When I heard that at the beginning of 2017 that there was another adaptation of Murder on the Orient Express in the works, I had mixed feelings.
I have read every single Poirot story that Agatha Christie ever wrote, as well as watched all the adaptations, so I know how hard it is to do these stories justice. From Albert Finney to Peter Ustinov, I've seen so many takes on this story, and each has been so different. Hercule Poirot is such a popular, well-known and beloved character in British literature, and I'm sure that everybody would have an opinion of how they think he should be played. For Kenneth Branagh to choose to take on the role was, in my eyes, a really bold move. Having played Poirot for so long, David Suchet was - to me, and I'm sure to most fans - the epitome of the character. When you think of Poirot, you can't help but think of David Suchet playing him. Because he played him for so long, and because he did such an incredible job.
Murder on the Orient Express was such a triumph for Suchet that I was intrigued to see if Branagh could match this. I was really excited to see such a famous story adapted again, with a whole new host of talented actors. I was really happy to keep an open mind (even if I did have some reservations upon seeing the trailer). Having now watched the film, I'm really glad that I kept an open mind. Do I think it was a faithful adaptation of Christie's novel? In some ways, yes, and in some ways, definitely not. Do I think Branagh's direction provided us with such a successful film as Suchet's? The two are so different, but as a whole, this didn't impress me as much as I was impressed by the 2010 version starring Suchet.
This being said, I'm going to attempt to do an evaluation of the original novel, with comparisons between the 2010 television film, and the 2017 cinema adaptation. With so many different components to the original plot, and with so many different ways of telling such a complex story, we will really see how successful these ventures were.
I have read every single Poirot story that Agatha Christie ever wrote, as well as watched all the adaptations, so I know how hard it is to do these stories justice. From Albert Finney to Peter Ustinov, I've seen so many takes on this story, and each has been so different. Hercule Poirot is such a popular, well-known and beloved character in British literature, and I'm sure that everybody would have an opinion of how they think he should be played. For Kenneth Branagh to choose to take on the role was, in my eyes, a really bold move. Having played Poirot for so long, David Suchet was - to me, and I'm sure to most fans - the epitome of the character. When you think of Poirot, you can't help but think of David Suchet playing him. Because he played him for so long, and because he did such an incredible job.
Murder on the Orient Express was such a triumph for Suchet that I was intrigued to see if Branagh could match this. I was really excited to see such a famous story adapted again, with a whole new host of talented actors. I was really happy to keep an open mind (even if I did have some reservations upon seeing the trailer). Having now watched the film, I'm really glad that I kept an open mind. Do I think it was a faithful adaptation of Christie's novel? In some ways, yes, and in some ways, definitely not. Do I think Branagh's direction provided us with such a successful film as Suchet's? The two are so different, but as a whole, this didn't impress me as much as I was impressed by the 2010 version starring Suchet.
This being said, I'm going to attempt to do an evaluation of the original novel, with comparisons between the 2010 television film, and the 2017 cinema adaptation. With so many different components to the original plot, and with so many different ways of telling such a complex story, we will really see how successful these ventures were.
The Story
Following a case in the Middle East, Poirot is called back to London immediately. With a little help from his friend M. Bouc, who is an important director of travel, Poirot manages to secure a berth on the Orient Express, despite his earlier being told the train was fully booked that evening.
When a passenger is found dead, stabbed repeatedly in the chest in the middle of the night, Poirot finds himself in the middle of a mystery that he did not expect to have to solve. When the train gets stuck in snow and reaches a standstill, the famous detective finds that clues don't add up, and the other passengers continue to lie to him. In order to solve the case, Poirot may have to consider that sometimes, the impossible is possible after all...
Agatha Christie had travelled on the Orient Express multiple times throughout her life, one time even getting stuck on it after flooding washed away some of the train track. She dedicated the 1934 book to her second husband Max, who is said to have suggested the ending. In her autobiography she states:
"All my life I had wanted to go on the Orient Express."
She couldn't possibly have known that this experience would go on to inspire one of the most famous murder mysteries of all time.
*spoiler alert*
The Book
The Plot
The Plot
It feels strange to be evaluating a plot that I already know so well. I've read the book on multiple occasions, but I'm going to do my best to look at the story through fresh eyes. It is, however, really interesting to re-read a murder mystery. You see the clues that you missed first time around, and you understand the full significance of each character's lies.
