Headscratchers / Murder on the Orient Express (2017)

MacQueen's role

• Does it strike anyone else that MacQueen is a little out of place in the whole revenge plot? Everyone else either had a personal relationship with the Armstrong family or/and was emotionally injured by Casetti's crime. But MacQueen's grievance was that his Dad lost credibility because he accused the wrong person for the crime, then became bankrupt. While unfortunate, isn't that entire situation on the elder MacQueen himself?
  • It is, but a reasonable case can be made that the elder MacQueen would not have found himself in that position to begin with had Casetti not kidnapped and murdered Daisy; the junior MacQueen notes that he only prosecuted the maid because he was under immense pressure from the press and public to bring charges against someone and at the time she was the most likely suspect. When the evidence pointing to Casetti came to light he was the one who was made the fall guy for the wrongful prosecution and was ruined in the process. It's all part of the theme of the repercussions of Casetti's act rippling out to cause more hurt, damage and pain to people beyond those directly involved. Besides which, it's also the junior MacQueen symbolically righting a wrong and redeeming his father by bringing justice to the true guilty party.
  • Linda needed Cassetti's assistant to be in on the plan, and needed someone who was able to take the job. It's possible that MacQueen was simply the person who best fit the bill, and she played up his father's involvement to get him on board.

Major clue ignored

• The fact that all Hell breaks loose when the train derails, to the point of throwing passengers out of their cabins, makes Ratchett's perfectly still and unaffected cabin seem a continuity error... Except it shouldn't be. There is a huge clue hiding in plain sight, and everyone (Poirot, the movie, the audience) simply chooses to ignore it. If Ratchett's corpse is discovered nicely tucked in bed, and all his belongings still on the table, shouldn't that mean that he was clearly murdered after the train hit the snowdrift?
  • IIRC, Rachett was murdered right before the avalanche - Poirot heard the noises and saw the woman in the kimono (Mary) before the train derailed. It really was a continuity error.

Ce n'est rien. Je me suis trompé

• Why would Linda Arden imitate Cassetti's voice speaking in French when she never hears him utter a word in that language? Moreover, Arden supposedly knows quite a lot about Cassetti (through MacQueen and Masterman), and she herself has had the opportunity to check him up for a whole day, and even speaks to him for a while. Answering in French makes no sense and it comes out as highly suspicious.
  • Despite not being directly addressed in the movie, this is one of the deliberate clues laid down in the book alongside the kimono, pipe cleaner, handkerchief, uniform button, and Ratchett's watch. Poirot was planned to witness Michel knocking at Cassetti's door and hear someone answer in French at that time, so as to confuse what time Cassetti was still alive and what time the murderer was supposed to be in his room. MacQueen's mention of Cassetti's lack of fluency when showing them the records is probably meant to draw attention to that fact.
  • Even an extremely accomplished actress would have a little difficulty imitating a man's voice, and Cassetti's was very distinctive. The French was probably meant to help her disguise her voice a bit. It's also very likely that MacQueen was not supposed to mention that Ratchett didn't speak French and accidentally let it slip (of course intended as a clue for the audience).

Ransom

• Why did Cassetti kill Daisy, anyway? According to the book, the child was murdered shortly after her kidnapping, and yet she was "held" for ransom over two weeks... I understand Cassetti wouldn't want to babysit a noisy terrified toddler, but why go as far as to murder her right from the start? What if the family had wanted some proof she was OK before paying the ransom?
  • It could have been an accident; the kidnappers may have tried to quiet a screaming baby, things got out of hand, whoops, the baby's dead. They kept the ransom going because the kidnappers aren't exactly gonna call the police and family up to say "Urm, funny story actually — the kid's dead. Whoops, heh. So, uh, we're calling this whole kidnapping thing off, 'kay?" They're ruthless and sociopathic enough to still try and get the ransom money even though they know full well the baby's dead.
  • In the actual Lindbergh kidnapping that the case is based on Charles Lindbergh Jr. was killed shortly after he was kidnapped, with his body dumped only a few miles from the Lindbergh house, possibly because the kidnapper didn't really want to take care of an infant.

The burned letter

• The letter in Ratchett's compartment threatens him because of what he did to the Armstrong family. Clearly it was sent by one of the conspirators. But why would they send a letter that, if discovered, would make it clear what the motivation for the murder was, thus making them suspect? The other threatening letters were vague enough that they could've come from some other enemy of Ratchett, like the Italian gangsters. So what was the point of them sending a letter that would draw attention to them?
  • The Armstrong letter is an unintended clue. It was meant to make Ratchett understand where his death was coming from, and was supposed to be burned completely. Unfortunately Poirot was able to retrieve enough of it to work out the rest.

Why kill him on the train?

