Poirot Project: The Disappearance of Mr Davenheim (review)

This post is part of my 2016 Poirot Project. You can read the full story of why I’m doing this in my Introduction post. The previous post was a review of ‘The Cornish Mystery’.

Beware: Here be Spoilers

The sixth episode of the second series of Agatha Christie’s Poirot was first broadcast on 4th February 1990, and it was based on the short story of the same name. ‘The Disappearance of Mr Davenheim’ was first published in The Sketch in March 1923.

As is usually the case with the early Poirot stories, ‘The Disappearance of Mr Davenheim’ is narrated by Hastings, and takes place during the time that Hastings and Poirot are living together in London. There is a little bit of confusion surrounding these living arrangements, but I think this comes down to a discrepancy in Hastings’s descriptions. In the first of the Poirot short stories – ‘The Affair at the Victory Ball’ – Hastings makes it clear that he is living with Poirot, but calls their accommodation ‘Poirot’s rooms’. In ‘The Adventure of the Clapham Cook’, he describes their arrangement as ‘sharing rooms’. However, in ‘The Adventure of the Western Star’, Hastings again calls their home ‘Poirot’s rooms’. The Mrs Hudson-esque landlady is sometimes called ‘the landlady’ (e.g. in ‘The Million Dollar Bond Robbery’) and sometimes ‘our landlady’ (e.g. in ‘The Cornish Mystery’ and ‘The Mystery of Hunter’s Lodge’).

This has led to some people questioning Hastings’s status – is he Poirot’s employee? (See the comments on this blog post, for instance). Hastings rarely mentions any alternative employment and, even if he did have a job, he spends so much time running round the country with Poirot, he’d surely have lost it by now. And yet, Hastings clearly isn’t independently wealthy, as he has worked in the past (for Lloyds) and occasionally worries about his overdraft (see ‘The Lost Mine’). So has Poirot put him on a retainer? Does this include board and lodgings? And does Hastings sometimes make himself a bit too comfortable and start thinking he’s a guest, rather than staff?

I don’t think so. Although we don’t get a clear sense of Hastings’s background in Christie’s texts, we can tell a lot from his friends, especially John Cavendish in The Mysterious Affair at Styles. Assuming Hastings and Cavendish are from similar backgrounds – and adding the revelation that he attended Eton (Dumb Witness) and the fact that, though he was working in insurance before the war, Hastings was a captain by 1916 – we can make an informed guess as to Hastings’s family background. He’s comfortably upper middle class, well-bred and well-educated, but with no land or title to inherit.

So why does Hastings have to worry about his bank balance? Again, we could compare him to John Cavendish – and also to Charles Arundell in Dumb Witness (who is made into an old friend of Hastings in the TV adaptation of the novel) – concluding that, even if Hastings ever did have an income/inheritance from his family, he may well have spent it at some point in the past (perhaps on one of his ‘doubtful’ speculations), leaving him as one of Christie’s many upper middle class men with absolutely no head for personal finance. While this might suggest Hastings needs an income from Poirot to avoid being completely destitute, I think he’s probably scraping by on an army pension (after all, he was wounded at the Front in 1916, and this wound was bad enough to ensure he didn’t see any more active service) and his other occasional bits of employment. Hastings takes lodgings with Poirot because he can’t afford to take his own flat – and, no doubt, because both men are glad of the company – but he is definitely the ‘lodger’ in ‘Poirot’s rooms’, rather than an employee. My own personal theory is that, while Poirot and Hastings generally refer to the premises as ‘shared rooms’, Hastings isn’t always able to pay his friend any rent. This would explain why he often sees it as ‘Poirot’s’ (and also why Poirot is occasionally a bit exasperated about his friend’s spending habits, and, in Peril at End House, he assumes Hastings’s wife is the one who manages the ranch in Argentina). It’s a mark of the men’s friendship that they are comfortable enough with this arrangement to call the London accommodation ‘our rooms’, and the woman who shows guests in ‘our landlady’. No matter who is actually paying the rent in these early stories, Poirot and Hastings live together in amiable domesticity.