Because really, the clues were there all along. When we are told that the victim was killed by twelve stab wounds, each of different depth and at a different angle, alarm bells immediately ring in Poirot's head, and he knows that this case won't be as simple as he first expected. Multiple authors have written threatening notes to the victim; Mary Debenham and Colonel Arbuthnot are overheard discussing when "it" will all be over; Mary displays anxiety over missing her Orient Express connection; the train is fully booked, despite M. Bouc's surprised comment that the train is always near empty in the winter. Each of these things can be explained away by some reason or other, and it isn't until you look back over the story that you see how significant this all is. Each character has an alibi from somebody else on the train who has no connection to them. The logical solution, as we see from the end, is that they were all in it together.
Because really, the clues were there all along. When we are told that the victim was killed by twelve stab wounds, each of different depth and at a different angle, alarm bells immediately ring in Poirot's head, and he knows that this case won't be as simple as he first expected. Multiple authors have written threatening notes to the victim; Mary Debenham and Colonel Arbuthnot are overheard discussing when "it" will all be over; Mary displays anxiety over missing her Orient Express connection; the train is fully booked, despite M. Bouc's surprised comment that the train is always near empty in the winter. Each of these things can be explained away by some reason or other, and it isn't until you look back over the story that you see how significant this all is. Each character has an alibi from somebody else on the train who has no connection to them. The logical solution, as we see from the end, is that they were all in it together.
What really makes the story special is the emotional side behind it. Emotions are a huge part of most murder mysteries, but Murder on the Orient Express takes this to the next level. This is more than just having an unsavoury man killed because he wasn't particularly pleasant. We get the entire backstory of Daisy Armstrong, and this is really what makes the reader angry towards Ratchett, or as he is better know, Cassetti. With Poirot's description of the man, we already have a dislike of him, and there is a defiance that can be felt when Poirot rejects Ratchett's offer of a wealthy payout in return for some protection. This does pique your interest as to what will happen next, but I'll be surprised if anybody, on their first read of the novel, expected such a brutal outcome. When Ratchett's true identity is revealed, it is incredibly difficult to feel bad that he has been murdered. The story of Cassetti kidnapping and killing the young Daisy Armstrong is heartwrenching. The whole plot begins to come together from this moment, as the reader begins to realise the true reasoning behind the murder.
Christie is said to have been inspired by the story of Charles Lindbergh, whose case is remarkably similar to that which is related in the book. Lindbergh made his first solo crossing of the Atlantic in 1927, and became famous. His son was kidnapped and killed in 1932, in much the same way as the fictional Daisy Armstrong. The details all tally - there was even a maid who was suspected of involvement in the crime, and, after harsh interrogation by police, committed suicide. It is clear that Christie used this story as inspiration for her most popular mystery. Knowing this context makes the novel seem that much worse again, and the so-called justice that is carried out against Ratchett/Cassetti seems less and less unreasonable as the novel progresses.
When we start to uncover the connections to the crime, this is really where the whole plot begins to unravel. We begin with MacQueen, who admits he has a connection to the case, but who Poirot dismisses. Psychology suggests that MacQueen would be very unlikely to have carried out the murder in a frenzied rage. We then hear about the connection of Princess Dragomiroff, and so on and so forth. It is an enormous coincidence that so many people are connected to the Armstrong case. In most mysteries, this would be unrealistic but understandable - to create a good mystery is to maintain a number of possibilities. However in this case there is good reason for all the coincidental connections.
"For so many people connected with the Armstrong case to be travelling by the same train through coincidence was not only unlikely: it was impossible. It must not be chance, but design."
These are the words spoken by Poirot as he reveals that he knows the truth. The idea is really something special, and the way it is executed is perfect. The clues are there all along for us to see. The plot is fully established from the very beginning, and there is never a part where the reader feels lost or confused. The whole thing is so well-crafted that the ending really pulls the whole story together. Even the inclusion of the snow, rather than the flood with which Christie herself experienced delays. The lack of footprints completely shattered the story of the fake conductor that was set up to be believed. It's all so subtle, yet so important, and it all ties together to make for a single, cohesive story.
