Simon Doyle (Armie Hammer) vents thus about the unsettling actions of Jacqueline De Bellefort (Emma Mackey), his former flame: “It’s indecent, what she’s doing. And melodramatic…” Then goes on to express his love for Linnet Ridgeway (Gal Gadot) almost in the same breath before that flight of fantasy was suddenly aborted and he was forced to return to the present when Poirot (Kenneth Branagh) confronted him with the most plausible explanation for Jacqueline’s behaviour: “…You broke your engagement.” (to Jacqueline). And supposed she would simply disappear after that. Just like that? Simon had earlier confirmed that Jacqueline no longer existed in his mind when Linnet moved into his heart. Isn’t Simon being naïve? Even if he could not complete the rest of the statement that “hell hath no fury…” doesn’t common sense teach that any sudden disconnect and display of disrespect/disdain for a partner because a ‘better’ partner has moved into view, will definitely procure various forms of distaste for the insensitive/naïve partner? Isn’t that the way this peculiar cookie crumbles?
How does the foregoing explain (if at all) the Death on the Rail? Is there any substance to the allegation of broken engagement of some sort between some authorities and their subjects in matters of duties and obligations? If Simon didn’t govern his heart and permitted it to let in another occupant when it was his duty to guard his heart against another, should he blame the earlier occupant if she chooses to make his life restless? Similarly, if the relevant authorities did not govern what is commonly referred to as ‘ungoverned spaces,’ should they blame anyone else if some persons move in to occupy those ‘ungoverned spaces,’ and attempt to impose their ways on the original inhabitants of those places?
How can the consequences from broken engagement be minimized? And who can defend the view that minimizing the consequences of broken engagements requires rigour, thought, patience, insights and honesty?