And that’s where we find them at the beginning of ‘The Disappearance of Mr Davenheim’:

‘Poirot and I were expecting our old friend Inspector Japp of Scotland Yard to tea. We were sitting round the tea-table awaiting his arrival. Poirot had just finished carefully straightening the cup and saucers which our landlady was in the habit of throwing, rather than placing, on the table.’ [That’s because she’s your landlady, dear, not your housekeeper.]

I love this opening – it reminds me of ‘The Market Basing Mystery’, as we get to see the three men hanging out as friends and not just because there’s a mystery afoot.

Of course, there is a mystery afoot. Japp’s just got back from talking to Inspector Miller (possibly the same Miller who appears in ‘The Lost Mine’ as well as some other stories) about a perplexing case: a wealthy financier named Davenheim has apparently disappeared into thin air. Japp is convinced that Miller will discover clues to Davenheim’s disappearance (‘he won’t overlook a footprint, or a cigar-ash, or a crumb’), but Poirot disdains this method of investigation. He insists that all that is needed to solve a case like this is ‘the little grey cells’. Japp finds this amusing, and bets Poirot a fiver that he can’t solve the case without leaving his room – Poirot, of course, accepts the challenge.

Poirot investigates this case simply by examining the details as narrated by Japp; part of their agreement is that the policeman will bring ‘any fresh developments’ that arise. At one point, Poirot specifically asks for information to be gathered (he wants to know if Mr Davenheim shared a bedroom with his wife), but otherwise he relies solely on the story that Japp tells. Japp’s updates on the case are a rather neat way of presenting the puzzle to the reader, as we’re encouraged to search for the significance Poirot has found in the ‘little details’ in order to come up with a plausible solution. Christie will use the technique of having Poirot listen to stories told by multiple unreliable narrators and work out the truth behind them in Five Little Pigs and Elephants Can Remember, but, for now, we just have the (reliable) Japp to fill us in.

Naturally, Poirot is able to solve the case of the disappearing financier (with a solution that isn’t completely unlike Arthur Conan Doyle’s ‘The Man with the Twisted Lip’, a story that also has something in common with Christie’s ‘The Lost Mine’). Still treating the case as something of a game between himself and Japp, Poirot doesn’t immediately reveal the solution, but rather sends Japp a cryptic telegram: ‘Advise you to withdraw any money deposited with firm in question.’ When the news breaks the next day of the ‘sensational failure’ of Davenheim’s bank, ‘the door flew open and Japp rushed in’, determined to find out ‘how the blazes’ Poirot could have known.

The mystery is a nice cerebral little puzzle, designed to make the reader flex their little grey cells or to make them feel like Japp at the end, but what really makes the story is the interaction between the three friends – and the little details of Poirot’s character that are thrown into sharp relief by the lack of other characters (Poirot only talks to Japp and Hastings in the story). My personal highlights are: Japp being bemused by Poirot’s question about the shared bedroom (‘Poor old fellow! War’s been too much for him!’); Poirot lamenting the lack of uniformity in eggs (‘What symmetry can there be on the breakfast table?’), before ‘gently collect[ing] every fragment of shell from his plate, plac[ing] them in the egg-cup, and revers[ing] the empty egg-shell on top of them’; and Japp’s sending a fiver to Poirot via registered mail. Poirot’s response to his victory is really quite lovely:

‘Ah, sacré! But what shall I do with it? I have much remorse! Ce pauvre Japp! Ah, an idea! We will have a little dinner, we three! That consoles me. It was really too easy. I am ashamed. I, who would not rob a child – mille tonnerres! Mon ami, what have you, that you laugh so heartily?’

The TV adaptation of ‘The Disappearance of Mr Davenheim’ was directed by Andrew Grieve and written by David Renwick. It begins in a similar fashion to the Series 1 episodes ‘The Adventure of the Clapham Cook’ and ‘Four and Twenty Blackbirds’, in that we get a dramatic little vignette that introduces us to the central premise of the story. Here, we see Matthew Davenheim (Kenneth Colley) preparing for a meeting with Gerald Lowen (Tony Mathews). Davenheim leaves the house to meet Lowen from the station, walks into the fog… and never comes back.