The Characters
Part of what makes this novel so wonderful is the vast array of different characters that all have a part to play in the story. The book introduces a list right at the very beginning, before the novel has even started - almost like a playbill. This is really interesting, and I like the idea a lot, as the characters are all established and of equal importance right from the off. We also have the addition of a diagram which shows us the layout of the Calais coach. It's really useful for us to see where everybody was staying, as it allows the reader to play detective properly.
It would be wrong not to start with the character of Hercule Poirot himself, known for having lots of quirks. There is none of that in this novel. Poirot is the same character that we know and love from other stories, but Murder on the Orient Express is a departure from those funny qualities that we find humorous and endearing. This book is about the plot, and there are no parts where we laugh at Poirot's behaviour as we do in so many other Christie stories.
It would be wrong not to start with the character of Hercule Poirot himself, known for having lots of quirks. There is none of that in this novel. Poirot is the same character that we know and love from other stories, but Murder on the Orient Express is a departure from those funny qualities that we find humorous and endearing. This book is about the plot, and there are no parts where we laugh at Poirot's behaviour as we do in so many other Christie stories.
✼
As for the other characters on our playbill, we could say a lot. Ratchett is described very heavily, and we get the impression immediately that he is not a kind man.
..."[Ratchett's appearance includes a] slightly bald head, his domed forehead, the smiling mouth that displayed a very white set of false teeth - all seemed to speak of benevolent personality. Only the eyes belied this assumption. They were small, deep-set and crafty." ... "The body - the cage - is everything of the most respectable - but through the bars, the wild animal looks out."
This gives us a very clear insight into the kind of man that Ratchett is. It follows that the reader struggles to feel sympathetic towards him when he is so brutally murdered, and even less so when we discover his true identity. I loved how Ratchett's character was established so early on. We know exactly where we stand with this man, and it sets the whole story up with the reader on the side of the murderer (or murderers). When the truth is revealed, we cannot help but hope that this jury of people will be spared.
✼
On this so-called jury is such a wide variety of characters, it would be easy to talk about them all in-depth. We have the Italian Foscarelli, the old but steady Princess Dragomiroff, the highly religious Greta Ohlsson, and the right hand man of the victim, MacQueen, among others. Two of the most important characters are Mary Debenham and Mrs Hubbard.
"Her manner was as calm and unruffled as her hair."
This description of Mary Debenham is so accurate. Her character throughout the story is so calm and collected that you can't help but be unnerved by her. She is in stark contrast to Mrs Hubbard, who is incredibly dramatic every time she makes an appearance. It's annoying to hear her talk about her daughter so much, until you have the sudden realisation that her daughter is actually at the centre of the entire story (as Mrs Hubbard is actually Linda Arden, mother of Sonia Armstrong and grandmother of Daisy Armstrong). Mary Debenham and Mrs Hubbard are, we finally realise, two of the main orchestrators of this particular murder. To have two characters so different from each other have such similar motivations really shows the broadness of all characters in the book. This is a massive achievement by Christie to create so many diverse yet endearing figures in a single story.
The Structure
The novel is split neatly into three different sections: 'The Facts', 'The Evidence' and 'Hercule Poirot Sits Back and Thinks'. This formal structure is very reminiscent of how this is a serious book - there are no jokes involved. We have the event, and the first section ends with the reveal of Cassetti's story. The reader has the information, and they go into the second section ready to assess the clues. Finally, in the third section, we think - and the thinking is what gets Poirot to his dramatic reveal; a reveal that is so in keeping with the rest of the book. Everyone is revealed to have been involved in the murder. It's all so neat! We are given a list of characters in the beginning, we have a diagram of the different compartments, we are provided with a detailed list of the suspects, and there is a list of questions that need to be answered. The whole book, in terms of murder mysteries, is so structured and clear. There is not a single point in the book where we are confused by who is who, or what exactly is happening. The whole layout of the story sets itself up for a fantastic finale; one that the reader still wasn't expecting to happen, despite being given all of the information in just the right order. That's the true beauty of the book - we have everything before us, and yet it is still a shock when the truth finally comes out.
The Themes
There are so many noticeable themes in Murder on the Orient Express, and they play a central role in the story.
