Email: freeplanetx (at) gmail.com

J.R. and I have been watching Agatha Christie’s Poirot, as it is on Netflix Instant, and I have never seen it. As you might imagine, a dandy detective solving mysteries in an aggressively art-deco setting (seriously, you guys, this show has the best location scout ever) is not something I can get tired of watching. I am merely echoing the sentiments of world when I say how great David Suchet is as Poirot, but I feel not enough credit is given to Hugh Fraiser’s Hastings. The two of them are old friends right off the bat, and compliment each other’s performance beautifully.
When we were watching the first episodes, I asked J.R. if it’s ever explained why Hastings hangs around Poirot’s office, not doing anything but read the paper and making sly commentary. J.R. couldn’t remember, and we looked it up, only to find that Agatha Christie herself had admitted there was no reason for Hastings to be there. He was merely there to give Poirot someone to talk to, and she never bothered giving him a reason to continue to hang around beyond their first meeting. That, my friend, takes serious literary ovaries.
If Christie does not provide a reason for Poirot & Hastings to be so fond of each other, it is up to us to bridge the gap. I like to believe that they are lovers, keeping up appearances for the sake of their reputations in the England of the 20′s and 30′s. It adds a nice side element to show. Every exasperated sigh is instead one of passion, and every introduction of “companion,” carries an unseen warmth.
December 20th, 2011 at 10:10 am
I’m not sure that two men who enjoy each others’ company must perforce be sexually involved.
That’s probably hypocritical coming from the man who has admitted that he can’t write a story with two sexually compatible characters without them eventually bumping boots.
Still, I think their relationship can be deeper than mere association without that particular complication. The thought doesn’t repulse me, it simply feels incongruous.
December 20th, 2011 at 10:14 am
Thankfully, my views on the Poirot/Hastings relationship does not invalidate yours, and vice versa.
We all have our Batmans.
December 23rd, 2011 at 11:45 am
Thanks for the post! I never would have found the show otherwise
December 23rd, 2011 at 1:15 pm
You are welcome.
I can only speak for the first handful of episodes, but it has been ridiculously entertaining.
January 19th, 2012 at 5:54 am
Testify! All right-thinking fans of Poirot surely must agree that David Suchet is the definitive embodiment of the great master of the little grey cells. The ‘Poirot’ series never leaves us without a visual treat–either the magnificent Deco and Moderne interior & exterior shots, or Suchet’s Master Class in developing a character through the use of myriad small physical details. I never tire of watching Suchet’s Poirot simply walk down the street with his hand clasped firmly at the base of his spine and his ramrod-erect posture. ( Incidentally, Joan Hickson’s portrayal of Christie’s other legendary sleuth, Jane Marple, is similarly definitive. In both cases, one can’t help but pity the actor who attempts to portray either of these sleuths in the future.)
I have come to the same conclusion as you with regard to Hastings & Poirot’s connection. We are given no reason whatsoever to suspect that they are lovers, nor are we given a single reason to suppose that they are not. As that other great literary detective has taught us, when the impossible is eliminated, the remaining answer–even if improbable–is surely the solution. Arthur Hastings provides such negligible assistance to Poirot in the various investigations that some other explanation is required. Frankly, Poirot demonstrates too often that he has no patience with the dim-witted, yet his patience for Hastings–for who “dim-witted” is a lofty goal–is endless. When we understand that they are lovers: Mon Ami–it is all so clear!