We then cut to our three friends hanging out together. However, they’re not simply having tea as in the short story, they’ve gone out to a magic show. I’ve mentioned the relationship between stage magic and Golden Age detective fiction in a previous post, but here the connection is made absolutely explicit – Poirot watches, then explains, the conjuring tricks performed on stage, while his friends seem happy to be swept along by the illusion. When they return to Poirot’s flat for a nightcap, Japp tells Poirot he knows of a disappearing trick that the detective won’t be able to explain, and, as in the short story, the two men make a bet. (As a side note: Japp is apparently less of a gambler than Hastings, as he only bets a fiver. In the adaptation of ‘The Third Floor Flat’, Hastings is willing to bet twice that much that Poirot will work out the ending of a play. No wonder he can’t afford his own rooms!)

Although the central conceit of Poirot not being able to leave the flat is retained from the short story, there are some minor alterations. In the TV episode, Hastings is allowed to act as Poirot’s agent, leading to a couple of comical exchanges as Hastings and Japp cross over in their investigations. There’s no mention of Inspector Miller in the episode, and it’s Japp who leads the police enquiry and oversees the dragging of the lake. A boatman named Merritt (played by Richard Beale) becomes a key witness, and Billy Kellett (played by… well…) has a few more scenes and, on his first introduction, a drunken associate.

The character of Gerald Lowen is fleshed out in the TV episode. As well as being Davenheim’s business rival (embroiled in a feud that’s much more intense than in the short story), Lowen now has a side-line in racing cars – much to Hastings’s excitement. In a very enjoyable (though arguably superfluous) sequence, Hastings follows Lowen to Brooklands motor racing circuit. A slightly silly case of mistaken identity almost leads to Hastings being able to take Lowen’s Bugatti out for a spin, but sadly this dream doesn’t become a reality. There are plenty of shots of the Bugatti in action, however, as Pathé are on hand to shoot a newsreel about Lowen (as in ‘The Dream’, we are treated to a short Pathé Gazette to get us in the 1935 mood).

Now… all this larking about with boatmen and racing cars is fine for Japp and Hastings, but we mustn’t forget that poor old Poirot is stuck in his flat, with nothing to do but wait for his friends to return with information. And this is where the episode wanders off into its own territory.

Inspired by the magic show he attended, Poirot has got hold of a copy of The Boy’s Book of Conjuring and decides to spend the time teaching himself magic tricks. He makes handkerchiefs disappear, practices his prestidigitation, and (in his slickest move) tears up a newspaper and magically reassembles it in front of Miss Lemon’s delighted eyes. I love the way David Suchet performs this trick, as his hands move just like a magician’s, but I love his disappearing card trick more – deep in conversation with Miss Lemon, Poirot studies his book and plays around with a card, making it vanish and reappear, while apparently having no idea how he is actually doing it.

It’s certainly interesting that it’s in this episode that the detective becomes a (literal) conjuror. The episode was written by David Renwick, who would later go on to create Jonathan Creek – a show in which the detective is a magician.

Sadly, Poirot’s magic tricks aren’t quite enough to fill the long days, and Renwick adds an extra (notorious) flourish. For some reason – and I’ll admit, I’ve seen the episode numerous times and I’m still not totally sure of the reason – a parrot is delivered unexpectedly to Poirot’s flat. This does lead to a nice bit of Poirot-Hastings banter:

‘Do not fraternize with that creature. I am still training him.’
‘It’s only a parrot.’
‘I was talking to the parrot.’

But it also involves one of the more ridiculous bits of dialogue in the series, in which the parrot-delivery-man mispronounces Poirot, is corrected, and politely announces, ‘I’ve got a pwa-ro for Mr Poyrott.’

Parrots aside, this is a nice little episode based on a really enjoyable short story. The playful bet between Poirot and Japp is handled well, and I’m glad that Hastings got to go to Brooklands. The episode is also notable for involving one of the more successful disguises of the series.