One theme that is aligned with Poirot throughout all of Christie's novels is that of psychology. Poirot's method of solving crimes isn't just to look at the clues and decide what they mean - he looks at the psychology behind them. How did the clues come to be there? Is there any reason why they don't add up? One of the clearest moments in the book where Poirot focuses on psychology is when he is interviewing Mary Debenham.
One theme that is aligned with Poirot throughout all of Christie's novels is that of psychology. Poirot's method of solving crimes isn't just to look at the clues and decide what they mean - he looks at the psychology behind them. How did the clues come to be there? Is there any reason why they don't add up? One of the clearest moments in the book where Poirot focuses on psychology is when he is interviewing Mary Debenham.
"I look first at my witness, I sum up his or her character, and I frame my questions accordingly."
This is what Poirot tells Miss Debenham when she is confused by his line of questioning, and it illuminates his method throughout the whole story. Poirot held a formal questioning with Mary Debenham because she is shrewd, and would not answer freely if he treated her in any other way. Yet he chats kindly with Hildegarde Schmidt, as he notices that she would be too timid to respond well to outright questioning. By using psychology to assess what approach will lead him to the truth, Poirot uncovers a lot of information. This approach allows him to find out that Fraulein Schmidt was a cook in her previous household, because she fell into a false sense of security fabricated by the detective.
✼
Another consistent theme, but one that is emphasised particularly in this book, is that of justice. Hercule Poirot is known for enacting justice on murderers. Yet the result of this book is a huge departure from what we have grown to expect from the character. Colonel Arbuthnot is one of the main architects of this theme, as he makes it very clear that he lives his life on the right side of the law.
"Say what you like, trial by jury is a sound system."
And that's exactly what this is. Colonel Arbuthnot leads us to believe, by saying this, that he would never stray from the law, because he thinks such trials are the real mode of justice. Yet when we come to the end of the book, we see what he really meant. The murder of Ratchett/Cassetti was committed by twelve people, and that's exactly how many people make up a jury. Taking the law into his own hands is not what Colonel Arbuthnot would ordinarily do, but he partakes in this due to the huge injustice that has been done. It raises the very dark discussion about whether justice is subject to opinion. When Poirot reveals the two possible solutions to the crime at the end of the book, we are unsure which one he will choose to relay to the authorities. Will he go by the name of the law, or will he go by another form of justice? If you'd asked me before I read this book whether Poirot would ever let a the culprit(s) go, I would have said no immediately. Yet the book is so beautifully written that we are able to see how he reached his decision. We are able to see another form of justice.
✼
A final, central theme that really stood out to me was that of fate. This is neatly summarised by Princess Dragomiroff when she discovers who Poirot really is:
"Yes. I remember now. This is Destiny."
Poirot outwardly wonders what she means. It's clear to me that what she means is that she, and all the other passengers, have committed a crime. Murder is wrong, and it was fate that the one person who would have solved the case happened to find himself caught up in the middle. It was fate that the snow had caused such a fundamental problem so as to eliminate the possibility of an outsider. If they were not to get away with it, then it was fate. Destiny - because justice should be served for those who do wrong.
This indicates that these people are not bad people. They are doing what they believe is right, but they also know that what they are doing is committing a crime. The fact that Hercule Poirot ended up on that train is simultaneously bad luck, and also very good luck. It is bad luck because what they have done has been discovered. Yet in my mind, it is also good luck. For someone who is so esteemed in the subject of crime and justice to spare them, they can know that they are understood. That what they have done is not so irredeemable. I think this is just as important to the moral of the story as the fact that Poirot discovered the truth.
The Verdict
This book is an absolute triumph, and it is completely understandable how the story has stood the test of time for over 80 years. Not only is the plot so clever, but it is also beautifully structured. The reader never feels like they don't know what is going on. The facts and the clues are all laid out for us to see, and the characters are fully established to fit in with the plot.
The whole book is sincere, but not too dramatic. There is an underlying tension throughout the whole thing, but it is very subtle so as not to overwhelm the delicate storyline. This isn't the twinkly and charming detective that we have grown to know; this is the moral and just person who strives to do what is right. The only humour in this book is the fact that MacQueen thought Poirot was the name of a dressmaker! The whole tone of the book complements the story of Daisy Armstrong and her loved ones who just want what is right.
