-minded of the ten whose behaviour (imo) comes across as being the most calculated, cold-blooded and disturbing.
Did the forgotten generations scream or go full of resignation, quietly protesting innocence?
The judge.
Forget it Jake. It's Chinatown.
For me Vera,I don't like that kind of person who acts innocent and pure and the one who is always the right one between all people around him with morals, but inside has a really dark soul full with selfishness.
share[deleted]
Lombard's crime is another instance of changing the murder from the book's description of his crime to one of a little less ambiguity.
In the book Lombard was in a position of authority over the 21 East African Tribesman. He, a few other Europeans, and the tribesman were lost and running our of food and water. Lombard made the decision to take the food (and water?) and the Europeans left the African tribesmen, who were their men and responsibility, to die in the bush. Lombard didn't directly murder them but his actions certainly made him culpable for their deaths. In the adaptation they have him murdering 21 Africans for diamonds making his crime and his position in the order more clear cut.
"Story's quite true! I left 'em! Matter of self-preservation. We were lost in the bush. I and a couple of other fellows took what food there was and cleared out ... Not quite the act of a pukka sahib, I’m afraid. But self-preservation's a man's first duty"
God I don't know! What is more evil? Someone that says YES I am. This is what I am VS someone who is and hides it? Who even denies it? I find it more scary when someone thinks their OK. THEY were all bad. I had some respect for Lombard because he knew what he was. He said he knew it would catch up with him. BUT I don't care how in love you are to kill someone???? Lets face it both of those reason are the oldest reason in the book for murder. LOVE and MONEY. I want to read the book. It would be way easier for me to say who the least evil than the most evil. WHICH comes down to remorse. Ethel Rogers seemed like the most remorseful. Soooo if I had to go for a happy ending...LOL I have poor Ethel Rogers stepping over Lombard's dead body and meeting her lover
Fred Narracott (the boat man) and running off together to Paradise. This is of course after she shook down the whole house for money and valuable for them to live on! LOL The rest of them were pretty bad. I would just rather know who I'm dealing with. Than people who think they're good but hypocrites!
In the books, the General is very remorseful.
shareI REALLY want to read the book now. Is it true that they die in order of what the judge felt was the most evil. Leaving the most evil for last. Cause I thought the little b@stard Anthony Marston should have been more towards the end. Emily Brent didn't even kill anyone. She was indeed a b!tch and a nasty person but she is not alone in her religious convictions. The General too.
shareYes, that's true. Wargrave basically said, that Marston is a complete sociopath, so he killed him first, because he wouldn't feel any psychological pain anyway.
shareTo tell you the truth....I don't think he would have lasted much longer anyways. I think the 9 of them would have taken him out the first night. LOL Maybe draw straws to see who would do it. AT that point Lombard would have step in and said," this ones one me guys!" Then there would be an argument of how to kill him. Ending in Lombard, Rogers, Tubbs and Armstrong dragging him out of the house kicking and screaming and throwing him into that BIG hole we saw in the beginning. At the point Wargrave make the suggesting that they throw Brent in to because she about as just as annoying. Which they all agree upon with out a fight!
shareLOL, I would have loved to see this alternate ending. Please press 1 for book ending, press 2 for play ending, and press 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 for fanservice alternate ending. If only because ....
shareWith Marston it was technically an accident and with no intentional malice toward his victims. Wargrave singled him out because of his inability to accept that his own reckless actions were the direct cause of said accident and for his continued lack of concern, which to Wargrave makes him dangerous. At the same time, Wargrave believes that Marston was born with no sense of moral responsibility and is thus genuinely incapable of knowing any better, which is why he deems him to be the least guilty of the lot and kills him first. Moral responsibility is a huge factor in determining how Wargrave chooses his victims and the order in which he ranks their culpability, and in Marston's case that was moot.
Did the forgotten generations scream or go full of resignation, quietly protesting innocence?
Armstrong didn't have any malice towards his victim either. And in contrast to Marston he at least had a bad conscience and tried to change his ways. It's even implied in the book, that he stopped drinking alcohol after killing Miss Clees and only started again on the island because of the extreme situation. And yet Wargrave kept him almost until the end.
shareTrue, although Armstrong ultimately cared more about maintaining his reputation than anything else. Unlike Marston he was deeply affected by what had happened (although he also implies that he was more shaken at the thought of what it could have done to his career than he was at having taken a patient's life, which isn't terribly dissimilar from Marston being more upset at having had his lisence endorsed), but he wasn't prepared to come clean about it either. Whereas Wargrave believes that Marston was innately lacking in insight with regard to his actions and their effect upon others, he recognises Armstrong as someone who values respectability above all else and would do anything to maintain that, even at the expense of his moral duty. And that would be so much worse in Wargrave's eyes.
Not to mention, Wargrave also keeps Armstrong around for as long as he does because he proves instrumental in pulling off his red herring - Wargrave indicates in his postscript that he had Armstrong in mind as his pawn since at least as far back as MacArthur's death.
Did the forgotten generations scream or go full of resignation, quietly protesting innocence?
Wargrave seems to particularly hate people who violated positions of trust or responsibilities to society when they killed. Look at their professions. Doctor, general, policeman, British Empire official (Lombard), judge, and 3 caretakers (the Rogers and Vera). Christie may have felt Brent had some responsibility for a servant girl. That just left Marston.
share