The Express Purpose of Interfering

I just finished reading The Peril at End House, a Hercule Poirot mystery by Agatha Christie. It's very very good, but I was especially struck by a bit of theology that Poirot brings up.

There's a minor spoiler in this, so if the book is on your reading list and you want to remain totally surprised, you'll want to skip this whole thing.

Some set up: Poirot and his buddy Hastings suspect that someone is trying to murder a young woman named Nick. It's an unusual case, because they're trying to prevent a murder instead of solve one. That's one of the things I love about the book. 

But here's the spoiler: Nick's cousin Maggie is dressed similarly to Nick at one point and is killed instead. Shortly after, Poirot and Hastings talk about what happened. Hastings is narrating and begins:

"It's really amazing the way Nick has escaped. It seems almost incredible." 

And suddenly I remembered the tone in Frederica’s voice as she had said: "Nick bears a charmed life." 

I shivered a little. 

"Yes," said Poirot, thoughtfully. "And I can take no credit to myself. Which is humiliating."

"Providence," I murmured. 

"Ah, mon ami, I would not put on the shoulders of the good God the burden of men’s wrongdoing. You say that in your Sunday morning voice of thankfulness — without reflecting that what you are really saying is that le bon Dieu has killed Miss Maggie Buckley." 

"Really, Poirot!" 

"Really, my friend! But I will not sit back and say 'le bon Dieu has arranged everything, I will not interfere.' Because I am convinced that le bon Dieu created Hercule Poirot for the express purpose of interfering."

It's a profound, important idea that Poirot expresses. Hastings offers a quick, simple platitude about the Providence of God being responsible for saving Nick, but he hasn't thought through the implications. Hastings is never the deepest thinker, but someone a little more thoughtful would realize what Poirot points out: that God can't just get credit for saving Nick. If Hastings is right, then God must also taking the blame for murdering Maggie.

Poirot goes even deeper though and dismisses the idea that God had a direct hand in the affair at all. In Poirot's view, God has placed his people on the Earth to act on God's behalf. We don't get to sit back and wait for God to fix the world. We have to understand that it's our job to fix it as God's agents. That the way he fixes it is through us. 

It's a terrifying responsibility that more of God's people need to take seriously, but I think Poirot is absolutely right.

The ABC Murders (2018)

Who's in it?: John Malkovich (Dangerous Liaisons, Mary Reilly, The Man in the Iron Mask, Jonah Hex), Rupert Grint (the Harry Potter movies), and Shirley Henderson (Rob Roy, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets)

What's it about?: A serial killer taunts aging Hercule Poirot into coming out of retirement and braving nationalistic bigotry to solve murders in post-WWI England.

How is it?: It's a great mystery, because c'mon, Agatha Christie. But Malkovich is sadly not a good Poirot. I've been reading the first couple of Poirot novels since re-falling in love with the character thanks to Kenneth Branagh's Murder on the Orient Express. So I've got a definite vision of who Poirot is and what he looks and acts like. Malkovich isn't him. His mustache is absolutely mundane and he doesn't fuss over his appearance at all. His beard lacks symmetry, which wouldn't be a problem for any other character, but it's unimaginable for Poirot.

And then there's the detective's grumpy, depressed personality. That's a script problem, but still an issue. The adaptation is eager to be relevant and includes a subplot about English nationalism and a distrust of foreigners. Poirot has always been an outsider to English society, but the literary version handles that status with humor, grace, and a great deal of pride. Malkovich's Poirot has been worn down by it.

That's not the only change in the character, either. The mini-series questions the traditional narrative that Poirot was a Belgian police officer before coming to England to do private detective work. It builds a new, cynical backstory for the character that I found unnecessary. And that's the heart of my problem with The ABC Murders. Poirot is shoved sideways into an adaptation that's desperate to be relevant and unashamed about changing the character to support the themes. In my opinion, if you have an established character who's at odds with the theme of your story, it's the theme that needs reworking, not the character.

Bonus points for Rupert Grint as the lead police detective though. I always enjoy seeing him.

Rating: Three out of five little grey cells.