• Since both MacQueen and Masterman were working for the conspirators, they would have known Ratchett's whereabouts at any given time. Therefore the conspirators could have killed him anywhere. Why, then, would they choose to do so on a train, which would automatically make all of them suspects, given that it's a completely confined space? (The avalanche hitting the tracks and the train stopping made it possible to presume someone outside the Calais coach had killed Ratchett, but clearly the murderers couldn't have planned for the avalanche to happen.) Even without Poirot, the true identity of Ratchett could've been eventually discovered, after which it would be pretty easy for any detective assigned to the case to connect at least some of the passengers to Armstrong tragedy. But Masterman and/or MacQueen could've easily drugged Ratchett in, say, his London home or wherever he was staying in Istanbul, which would've made it easier for the conspirators to murder him without instantly becoming suspects.
  • The train was a location they could have absolute control over: all the passengers were (supposed to be) part of the conspiracy, they could all cover for each other when the police would come to investigate, they all hid their connections to the Armstrong family and try to eliminate any clues that could link the murder to the kidnapping of Daisy. Remember: Casseti went by the name of Ratchett, the Countess had changed her last name when she got married, Linda Arden assumed an entirely different personality... The only reason the Armstrong case was linked to this one was due to Poirot's unexpected presence on the Calais coach, his extremely acute observation skills and a piece of paper that didn't burn all the way into inexistence. It's not so likely any other detective would have bothered to find the links, especially when the supposedly unrelated suspects were delivering hints towards another very plausible explanation: Ratchett had enemies, probably gangsters, who had threatened his life recently; thus, the possibility that a mysterious hitman had sneaked onto the train and disappeared in any of the other stations. This way the conspirators make sure that no innocent is blamed for their crime, as very likely would happen if they were murdering him in a less isolated and controlled environment.
    • This troper has yet to see the movie, and it’s been some time since I’ve read the book, but I seem to recall that the train being forced to stop before it reached its destination was also an unexpected factor that messed up their plan.
    • Precisely. The original plan was fairly foolproof, and they wouldn’t have even had to be careful. They had even purchased a dummy ticket for the berth below MacQueen. But Poirot wound up taking that ticket, throwing everything off. The snow gave him time to solve it. The film does add the wrinkle of Bouc wanting to avoid the police just targeting Marquez or Arbuthnot, but we can assume they were each prepared to take the fall, as several of them try to.

So who drugged the coffee?

• Or was that another Red Herring?
  • Yes it was. An In-Universe Red Herring like many others in this work. It was probably Masterman, but it doesn't really matter because Everybody Did It.

Countess Andrenyi's accent

• Linda Arden is American, and Poirot mentions that Daisy Armstrong had an American mother. The family lived in New Jersey (where the crime was committed). So how does Helena Andrenyi have a British accent, if her mother and her sister were American and she was living in America?
  • Most likely, she's putting it on. At this time, there would be suspicion that an American woman married to a European nobleman is simply after his money. Pretending to be British would likely make her seem more respectable in the eyes of the Continental upper classes. Alternately, it is highly likely that she went to a 'finishing school' for upper-class young ladies, either in Europe or operated on the European model, which included elocution lessons. In this period, this would often result in an "Atlantic accent"; think Vincent Price or Julia Child, both Americans who sounded more than a little British.
    • More likely the second option. Marriages between nobility and American women weren't that uncommon; as shown in Downton Abbey, their financial situation was usually the inverse: the American family brought the money and the European noble brought a title and respectability.
    • Helena did also have a British governess, and could easily have picked up the accent from her.

Masterman taking the fall

• As pointed out in this Cinema Sins video, Masterman could have been a deliberate fall guy to protect the others, since he's terminally ill and will be dead in a couple of months anyway, so it's not like he has to worry about living through a trial and being sent to jail. I know none of them expected the crime to even be solved, but shouldn't they at least have had this as a back-up plan?
  • He was probably willing to if necessary, but events made it unnecessary. But really, there's only so many back up plans and contingencies they can set up, especially since they're already deliberately setting up the scene to muddy the waters about who did it (false clues and red herrings, right-and-left handed stab wounds, opening the window to make it seem like the killer fled, etc.), and really no one would have been any the wiser had Poirot not been there. Making it seem like one of them was the murderer "just in case" just risks blowing the whole thing up. Besides, they all clearly have a shared degree of fondness, or at least sympathy, for each other due to their shared traumas; they probably don't want to sacrifice one of them if they can help it.
  • This troper (different from the original questioner) still doesn’t understand why he didn’t offer/attempt to take the heat when it was clear that Poirot was close to solving it? He would’ve been very convincing if he told his motivation, especially when factoring in the terminal illness.

Shouldn't Casetti have recognized....

• It might be understandable if Poirot didn't know who Linda Arden was or what she looked like, but surely Casetti would have known the famous grandmother of the child he kidnapped/killed, and might have considered it prudent to keep tabs on her in case she *did* use her wealth/connections to send somebody after him? For that matter, Casetti should have either recognized several of the others or at least realized a possible link to the Armstrongs based on their names—he surely should would have known the name of the DA who accused somebody else in his place, and been suspicious that a man with the same last name came to work for him. The dead child's aunt marrying a European count would have probably made the news as well, so he should have recognized their names, too. And Daisy's godmother being a Russian princess would have also been noted in the news of the time, and Casetti would have probably realized she was on board. For all his paranoia, how did he let MacQueen close to him, and not recognize Daisy Armstrong's maternal family?
  • It's been a while since I saw the movie, so I can't remember if it's similarly brought up, but in the book, it's explicitly stated that Daisy wasn't the first child that Cassetti kidnapped (and presumably killed). Cassetti's a ruthless criminal psychopath who held a family to ransom, killed a small child and wiggled his way out of justice. This troper doesn't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that A) he wouldn't have cared to know or remember the people involved in the Armstrong case because he got away with it; who cares about the lives that were affected, or B) if he'd similarly pulled the same kidnap-murder before, he genuinely just didn't remember the specific people involved in the Armstrong case because he's had numerous other victims.
  • The film also states that by the time Cassetti was identified as Daisy's murderer he was "long gone" - if he simply didn't stick around for the trial or any subsequent media coverage of the case it's entirely possible he didn't know who they were. Linda Arden disguises herself and goes by a different name. Helena might not have married Andreyi until after the case and with a different surname he wouldn't have been able to identify her even by name. Natalia being Daisy's godmother might not have been highly publicised knowledge. The whole point of MacQueen's backstory is that his father didn't correctly identify Cassetti as the murderer, so Cassetti might not even have known of his existence.

---