A number of episodes will feature a character in disguise, but these are often fairly obvious (thick glasses are usual, as are heavily made up faces). ‘The Disappearance of Mr Davenheim’ avoids these typical tricks, and instead relies on careful camera work. Rewatching the episode once you know the solution, it’s striking how little of ‘Mr Davenheim’ we actually see – his face is never really in shot for very long. We see a lot more of ‘Billy Kellett’, but he doesn’t really seem to be in disguise, so it’s harder to connect him with the missing man.

One final gem and one final question then…

The gem: Davenheim’s house is being played by Joldwynds, a modernist house in Surrey, designed by Oliver Hill. This house will reappear in Series 3, in ‘The Theft of the Royal Ruby’.

The question: Why wasn’t Davenheim’s wife suspicious when he went to Buenos Aires (in the short story)/Johannesburg (in the TV adaptation) and didn’t contact her for three months? (Obviously, by the end, we know he was really in prison as ‘Billy Kellett’, but at the time she thought he was just on an extended overseas business trip.) Either they had a rotten marriage and she was glad of the break, or Davenheim had an associate ‘on the outside’ who was able to send fake letters or telegrams to his wife. Poirot didn’t twig about the accomplice, did he? Too busy talking to his parrot…

Next up: ‘Double Sin’

Poirot Project: The Cornish Mystery (review)

This post is part of my 2016 Poirot Project. You can read the full story of why I’m doing this in my Introduction post. The previous post was a review of ‘The Lost Mine’.

Beware: Here be Spoilers

The fifth episode of the second series of Agatha Christie’s Poirot was first broadcast on 28th January 1990. It was written by Clive Exton and directed by Edward Bennett. The episode was based on the short story of the same name, which was first published in The Sketch in November 1923.

The short story is narrated by Hastings, and begins with a new client being shown into Poirot’s apartment. As happens in a few of these early stories, Hastings makes a passing reference to ‘our landlady’, indicating that, at this point in their story, he is living with Poirot. The landlady isn't given a name here, and (in the short stories) does little more than show guests in, but she’s clearly a descendant of Arthur Conan Doyle’s Mrs Hudson (I'm going to come back to her in later posts). Rereading these short stories in quick succession, I’m becoming more and more sensitive to the references to Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories, and I’m really enjoying the way Christie both pays homage to and lightly mocks her predecessor. I’ve lost count of the number of times someone is referred to as playing ‘Watson’ to Poirot, for instance. I suggested that two other stories in this series – ‘The Veiled Lady’ and ‘The Lost Mine’ – made playful reference to specific Sherlock Holmes stories. I’ll return to this in a later review; for now, we simply have Poirot and Hastings living in comfortable bachelorhood, as their landlady ushers in a series of visitors, just as Holmes and Watson did before them.

In this case, the visitor is a Mrs Pengelley. I really like Hastings’s introduction of this character, so I think it deserves to be quoted in full:

‘Many unlikely people came to consult Poirot, but to my mind, the woman who stood nervously just inside the door, fingering her feather neck-piece, was the most unlikely of all. She was so extraordinarily commonplace – a thin, faded woman of about fifty, dressed in a braided coat and skirt, some gold jewellery at her neck, and with her grey hair surmounted by a singularly unbecoming hat. In a country town you pass a hundred Mrs Pengelleys in the street every day.’

It’s part of the charm of Hercule that, while Hastings finds this visitor ‘unlikely’, the little Belgian detective finds her fascinating.

Mrs Pengelley has become convinced that her husband is trying to poison her. She explains that he has recently taken on a ‘yellow-haired hussy’ to work as his receptionist (Mr Pengelley is a dentist), and that there’s a suspicious bottle of weed-killer that the gardener can’t explain. Poor Mrs Pengelley has been suffering from stomach pain and sickness, but her doctor has written it off as gastritis. Poirot is hooked – the case interests him ‘enormously’.

Poirot and Hastings travel to Polgarwith to investigate… but they’re too late! By the time they reach Cornwall, their client is already dead. Poirot is furious (with himself, with the murderer, with all those who ignored Mrs Pengelley’s cries for help) and is determined to reveal the truth. In this, the story has some similarities with Dumb Witness: Poirot refuses to relinquish responsibility for a client he has failed to protect, and steps into the roles of avenger as well as detective. In fact, when he eventually confronts the murderer he makes this role clear: ‘I represent – not the law, but Mrs Pengelley.’

