Customer Reviews

Agathie Christie's Poirot - Taken At the Flood

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I've seen most of the movies and single episodes in the Poirot series, and this one stands out as one of the darker and more depraved stories. There's also more of an emphasis on some of the perils of sexuality--giving into seduction, falling under another's charismatic spell and calling it love when it might be manipulation, and on the flip-side, giving up the possibility of real passion for a safe marriage.

All of the trademark Christie tricks are here: a squabbling family with money problems; a love triangle; an inheritance; a dead spouse who may or may not actually be dead; and many red herrings.

This particular episode has some stand-out performances. David Suchet, as always, is masterful, but all the other actors--and especially the actor who plays David--are spot-on as well. Also as usual, the beautiful homes and English countryside add a layer of period authenticity.

When the resolutions come, there are one or two connections that I felt were not clearly shown. That is, one of Poirot's key realizations seems to come out of thin air. But the end is still very satisfying.

"Taken at the Flood", based on Agatha Christie's 1948 novel, is a feature-length film that first aired on Britain's ITV in 2006 as part of Series 10 of "Agatha Christie's Poirot". Poirot is invited to the wedding of Lynn Marchmont (Amanda Dogue), who has returned from charitable work in Africa to marry Dowley Cloade (Patrick Baladi). The Cloade family are hard up for money. Wealthy Gordon Cloade died when his Mayfair apartment exploded due to an apparent gas leak. Only his young wife Rosaleen (Eva Birthistle) and her brother David Hunter (Eliot Cowan) survived. Gordon had been benefactor to his family, but Rosaleen, who inherited his fortune, is not so generous. Brother David jealously guards her fortune and won't allow her to help the Cloades. When rumor gets around that Rosaleen's first husband might still be alive, thus invalidating her marriage to Gordon, the relatives want Poirot to find out if it's true.

This is one of Christie's kookier novels. The plot is not very good. Only minor changes have been made to the mystery in adapting it for film, but this was the season that writers began to inject a bizarre religiosity into the Poirot films. Into Poirot himself, actually. He is suddenly very Catholic -though as stern as any Puritan- and even gives the young, insecure Rosaleen a religious lecture. This is distasteful. Eliot Cowan, as the self-destructive, seductive, and hateful David Hunter, steals the show. David is thoroughly obnoxious, abusive, with a violent undercurrent to his personality that might be evil. We don't know. But he is curious, a strong character who keeps the audience wondering what makes him tick. Poirot is just not nice, especially as the film progresses. He's vicious at times. The solution is unsatisfying and comes out of the blue, though I believe it is faithful to the book.

William Shakespeare happily assigns responsibility for greed to both culprits and victims in Much Ado about Nothing when he writes that the fish "greedily devours the treacherous bait." But not Hercule Poirot, the Belgian with ever-active grey cells, the world's greatest detective, as he repeatedly reminds us. Poirot loses his cool and fulminates excitingly at the treacherous and insidious greed he sees in this delightful film. The story develops linearly, captures the viewer's interest early, and holds it firmly. The character actor's, as usual in many British crime films, are quirky and interesting, not the handsome and beautiful people that are portrayed in American tales. They serve us many red herrings, but also some clues that Poirot sees and discloses.

A blackmailer is killed and the local police request Poirot's help, for he is visiting the area, knows the people involved, and is the famous resolver of crime cases. The plot focuses on whether a certain young woman should inherit a large sum of money from her second husband. The husband's family says, "No," because her marriage to the so-called second husband was invalid because her first husband, who was presumed dead, was not dead at all. This woman has a brother who is controlling her. Viewers will find it interesting to discover why and how he does so.