Rating: ✫✫✫✫✫
The whole book is sincere, but not too dramatic. There is an underlying tension throughout the whole thing, but it is very subtle so as not to overwhelm the delicate storyline. This isn't the twinkly and charming detective that we have grown to know; this is the moral and just person who strives to do what is right. The only humour in this book is the fact that MacQueen thought Poirot was the name of a dressmaker! The whole tone of the book complements the story of Daisy Armstrong and her loved ones who just want what is right.
Rating: ✫✫✫✫✫
The Television Adaptation
The Plot
And so we arrive at the 2010 version of Murder on the Orient Express, adapted for television and starring David Suchet as Hercule Poirot. It has to be noted that Suchet had been playing Poirot for years and years by this point, so he was fully established as the character to the British public. What I'm really interested in discussing first is just how closely this adaptation aligns with the plot devised by Agatha Christie.
It isn't difficult to see that this version is very close to the original book. It is perhaps not so rigid in structure, which is not surprising given the different strategies a visual adaptation can utilise, but the fundamental plot is recognisable at every turn. The key points are faithfully laid out for the audience, and the plot, with all it's complex characters and red herrings, unravels in exactly the same way. Poirot even emphasises the need for psychology when examining these clues; a trait which has always been closely linked to him. Yet there are some significant differences that can't be overlooked.
The beginning, for example. Although the book does open with Poirot returning from the Middle East, Christie doesn't dwell on this information. Beyond establishing that Mary Debenham and Colonel Arbuthnot know each other, and that the Orient Express was unusually full on that evening, there is very little that Christie details. The reader is launched into the action as soon as possible. This is not quite the case in the 2010 adaptation, which opens with a more extended drama. Poirot here witnesses a soldier commit suicide in front of him, and not five minutes later an adulteress is seen being stoned to death on the streets of Istanbul. In response to both of these occasions, Poirot says little, except to imply to a shocked Mary Debenham that people who do wrong bring upon themselves these situations. Although initially I wasn't convinced by this addition - I thought it was a beginning added for dramatic entertainment value by the director - I now really appreciate it's significance. Poirot is shown to be rigidly on the side of the law; to him, crimes are black and white. So when the events of the murder are revealed, the viewer can see that he is really struggling with his strong beliefs. This is a moral battle for him, and this is emphasised much more in this adaptation than in the book. To me, this is very effective, and does nothing but add to the brilliance of the original plot.
The Characters
With such a range of complex characters, it's difficult to believe that any adaptation could keep to all descriptions faithfully. And there are lots of characters who have noticeable changes in the 2010 adaptation of Murder on the Orient Express, whether a lot or a little.
Poirot himself, in my opinion, has a lot more depth in the television version than in the original novel. David Suchet himself wrote a book about his experiences when playing the Belgian detective, and in it he discusses at length the difference in his character when filming Murder on the Orient Express. An excerpt from the book, Poirot and Me, details:
Poirot himself, in my opinion, has a lot more depth in the television version than in the original novel. David Suchet himself wrote a book about his experiences when playing the Belgian detective, and in it he discusses at length the difference in his character when filming Murder on the Orient Express. An excerpt from the book, Poirot and Me, details:
"I do not believe I smile once in the entire film; to do so would have been inappropriate to the story, to me, and I was desperate, as I always was, to serve Dame Agatha's vision in her original novel."
I can see the effort that Suchet put into making Poirot a more sincere character than was usually necessary. However I'm not sure if this is necessarily in keeping with Christie's vision, as he says. Although the book showed a very measured and sincere detective, this portrayal went even further. This took him to a point where he questioned everything he had ever believed. I'm not sure if this portrayal is entirely faithful, but I do think it has an impact, and it definitely doesn't do any detriment to the story as a whole. Do I think Suchet's dramatic and emotional portrayal is too much? I don't. It could so easily have pushed the boundaries of the character too far, but I think the balance is still acceptable. The close-ups of Poirot and the dramatic climax work towards making the original story dynamic, whilst still maintaining the integrity of Christie's work.