Poirot’s investigation in ‘The Cornish Mystery’ is interesting. There is no physical examination of the crime scene; the only physical ‘clue’ (the bottle of weed-killer) is ignored. Instead, Poirot works out the nature of the crime through an observation of human behaviour. He knows that Mr Pengelley is innocent, for instance, because only an innocent man would behave in such a guilty manner. In the final denouement, Poirot has to resort to tricking the murderer into a signing a confession as, he admits, they have ‘no shadow of proof against him’. This method of resolving the mystery is a far cry from Holmes-like ratiocination foreshadows the methods of another of Christie’s famous creations: ‘The Cornish Mystery’ actually feels like it could have been a case for Miss Marple.

The TV adaptation begins, like the short story, in Poirot’s flat. We join our detective in a somewhat glum mood (a state that recurs throughout this series), bemoaning a lack of interesting cases and complaining about boredom. Behind him, Hastings performs a series of yoga exercises designed to keep his pancreas healthy. This leads to a characteristically bonkers exchange, in which Poirot criticizes his friend’s love of curry and Hastings extols the health-giving benefits of rice. They are interrupted in their chit-chat by Miss Lemon, who tells them that Mrs Pengelley (played by Amanda Walker) would like to consult with Poirot, but she is too embarrassed to come into the flat.

The adaptation follows the short story fairly faithfully, with only a couple of additional plot elements added. Mrs Pengelley’s blustering doctor (played by Derek Benfield) still insists that the woman suffered from gastritis. Mr Pengelley (Jerome Willis) is still infatuated with his ‘yellow-haired hussy’ (Laura Girling) – though there is a brief comical exchange added in which Hastings has to explain the word ‘hussy’ to Poirot – and the maid (played by Tilly Vosburgh) still insists under oath that she saw her master hanging around the weed-killer. The question of Mrs Pengelley’s will is the most significant addition to the plot, with a will reading scene revealing possible motives for the murder. This doesn’t really alter the story, though, but rather underlines things that were implied in Christie’s text.

The final confrontation with the murderer is, in spirit, the same as in the short story; however, there are a couple of little alterations. Firstly, in the short story, Poirot talks to Radnor for a time and then produces a pre-written confession ‘with the suddenness of a conjuror’ (another reference to conjuring… and there will be more). In the adaptation, we have a scene in which Poirot casually chats to Radnor (played by John Bowler), all the while writing away at a desk. Radnor becomes increasingly ill-at-ease with this eccentric behaviour, until Poirot blows on the ink and presents the confession to be signed. I can’t decide whether this makes the confrontation more ominous or more humorous – I think it’s probably both.

The other change in the confrontation scene comes when Radnor is warned about the two men who are watching the room. In Christie’s story, it is Poirot who draws attention to the men, warning Radnor that they will apprehend him if given the right signal. When Radnor signs the confession, Poirot asks Hastings to move the blind, to signal that Radnor is to be allowed to pass. Afterwards, Poirot explains to an oblivious Hastings that ‘those two loafers that I noticed outside came in very useful’. The episode flips this last detail – while it’s still Poirot who presents the ‘twenty-four hour head start’ deal to Radnor, it’s Hastings who points out the two men surveilling the room. After Radnor leaves, Poirot asks about the men and Hastings replies, ‘I haven’t the foggiest idea. I just saw them standing there when we came in.’ I like this change, as it reminds me of the séance in Peril at End House. He might not always be the sharpest, but Hastings can be relied on to improvise if necessary.

Miss Lemon and Japp are, of course, added to the story. In addition to replacing the unnamed ‘Mrs Hudson’ character from the short story, Miss Lemon gets a nice comical scene in which she reads the I Ching for Hastings (Poirot’s hexagram is, apparently, ‘modesty’). This continues the theme of Hastings’s fascination with the East that runs throughout the episode, but also shows off Miss Lemon’s interest in spiritual matters. This is a sharp departure from the character’s presentation in Christie’s fiction – where she is described as a ‘machine’, rather than a person – but it’s something that will be developed further in future episodes. (Can I just also say, there’s another big departure from Christie’s fiction here… look at this picture… Pauline Moran is gorgeous as Miss Lemon, which is not how Christie imagined the character at all.)

