What is the true horror behind "A HAUNTING in VENICE"?
It's Halloween, and it's time to pick a scary movie worthy of a review. Which have honestly been becoming more scarce with every passing week. Lately, I've been wondering if I'd ever get back to my reviews with any form of frequency. The answer is probably not. The quality of film in our modern times is so irreparably damaged that I'm too jaded, untrusting, and depressed to carry on. There are hardly any good ones anymore. Why waste anymore of my time on this Earth fighting the uphill battle of decreasing quality in a world where machines do all the writing, and nobody reads anymore? We don't need a movie for that horror. It's real; it's happening now; and no one cares to stop it.
But that's a rant for another time. For now, let's explore some quality horror set on Halloween night, 'A Haunting in Venice', based (very loosely) on the Agatha Christie novel "Halloween". I have become quite the sucker for this mystery franchise and the struggles of Detective Hercule Poirot. He is after all a misunderstood, analytical genius trapped in an ungrateful world that both uses and judges him. With two heart-breaking cases on board the Orient Express and drifting on the Nile causing him so much grief (especially with the loss of his best friend), he makes the understandable decision to retire. Such work for so many ungrateful people has a tendency to wear a person thin, even if that person is a genius. Poirot is only one man, and he can only take so much. Tragic. This is where his latest journey begins in the third film. He seeks a peaceful retirement with nothing but a body guard and pastries to comfort him.
Little does he know he would have the biggest challenge of his career ahead of him. In this seemingly haunted mansion filled with dark clues, he would not solve one case. He brilliantly solves three. Each so intertwined with one another that it takes the most brilliant mind in the world to untangle them. Despite what a certain arrogant author would have him believe, his is the only mind that would solve these cases, thus proving to himself (and the company he keeps) that his work is too important to give up. Especially with a litany of frauds threatening to take his place. What choice does he have other than to keep going? The world requires quality work.
Let's explore each case and how they influence his return from retirement.
CASE 1: Fraud vs. Fraud
Poirot's night begins with a Halloween party and seance to follow. Mystery author Ariadne Oliver entices him with the promise of an easy case: find the fraud. The information she fails to provide (refuses, more like) is that there are multiple frauds in the house. The real challenge in this case is to differentiate the clues, apply their context, and identify both frauds.
The first fraud is easy enough to see.. Poirot sees through Medium Joyce Reynolds before the seance concludes. All he needs to do to solve the case is ask a few questions and look around the sad mansion of the deceased. After a few minor observations, he solves the medium's ruse within minutes, but that hardly constitutes a mystery worthy of Agatha Christie or the legendary Hercule Poirot. So, what is left for the detective to uncover?
The real fraud in the story is mystery author Ariadne Oliver. Mediocre on her own, the only best sellers that she can conjure are directly inspired by the greatest detective in the world. He is the true genius between them, but the narcissistic author is more than happy to take the credit for his genius.
“I’m the smartest person I've ever met, and I can't figure it out.” (Ariadne Oliver)
Sure, you are.
The signs are obvious to those who pay attention, especially the admission that comes straight out of Oliver's mouth. The books that she writes under Poirot's inspiration are best-sellers that critics love. The three mysteries that she tries without his influence flop with the critics. With three failures in a row on her record, she becomes desperate to pull her genius muse out of retirement. The case she feeds him is the subject of her next project, and she can't afford failure. Her career and false reputation are on the line.
Who is the subject of her next book? Medium Joyce Reynolds. Is she a fraud as well? Most likely, but maybe not. The film leave her abilities open to interpretation. Regardless of whether she can or cannot hear spirits directly, what is certain is her insight of people. She feels Poirot's pain and exhaustion. She sees the light within him burning out. It is a tragedy for such a brilliant mind to give up on his purpose. This saddens her to see and she reaches out to him.
Unlike Oliver, she speaks to him honestly and candidly. Even less like Oliver, her technique reaches him. Just in time. Her speech is the spark that reignites his passion just in time to solve her murder that occurs moments later.
Hence, the real case begins.
CASE 2: A Serial Killer
The home of opera singer Rowena Drake has a horrific and tragic history. It's no wonder the people of Venice consider the place haunted, even before the mysterious death of Alicia Drake, a once happy and promising young woman before the house drives her into chronic illness. Both physical and mental. Her sudden (apparent) suicide plunges an already decrepit house into complete ruin as it sinks into the (sea). Its atmosphere reeks of death. However, only Poirot can pinpoint what kind: murder.
Putting aside the morbid legend of the ghost filled basement, three murders occur in the house. No legend. No vengeful spirits. These are factual cases, two of which occur on that Halloween night in the presence of the good detective and one attempt on Poirot himself. A case of mistaken identity, OR… Is the killer truly threatened by the presence of a renown detective in her home? Hercule Poirot is a brilliant man. No matter how hard he tries, he cannot and will never be able to shut off his rare, God-given gifts.
Much to the detriment of Alicia Drake's narcissistic, controlling mother. Rowena isn't just responsible for the torture and death of her daughter, but also two intentional murders of Joyce Reynolds and Dr. Leslie Ferrier in her desperation to keep her dark secret. Let it come as no surprise that all four of her victims (two murders, one manslaugher/torture, and one assault) suffer in their lives: physically, psychologically, and spiritually. Meanwhile, the villain (a controlling, co-dependent mother and malignant narcissist) made her living on the stage. Narcissists indeed seek careers that afford them power and attention. What better sign that Rowena is the suspect than to designate her as a literal diva? Even after her unexplained retirement following Alicia's suspicious death, she finds a way to attract the attention of a renown “psychic” and the most famous detective in the world. All to alleviate her own inner guilt, but instead she resorts to further violence against three more unsuspecting victims.
