The writers of the Poirot series sure like to make a fool out of Hastings, but they didn't shy away from making a fool out of Poirot himself either--see Murder in Mestopotamia.
It makes me mad that such little stupid things ruin the series for me... like you can have a perfectly well adapted mystery (ABC Murders, Hickory Dickory Dock, or above mentioned Murder in Mesopotamia), which gets unnecessarily tainted by these poor attempts at comedy or whatever it was that they were thinking they were doing... it's not funny that nobody wants to listen to Hastings's story of his adventures in the South American jungle, it's not funny that he lost his ranch and his restaurant failed and his wife wants a 'break' (who is he, fucking Ross from Friends???), it's not funny that Poirot invites Japp to stay with him in his flat but seemingly doesn't understand that Japp prefers English food and insist on serving him dishes that, frankly, are rather offputting and it's not funny that Japp doesn't know what a bidet is. Neither it is funny that Poirot himself gets made a fool out of by Vera Rosakoff. I don't mind them bringing her back (after all, she appears in the Big Four and is the closest thing to Poirot's love interest) but why like this? They could have just casually mention from time to time that she and Poirot correspond regularly with each other. (Admittedly for some reason I never could warm up to their romance, but I am trying to!)
Writers, why do you think we like to see our beloved characters being dumbos?
Thank the gods for Felicity Lemon, even when she fell for the wrong guy, she ended up not bothered by it and adopted a cat!
I agree. It think it's a "sign of the times" thing, to be honest. For the longest time, people (and many writers among them obviously) thought that making fun of someone was humour. The only way they thought laughter worked was if the audience laughed "at" someone. Entire comedy shows consisted of 90% put-down jokes and people watched it and those things ran for years. I hate it as well, and these things ruin perfectly wonderful episodes; but I do think we can put that down to stupidity rather than malicious intent, despite it feeling more like the latter.
As much as I like David Suchet for digging his heels in and being (in his own words) "difficult to work with" by refusing to let the writers write in any jokes on Poirot's expense, he certainly didn't care if the audience laughed at Hastings or Japp, and nobody else did either.
I didn't think of that at all! It would never occur to me that they would do this with period dramas.
Some of it is down to Agatha Christie herself as she wrote Hastings that way, but that doesn't mean the show's writers had to double down on it, especially as they made him more of a regular than he was in books. They could have stopped after his marriage, at least! Hastings could periodically return to England and assist Poirot with the cases, or they could have had him move back for a different reason (maybe there was a farm somewhere in Devon, Agatha's home county, that he and Isabel wanted to buy).
And the writers had no problem with making changes to the original stories when it suited them, so that's not a real excuse.
No, it's not an excuse, and I'm not even sure I'm right about my theory. That's just what I think, not to excuse poor writing but to kind of explain it, if that makes sense.
The "break" in their marriage only makes sense to me if we assume Hastings really is gay and his wife was done with pretending, but that's headcanon sneaking its way in there LOL
The writers were not allowed to make Poirot "funny" (i.e. someone to laugh at), nor were they allowed to ridicule Miss Lemon (presumably because she was a pretty woman), so they made up for that by making sure Hastings was portrayed as imbecilic as propriety allowed, and whenever they got the chance they did the same to Japp. It's pathetic and sad; and it makes me love both characters even more.
