Like in other adaptations, Japp steps in to the role filled by an anonymous police inspector in the source text. This is done quite neatly – there’s no attempt to shoehorn him in to the early stages of Poirot’s investigation, but he makes an appearance when (months after her death) Mrs Pengelley’s body is exhumed and an official murder investigation is launched. Japp is called in to oversee this investigation (because, apparently, he has the biggest patch of any Scotland Yard detective ever).

Japp is convinced that Mr Pengelley is guilty, and produces some of the evidence that sees the hapless dentist put on trial for murder. The policeman treats Poirot’s objections with a sort of light-hearted condescension, treating his friend like a harmless eccentric until the very last moment. In return, Poirot keeps Japp in the dark about his suspicions, even to the point of trying to make a quick getaway before Japp discovers that Pengelley’s trial has been dramatically halted. For fans of the ‘gang’, the final moments of the episode – when Japp is told about Radnor’s confession – is a real treat.

Before this, though, we get another little Japp scene – and it’s always nice to see the policeman enjoying a little trip to the seaside. While he availed himself of a stick of rock last time he visited Cornwall, this time Japp takes a fancy to a Cornish pasty. I love watching Japp wandering around the market, lost in the simple joy of things you don’t see in Peckham.

Unlike in some of the other episodes in this series, there’s very little direct reference to the 1935 setting. Hastings reads a story in the newspaper about ‘Herr Hitler’s speech’, but there are no more details about this to allow us to pin it down to a specific date. However, there is a weird little detail that reminds us we’re stuck in an odd time warp: Mrs Pengelley dies in July (the date is clear on the coffin plate during the exhumation scene), and her husband’s trial takes place in the run-up to the August Bank Holiday. Given that the events of ‘The Veiled Lady’ took place in July (the reason given as to why Lavington could be sure no one would use the logs for a fire), time is moving rather slowly in Poirot’s world. Of course, it’s possible that Mrs Pengelley calls on Poirot immediately after the events of ‘The Veiled Lady’ – but if that was the case, why is Poirot so bored at the beginning of the episode? He seems more like a man who hasn’t had a good case in ages. I’ve got a feeling that this is going to be a long year.

Finally… Christie’s short story has a couple of moments where Poirot’s foreignness is played up, but neither of these are included in the adaptation. The first comes when the detective contemplates another night in an English inn:

‘A return to the inn, and a night of horror upon one of your English provincial beds, mon ami. It is a thing to make pity, the cheap English bed!’

This isn’t something I’ve seen Poirot complain about before, but he can be a bit inconsistent with his criticisms of England (cf. the extremity of his aversion to a full English breakfast and to the countryside). I like this though – Poirot has something of a love-hate relationship with his adopted home. When he’s feeling grumpy (or when Hastings is being too English), every little thing irritates him. At other times, he is much happier to indulge in the various provincial pleasures his adventures offer.

And if Poirot doesn’t always love England, then England doesn’t always love him back. A number of Christie’s stories draw attention to the suspicion Poirot’s Belgian ways provoke in (usually provincial) English people. In ‘The Cornish Mystery’, it’s the detective’s choice of beverage that raises eyebrows. When Radnor is summoned to the inn, Hastings is charged with the drink order:

‘I ordered two whiskies and sodas and a cup of chocolate. The last order caused consternation, and I much doubted whether it would ever put in an appearance.’

Clearly feeling that the good innkeepers of Cornwall deserved vindication, the programme-makers drop this scene from the adaptation. But watch carefully… when Poirot and Hastings are first shown in their lodgings, Poirot is clearly enjoying a nice cup of hot chocolate. Obviously, in the TV version of Polgarwith, his request caused much less consternation.

All in all, a lovely little short story transformed into an enjoyable TV episode. I still believe it could’ve been a Miss Marple story – but that’s the beauty of Poirot. He’s one part Holmes, but the other part Marple. It’s why we love him.

Next up: ‘The Disappearance of Mr Davenheim’