CASE 3: Blackmail
"You might learn from them. Children can suffer... and still laugh and play and bob for apples. They're alive." (Joyce Reynolds to Poirot)
She may be a fraud, but she is wise. Poirot must learn from the children, specifically Leopold Ferrier.
The main difference between the victims and the victors in this story is that the victors refuse to relinquish their intelligence in the face of this malignancy. Poirot is lucky to survive the assault, while Leopold Ferrier hides behind his youth. Leave it to a narcissist to underestimate a brilliant child. So lost in her arrogance, Drake must believe she is smarter than the child simply because she's older. It's a common mistake among older narcissists. They truly believe that a number of years equates wisdom, and that they deserve respect without doing anything to deserve it. Dr. Leslie Ferrier’s brilliant son proves Rowena Drake very wrong.
Leopold is the first to identify her as her daughter's killer, and he finds a way to capitalize on it. It is evident from the beginning that a 10-year-old child has an old soul and a brilliant mind. He is the only person in the house who relates to Poirot and doesn't see the inspector as a threat. The women are malicious and have too much to hide. The housekeeper is plagued with incompetence. The doctor is broken. The young siblings are forced to an unethical profession. There is plenty to hide in the crumbling house.
Ferrier also has something to hide, just not from Poirot. The two geniuses are honest and open from each other from the start. The child eagerly confides in him about everything on his mind: his suspicions, experiences, suffering, and belief in spirits. Despite their different beliefs in the spiritual realm, Poirot sees himself in the child. They are both misunderstood geniuses who use their rare intelligence to pay their way in the world. Every compares Poirot with Dr. Ferrier because they're both veterans and... No, that's it. That alone hardly makes them the same. It is with Leopold where the true comparison lies.
Poirot knows how lonely that can be. He may (in his emotionally detached way) empathize with the little genius. After all, Leopold Ferrier solved the murder first. More importantly, he uses the information to best serve his needs.
Even that evil narcissist murderer, Rowena Drake, confuses the boy with the doctor. She comes to believe that Dr. Ferrier blackmailed her into poverty. It was, after all, his medical notes that helped Leopold solve the case. Of course, she would suspect the adult. Look at what she did to her adult daughter. This kind of woman is completely incapable of over-estimating a child. Even one as mature and intelligent as Leopold. But sure, suspect the raving, incompetent adult.
THE SCAPEGOAT VICTIM: Maxime Gerard
Maxime Gerard is right about Dr. Ferrier. He has every right to be angry about the woeful neglect that ultimately killed his ex-fiancé. He is the only person to love Alicia Drake unconditionally. He fought for her, but the controlling mother so afraid of losing her "little girl" stood in the way at every turn, even willing to resort to torture and violence to keep that control.
How can a good man compete with that? How could he know what was happening upstairs when he couldn't fathom of resorting to such tricks himself? The day Alicia's body is found in the water, the loss destroys him. He spends the years grieving and raging against Rowena, even when he doesn't know the extent of her involvement in Alicia's death. All he has is instinct: that something is not right. The case makes no sense.
This is the superpower of a scapegoat. We can sense things are wrong about a narcissist before we understand what it is, and the narcissist can sense that we sense it. It's what makes us scapegoats. We threaten their perfect, public image. Same with the opera singer, a star who loves the limelight. Even her profession is telling to the selfish person she is. But what do about Gerard, her biggest rival. Whose genuine grief keeps him hot on her tail.
She wastes no time launching a smear campaign against him, painting him as the gold digging opportunist who choses to abandon Alicia for a richer woman. Anyone who asks Rowena would see Gerard as the monster and her as the grieving mother. When in fact, it's the other way around. Maxime never stop grieving Alicia. Even after finding another rich fiancé. He most likely forges that relationship to move far away from Venice, Rowena, and that house. Because cutting contact and moving away is often the only defense we have.
There is hardly justice in the real world unless Hercule Poirot is on the case. In the end, Gerard is fortunate to be granted justice and closure. That can't always be the case.
CONCLUSION
What will become of Hercule Poirot?
So many perpetrators in one house overnight. Poirot sees through them all. What an exhausting night for Hercule Poirot, an evening so rich with mysteries, it's almost as if the world is forcing him to make up for lost time. He is left feeling woefully behind on the line of clients forming at his door. Perhaps, a long break in a beautiful city is all he needs to jump-start his powers of observation. A tired and depressed mind would not be able to solve so many cases in a single night.
If there is any morale to pull from this story, it is the importance of taking breaks. Burnout is more possible and prevalent than ever. People fight so hard to keep their jobs, build a following, and stay relevant. The dangers of workaholism is a lesson we as a society should have put behind us by now. But alas.
If we regress into the workaholics we saw in our parents and grandparents, temporary breaks can very easily turn into permanent resignations. If we lose our passion, we lose our purpose. Not all of us are as lucky as Hercule Poirot who was able to rediscover his passion after a single night. His passion is not only restored, but perhaps it could be the beginning of real faith...
Only time can tell.
