Spoilers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
How did the judge know of these people and that they were all guilty?? That's the one negative part of this story for me. Everything else was great. The acting, the cinematography, the atmosphere, the way the story plays out etc. I know we are supposed to suspend disbelief for a movie and I usually do. To a point. But this is just too much to swallow. 4/5 π
[spoiler]It's not like he personally witnessed any of their crimes, but as a judge and a part of the legal system he'd have heard about suspects or defendants who his colleagues believed were guilty, and who got off on a technicality or a loophole or because of undue influence or plain lack of proof, whatever. If he wasn't personally involved in one of these cases, he'd have heard his colleagues in the legal system bitch about "the one that got away". Hell, that was probably his favorite subject for pleasant dinner conversation. [/spoiler]
I really hope he did further research into these crimes before deciding whom to invite to his little island party, but who knows. He was in poor health by that point, it's not clear that he was completely sane by the end.
I get that he heard about some of them. But stuff that happened on another continent?? And especially Vera. There's just no way to know she allowed a child to drown himself. It's just too much of a stretch for me. Had it been a better or more clear connection, I'd have given this 5 stars.
shareTo be absolutely frank, it's been a while since I've read the book or seen the show, and I've forgotten the details of each crime. I can't opine on whether each and every one could have come to the attention of a nosy person who had connections through the criminal justice system.
As for Vera, he could have heard about that either from someone in the police or local prosecutor's office, and heard that there was probably a crime but that nobody could ever prove it and it couldn't be brought to court... or he could have heard the same from Vera's former employers or people who knew them. He seemed to be upper crust, and if Vera's employers were as well, then the story could have travelled through the social grapevine to his ears. Of course Mrs. Christie spared us the details, because they're boring, but even without hearing the details I won't say that it was impossible for someone well-connected and giving to prying to have heard about those particular crimes. Remember, these are just a few cases, out of all the unsolved or unprosecuted crimes in the English-speaking world. Those are the ones he heard about, and looked into.
Too far fetched for me that every person in the house was guilty. I'm just speaking about the movie though. I never read the book so I won't comment on that. Still a great watch though. But no matter what angle it's looked at from, there's just no way for him or anybody else to know if all of these people are guilty.
shareThere's no way for him to be 100% sure as he wasn't there to witness any of the crimes, but I'm sure if he reviewed whatever evidence was on fire and had a chat with police or attorneys were involved, he could convince himself that he was sure of their guilt to the official legal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt".
But yeah. Convincing himself isn't the same thing as convincing you and me. Personally I think he was a few ants short of a picnic by that point, and it's entirely possible that someone on the island was innocent, or he'd misunderstood the case.
No, that's the thing, they were all guilty and all crimes were either admitted to or shown in flashback. Well, one of them wasn't even a punishable "crime". When the lady threw her pregnant maid out of her house and that led to her suicide. Not a crime of law. A crime against compassion maybe. But not a punishable crime. Ah well, it gets a 4 instead of 5 from me. Too much suspension of disbelief for my taste.
sharei agree, especially considering how religeous she was
shareOh, he could have organized an entire "party" for people who'd thrown pregnant maids out into the street! And for people who'd raped and impregnated maids and thrown them out into the street!
That was widely thought of as "moral" behavior, even into the 20th century. Even in Mrs. Christie's time, people would have freely admitted to that sort of behavior at tea parties. That's one crime where it would be incredibly easy to get a confession.
Eh... It wouldn't have been seen as "moral" - acceptable, yes, and widespread but that's not the same as moral. If it ever came up in conversation, it would have been as Miss Brent did: "it was the girl's fault, she should have known better, she shouldn't have gone around throwing herself at men, didn't she know what would happen? I had absolutely no choice, can't have sluts hanging around the place", otherwise it would just not be spoken of at all. That's the thing - except for a select few societal groups (someone like Tony Marston and his friends would probably just laugh about the whole thing if one of them had been responsible for getting a poor girl pregnant), if it was mentioned at all then you would phrase it to seem as though you had no choice but to do it. It was well understood by the early 20th century that a master of a household had a certain duty of care to those in his employ. That was Miss Brent's crime. A similar thing is discussed in 'An Inspector Calls' which is set around the same time.
As for an earlier point about not believing everyone in the house to be guilty of something, is that really such a leap for ten people out of the entire UK population to be guilty of something? It's implied that the Judge had relatively little time to put this all together so it's logical that he focused on cases he might have heard of before - the book I think goes into more detail about how he found out about them all, the only two I can remember is that he met Cyril's uncle in a bar and he told the judge all about Vera and Cyril, and one of Philip's mercenary friends told someone about what Philip did and word of mouth got back to Wargrave. I'd imagine that as a judge, it wouldn't be too difficult for him to find out about Blore and Marston and the Rogers, and the rest of them were all fairly influential and social people so it wouldn't have been too difficult to pick up some gossip on them and investigate.
No, firing women who got pregnant who got pregnant out of wedlock was considered "moral" behavior among conservatives and assholes, to let a pregnant unmarried woman keep her job and support her child was seen as "condoning sin" or "condoning immorality". This happened in regular jobs, but was particular danger for maids, where a pregnancy was both seen as a disgrace to the family's home, and where the employer or a family member was likely to be the instigator.
Or at least that was how it was in the 19th century and early 20th centuries, attitudes had begun to change around... the 1930s and 1940s. "Ten Little Indians" was published in 1943, when a great many young men were dying before they could marry their sweethearts.
certainly in the book and the 1939 stage play ending (but not the 1943 ending or this adaptation) Wargrave explains how he met a drunk young man on a trans atlantic sea journey who told him all about Vera's crime.
FWTW.
Yes, that young man was Hugo, for whom Vera had committed the murder. In the book, the Judge lets us know that she was about the last recruit. The Judge also designs his plan so that the people who, in his mind, are the leas culpable, or capable of remorse, guilt, or disintegrating under the stresses on the Island, are disposed of first. So, he judges that Blore, Lombard and Vera are the most culpable and in need of prolonged punishment; and Vera is the most, having killed a child.
shareHe's literally a judge...
share