MovieChat Forums > Terror by Night (1946) Discussion > Plot holes? (SPOILERS!!!)

Plot holes? (SPOILERS!!!)

posted 16 years ago by partnerfrance
14 replies | jump to latest

I don't know if these are plot holes or just sloppy editing, but there sure are some unanswered questions at the end of this film.

1. As Holmes himself notes in the middle of the film, the mother of the first murdered man seems curiously unaffected by her son's death. This is clearly indicated in the film as a reason to consider her as a suspect and Inspector Lestrade even decides to interview her a second time due to it. At the end of the film, this is entirely unexplained (and we never hear what emerged from Lestrade's second interview).

2. An explanation is provided at the end of the film as to why Holmes suspected that the policemen who come on board are actually accomplices of the killer, but no explanation is ever given as to why Holmes has correctly deduced the identity of the killer (except possibly that the poison used would be familiar only to someone who has spent time in India, but as the "identity" of the killer during the film is a fabricated one, how would that be relevant?). False leads to both the aged professor and the train attendant are given, due to their interest in mathematics, but no real leads given as to why the criminal mastermind is the person who is revealed to be him at the end.

By the way, did anyone else think that the acting of the woman was incredibly wooden?

[–] rootbeerking12 16 years ago

Agreed on the inconsistencies, but these aren't "plot holes", merely red herrings, and there are dozens of them in every Holmes story by Arthur Conan Doyle. Colonel Sebastian Morian was just a stock antagonist (alongside Professor Moriarty) who Watson or the Sherlock could just "whip out" as their nemesis periodically from episode to episode.

And sure, the acting is wooden... but I love it.

[–] gonzomaz 16 years ago

Could be plot holes but;

1. She seems affected when she first finds out. After she recovered from the initial shock she may not show her emotions given the European "stiff upper lip" , hiding emotions type culture.

2. I disagree. Remember Watson's line to Holmes when he returns from Duncan-Bleek's compartment after playing cards "...gin rummy he called it, American I believe, a lot of bookeeping connected with it..". A subtle mathematics reference.

Yes, the female acting is a bit wooden but these were very small roles. Not much they could do there.

BTW, this is one of my favorites in the series.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lynnviv-1 16 years ago

gonzomaz, you refer to the "European 'stiff upper lip'". Just because Britain is in the European Common Market, don't assume that their culture is the same as all other members; in fact, there's a lot of difference between cultures on the continent of Europe as well. The French, for instance, could never be accused of the "stiff upper lip" syndrome.

[–] gonzomaz 16 years ago

Of course the cultures are different, point taken. Instead of European I should have said British or Royality , which is frequently displayed in film as having the "stiff upper lip", re "The Queen" (2006).

[–] xylonian-1 15 years ago

I agree with the stiff upper lip theory. IMO though when she was shown for a brief shot in her compartment, she would have looked more distressed....about her son and the diamond.

With regard to #2, Holmes suspected a plot, the fake Scottish inspector comfirmed that and Duncan Bleek was the only suspect possible....no???? :)

"Wait. Where are you going? I was going to make Espresso."

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jquirk-1 13 years ago

I always thought that the mother was just a cold woman. She was initially upset about her son's death, but later her concerns reverted back to the diamond. She seemed more worried about the Star of Rhodesia than anything else.

I completely disagree that there is a plothole regarding how Holmes figures out that Duncan Bleek is actually Sebastian Moran and the killer. Of all the suspects in the film, only Bleek/Moran is present when Holmes reveals that he substituted the diamond. After the real diamond later gets stolen from Lestrade, the identity of the culprit became elementary.

[–] gribfritz2 13 years ago

Not quite. Vivian Vedder was present as well.

[–] Jason_Radley 12 years ago

It's completely ridiculous that even a master of disguise such as Colonel Moran would think to pose as an old friend of Doctor Watson (let alone be able to pull it off) AND just happen to be taking the same train up to Scotland (unless we're meant to believe that he's just coming along for the ride). And Holmes doesn't think to question this incredible coincidence? Pah!

[–] Jason_Radley 12 years ago

How did the killer get through a locked door after killing the son? Was he some sort of acrobat, exiting via the window? And how could he have exited the coffin if the guard was in the luggage room?

I'm also wondering why Moran would leave the warning note under Holmes's plate (before the son's murder) - what purpose could it serve except to alert Holmes to the certainty that an attempt to steal the diamond would be made?

And another thing - at the end, Moran exults that Holmes doesn't have the diamond, but, no, Holmes has taken it off the fake inspector during the struggle. But even if he hadn't, Lestrade has the inspector in custody and would have recovered it regardless.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pt100 11 years ago

I don't worry too much about the woman's demeanor. Could be stiff upper lip, could be shock, whatever. And after the initial shock of her son's death diminishes, it's only natural to complain about the missing diamond.

Also, the gin rummy required a lot of "accounting," so there's the math link, as someone else has already mentioned.

And if you listen carefully to the right scene, Holmes never actually accuses Duncan-Bleek of being Moran. He simply asked the woman who got the casket if perhaps Duncan-Bleek could be the man who arranged for the casket. Later in the conversation, after Duncan-Bleek tells them they can search him and his compartment, Holmes says that of course he doesn't actually suspect Duncan-Bleek.

So it's not at all clear that Holmes was sure at that time that Duncan-Bleek was Moran. He may not have been 100% sure they were the same person until the phony Edinburgh inspector showed up and "recognized" Moran and was going to take him away. When the inspector said that Duncan-Bleek was Moran because he recognized him from an incident at Inverness, that's when Holmes could be sure Duncan-Bleek/Moran was the culprit.

[–] NxNWRocks 8 years ago

This was not the best-explained plot out of the series. Lots of things left dangling at the end.

"Worthington, we're being attacked by giant bats!"