Murder on the Orient Express goes beyond being a mere murder mystery. It incorporates various societal issues of its time into the novel and provides commentary on them, all while presenting an interesting and accessible story. Agatha Christie accomplishes this by allowing the reader to experience the world from the perspective of the experienced private investigator Hercule Poirot.
In this world nothing appears as it truly is, and what seems like a mere coincidence can actually reveal a concealed truth. It’s a world where passenger railways have fostered connections across geography, bringing together individuals from various nationalities and social classes. Within this narrative, stereotypes associated with class and nationalities remain prevalent. Additionally, themes of crime and the struggle between good and evil during that time period hold significance. The novel portrays Americans, particularly two individuals who openly identify as American, as comedic figures. Hardman and Mrs.
Hubbard is depicted as using inappropriate slang, being obnoxious, and having a strong belief in the superiority of their country, portraying caricatures of American men and women. In the chapter dedicated to Mrs. Hubbard’s interview, it is titled “The Evidence of the American Lady.” At one point, Hardman loses his fake persona, which Poirot acknowledges in the novel as finally being able to accept him when his good-natured facade is dropped. Poirot observes this transformation by stating, “At the same time, there was a change in his entire personality. He started to resemble more of a genuine person rather than a character on stage. The nasal tones of his voice became less pronounced” (136).
The comedic portrayal of Americans in this text serves as a commentary on the widespread perception of the United States and its citizens around the world. According to Mrs. Hubbard, Europe needs to adopt Western ideals, while Hardman, who consistently uses awkward slang, suggests that M. Bouc could learn some proactive methods in America because “Europe needs waking up. She’s half asleep” (45). Poirot agrees that America is known for progress, but acknowledges that this progress is not always positive. This sentiment towards America was common then and still exists today. At that time, Americans were often seen as boastful and epitomized by the cowboy archetype.
Christie effectively depicted Hardman as loud, obnoxious, and displaying a sense of superiority, despite his high pitched voice. Like in Christie’s other novels, social class plays a significant role in this book. However, class does not only indicate one’s financial status, but also emotional well-being. The servants are portrayed as emotionally vulnerable compared to the upper-class and aristocratic passengers. By the end of the novel, several servants are shown breaking into tears. In contrast, many characters from higher social classes seem indifferent towards the situation, as they are either independently wealthy, have stable employment, or are not obligated to work.
Many people view the Armstrong kidnapping and murder as more of an annoyance than a serious matter. Antonio Foscarelli, an Italian gentleman, is credited with being the first to acknowledge the gravity of the situation (143). Mary Debenham confides in Poirot that she avoids mentioning her connection to the Armstrongs due to fears it may affect her job prospects. Despite the apparent unity among passengers of various nationalities and social classes inside the train car, there is still a clear distinction between the working class and the aristocracy.
The novel highlights the significance of America despite its setting on a train journey through Europe. Throughout the book, various views of the United States are expressed by the Orient Express passengers, mostly relying on stereotypes. The diverse cast of characters onboard the Orient Express contributes to this, as each passenger holds strong opinions about others. However, many of these opinions seem to be based on preconceived notions rather than personal experiences with foreigners. The British passengers are wary of the Americans, while the French and Italians have conflicting relationships. M.
M. Bouc expressed his negative views on Italians immediately after interviewing Antonio Foscarelli. He stated, “He has been a long time in America…and he is an Italian, and Italians use the knife! And they are great liars! I do not like Italians” (144). These characteristics attributed to nationality are no more valid than associating the ability to kill with nationality. While these views are prejudiced, it is important to note that most of the passengers are assuming roles in a murder plot. They adopt stereotypes about other countries to effectively play their parts. Mrs. Hubbard exemplifies this behavior. Throughout the novel, she embodies a loud and annoying American persona that irritates many. However, it is revealed later that this behavior is an act to conceal her involvement in the murder. Her deliberate portrayal of what foreigners perceive as “American” exemplifies the perceptions of nationality during Christie’s era.
To maintain the charade, passengers must behave like someone of their class and nationality would, to avoid arousing suspicion. The novel also addresses social issues, particularly focusing on the inadequacy of American law. Prohibition and laws regarding murder in the United States are discussed at different points in the story. For instance, when Poirot searches Hardman’s suitcase, he finds bottles of liquor inside. Hardman casually dismisses prohibition, stating that it never bothered him. Additionally, Hardman openly talks about speakeasies with M.
Bouc is planning to hide any remaining alcohol during his journey to Paris, showing that prohibition has not affected his drinking habits. The novel revolves around a man who boldly killed a three-year-old child and was acquitted, serving as a direct criticism of the incompetence and dangers of the legal system. In Christie’s world on the train, it is evident that the characters only find justice when they take matters into their own hands. Even when faced with the murder, Mrs. Hubbard dismisses the idea of charges and questions Poirot’s intentions.
