Just a brief question -
I was watching the film of murder on the orient express on tv the other night but the ending somewhat confused me… who was actually the murderer? I’m not sure if it was because i wasn’t concentrating near or the end or because you have to think for yourself but im really confused. Does anybody know?
Actually this should be in Cafe Society, but…All the people in the car were in fact the murderer. They all stabbed him. Except Hercule of course.
Sorry you’re right, i did mean to put it there but i got disconnected and didn’t notice that i had gone back to GQ.
I did see the part where they all stabbed him but he said something at the end that really confused me, although i can’t remember what it was. thanks anyway
If all else fails, read the book.
Off to Cafe Society.
DrMatrix - General Questions Moderator
What he said was something to the effect that the murder jumped from the train and escaped, which was the planned explanation of murderers, but because of the train being trapped by the blizzard, it was exposed as flawed by the famous detective.
He however thought, because of the vile nature of the crime committed by the victim, he would go with the desired solution rather than the real one.
The following contains spoilers, but anyone who has gotten this far has already had the ending spoiled.
I just re-read the book a few weeks ago. You are probably confused because in the final scene, Poirot proposes two alternate theories of the crime.
Theory #1: A mysterious enemy of Mr. Ratchett hid on the train wearing a Wagon Lit uniform and stabbed Mr. Ratchett to death.
Theory #2: The passengers conspired together to kill Mr. Ratchett, each of them stabbing him once.
It is quite clear from the telling of the story that Theory #1 doesn’t make sense. Poirot twists the facts to make them fit, but it’s obvious to everyone that this theory was made up to cover up the true solution to the crime, which is Theory #2. Poirot is so disgusted by the actions of Mr. Ratchett, who was responsible for five deaths, that he tacitly allows the true murderers to escape by proposing an alternate theory of the crime.
The book and movie both end with the M. Bouc, who is one of the Directors of the Orient Express, agreeing to report that the crime was committed by a single mysterious stranger, even though we know that this is not true.
<< even though we know that this is not true. >>
And even though all the characters (including Poirot and Bouc) know that Theory #1 is not true.
The book was loosely based on the famed Lindbergh baby kidnapping.
Imagine that Bruno Hauptmann had gotten away with all the money, while the Lindbergh baby was dead. Imagine, then, that agroup of the Lindberghs’ friends had tracked down Hauptmann, killed him, and planted evidence to misdirect the police to a non-existent Mafioso.
Now, imagine that brilliant detective figures out what really happened. But since he knows what a horrible crime Hauptmann committed, he turns a blind eye, and lets the friends get away with the killing.
That’s essentially what happens in “Murder on the Orient Express.”
Poirot seems to be applying a principle of Occam’s Razor: All else being equal, a conspiracy is a more complex solution than a lone operator.
The facts and clues presented in the movie support both theory 1 (unknown thug) and theory 2 (all the passengers). Poirot skilfully never pulls a confession from the passengers, nor does he sit down and prove the case. He only proves that all the passengers had method, motive, and opportunity. That’s enough for an arrest, but not for a conviction under most Western law.
So LittleBabyNothing, go watch the movie again. It’s a great film!
Slight digression – When I saw the film on video, I watched it most of the way through with my family. I paused it right as they started the solution scene, verified that the murderer was on the screen (all the characters were shown), then started the movie over and kept excessive notes. As Poirot said, there were too many clues. So I thought too much and came up with the wrong solution.
And except for young Elena/Helena, the aunt of little Daisy Armstrong. (This was explained in the book, but I don’t know if the same thing happened in the movie.) As Hercule Poirot says in the book, “I had the reverse problem - of the 13 people, I had to determine which one had not committed the crime!”
In the book, Elena’s husband stabs Ratchett as her proxy, both to make the symbolic jury of twelve and because Elena is supposedly the most likely suspect.
In the movie, Elena and her husband both hold the knife and stab once together.