The author’s point is that the protagonist feels little fear of facing serious consequences unless the antagonist chooses to punish her immediately. It is highly unusual for twelve individuals from diverse backgrounds to come together to commit the murder of one person. However, this murder is considered to be perfect because all twelve suspects participated in killing someone who had murdered children. These twelve people, coming from different social classes and continents, were united in their belief that Ratchett had evaded justice in the American legal system and thus decided to plan his execution themselves. However, a dilemma arises regarding whether this act is achieving justice or if it is simply an act of revenge. All the individuals involved in Ratchett’s death had some connection to Daisy and the Armstrongs. In a true jury of peers, objectivity would be valued over emotional ties, which this particular group lacks.
There are differing opinions on the correlation between the perpetrators and the victim, with some considering it an obvious act of revenge. However, those involved in the incident disagree. Princess Dragomiroff even refers to the murder as “strict justice” and describes it as an “entirely admirable happening,” which is rare for a murder to be described as such (117). If the murderers believed that they were not only seeking justice for numerous wrongs but also preventing the murder of more innocent children, the moral boundaries become less clear.
The insufficiency of law in the United States is exemplified by the murder of Daisy Armstrong and the subsequent acquittal of Ratchett (formerly Cassetti). Ratchett, using his vast wealth and power, managed to avoid prosecution and embarked on a worldwide journey with his fortune, without facing any legal consequences for his crimes. This theme, explored in a novel released in 1934, continues to hold relevance in contemporary society. Consequently, it raises an intriguing social question about the morality of murder. Can murder be considered ethical under certain circumstances?
In Murder on the Orient Express, the staff and family of Daisy Armstrong seek to kill Ratchett and succeed. Although he was found not guilty in court, the conspirators were determined to punish him for his crime and prevent him from harming another child. The crime Ratchett committed was terrible and he was unquestionably guilty of it. He managed to evade justice in the United States, and his freedom was viewed as a threat to other children’s safety. Ratchett represents pure evil both in appearance and name. Christie decides to portray Ratchett as a victim.
By pointing out the concept of the deserving victim, a fate that is warranted, the novel suggests that it is morally justified to commit murder against a wicked adversary. ” ‘There were other children before Daisy – there might be others in the future. Society had condemned him; we were only carrying out the sentence’ ” (264). Despite society’s disdain for him, the census showed that the legal punishment had been too lenient. Ultimately, one can argue that Poirot acted as morally or immorally as the twelve murderers did by setting them free without informing the authorities.
In this novel, Ratchett is portrayed as the epitome of evil. The moment Poirot first lays eyes on Ratchett at the hotel, he recognizes him as a sinister figure, describing him as a savage creature. Poirot’s keen insight allows him to see beyond Ratchett’s deceptive appearance and uncover his true character. As Poirot investigates the murder by interviewing the passengers, he informs each of them about Ratchett’s connection to the abduction and killing of Daisy Armstrong. This revelation sparks outrage among all the passengers.
Ratchett is equated with evil and terror, which is purposeful in order to prevent the reader from feeling any sympathy towards him. The passengers consider it their responsibility to protect good and eliminate evil. Not only is Ratchett guilty of murder, but he also embodies greed. Despite knowing that he intended to kill Daisy, he still accepted an extremely high ransom from her family. If he were solely motivated by a desire to commit murder, he would have simply kidnapped her without asking for ransom and immediately killed her to minimize the potential for further evidence to be uncovered.
The true nature of Ratchett as an embodiment of various forms of evil becomes apparent during the drawn-out process of his kidnapping and money demands. Daisy Armstrong, on the other hand, serves as a stark contrast to Ratchett, symbolizing purity and innocence. Her abduction and brutal murder at the hands of a malevolent individual solely for financial reasons are discussed in each of Poirot’s interviews, evoking strong emotions of sorrow and rage from the passengers. One passenger expresses, “Ah, she was a little sweet, trusting angel. She knew nothing but kindness and love – and that wicked man took her away” (245).
Ratchett has committed the act of killing an innocent person, surpassing a mere murder and taking it to a higher level of emotional impact for those involved. Greta Ohlsson expressed her joy over Ratchett’s death, as she had witnessed the devastating effect it had on Daisy’s family and the irreparable loss caused solely by Ratchett. In Antonio Foscarelli’s last conversation with Piorot, he fondly remembers how charming and delightful young Daisy was, calling him “Tonio”.
The Italian man is moved to tears by the memory of a young girl pretending to drive a car, while everyone in her household respected and adored her. Agatha Christie skillfully incorporated societal issues into a fascinating murder mystery through her perspective. By using caricatures, facades, and stereotypes, Christie creates a captivating world on a train where appearances are deceiving and the reader is able to explore deeper meanings behind her portrayal.
Throughout the novel, the themes of injustice and morality prevail, challenging the distinction between right and wrong. Christie skillfully exploits the innocence of Daisy Armstrong, the initial victim, to provoke the reader’s contemplation on their own actions in a similar circumstance. Thus, she effectively engages the reader’s attention by concurrently crafting a political action tale.