✼
In terms of the passengers on the train, one character that I wasn't as convinced by in the 2010 adaptation was Samuel Ratchett. I do think that Toby Jones did the best he could with the part, and he clearly knows how to play a menacing figure. Yet the description of Ratchett in the book just doesn't tally for me with the Ratchett we see on screen. When reading the book, I expected to see a person who looked naturally evil, and I'm just not convinced that Toby Jones can achieve this. I'm perfectly aware that this may be just a personal preference, as, like I have already said, he did a great job with what he had before him. I just don't feel that he was necessarily the best actor for this role.
I also wasn't sure about the way the doctor was portrayed in this version. He was a bit too jittery, and not really as measured as I would have liked. However this being said, he did provide a fantastic contrast to the character of Poirot. In the book, the two have very similar approaches, yet in this case, they are opposites. Poirot even often criticises the doctor and emphasises their differences a lot more. This was a move away from the original character of the doctor that Christie created, but I loved the reasoning behind it - that the doctor was actually a member of the Calais coach jury. The character of Cyrus Hardman was missing from the book in order for the doctor to take on this role, but I actually found that I didn't miss him. I always believe that adaptations should remain as faithful to the original book as possible, but in this case I didn't really mind. Knowing that the doctor was involved in distracting Poirot, and got to have an inside line in the investigation, is really clever and intriguing. I'm not normally one to appreciate changes, but I really loved this one.
I also wasn't sure about the way the doctor was portrayed in this version. He was a bit too jittery, and not really as measured as I would have liked. However this being said, he did provide a fantastic contrast to the character of Poirot. In the book, the two have very similar approaches, yet in this case, they are opposites. Poirot even often criticises the doctor and emphasises their differences a lot more. This was a move away from the original character of the doctor that Christie created, but I loved the reasoning behind it - that the doctor was actually a member of the Calais coach jury. The character of Cyrus Hardman was missing from the book in order for the doctor to take on this role, but I actually found that I didn't miss him. I always believe that adaptations should remain as faithful to the original book as possible, but in this case I didn't really mind. Knowing that the doctor was involved in distracting Poirot, and got to have an inside line in the investigation, is really clever and intriguing. I'm not normally one to appreciate changes, but I really loved this one.
✼
This being said, there were some other characters that I appreciated for their being exactly as they were originally written. Jessica Chastain played a wonderful Mary Debenham - calm, cool and collected. You can well believe that she had an instrumental role in planning this crime.
Princess Dragomiroff was also very satisfyingly played by Eileen Atkins. She was given some more prominence in this television drama, being the one who surrendered herself, and asked Poirot to spare the others. The aloof demeanour of the Princess was on point, and I wouldn't have wanted it to be any other way.
I also thought that Greta Ohlsson was beautifully played. From more of a background role in the book, this was one character who really made this television film great. Her religious nature and her sense of right and wrong rivalled that of Poirot, and this was established perfectly for the dramatic ending.
These characters were exactly as I thought they should be. Even those who weren't necessarily as I had imagined them really added to the drama. All the actors really invested themselves in the characters that Agatha Christie had carefully created, and their dedication to her vision shines through.
Princess Dragomiroff was also very satisfyingly played by Eileen Atkins. She was given some more prominence in this television drama, being the one who surrendered herself, and asked Poirot to spare the others. The aloof demeanour of the Princess was on point, and I wouldn't have wanted it to be any other way.
I also thought that Greta Ohlsson was beautifully played. From more of a background role in the book, this was one character who really made this television film great. Her religious nature and her sense of right and wrong rivalled that of Poirot, and this was established perfectly for the dramatic ending.
These characters were exactly as I thought they should be. Even those who weren't necessarily as I had imagined them really added to the drama. All the actors really invested themselves in the characters that Agatha Christie had carefully created, and their dedication to her vision shines through.
The Themes
I would be very surprised if anybody watching the 2010 remake of Murder on the Orient Express and wasn't struck by the deeply emotional scenes included in it.
In Poirot and Me, Suchet discusses the
In Poirot and Me, Suchet discusses the
"intense moral dilemma"
that Poirot is faced with at the end of the film. His morality tells him that people who take lives should be punished for their sins; but his religious faith tells him that people can be forgiven. Where should the line be drawn? Greta Ohlsson is, for me, a fundamental part of this theme. She unwittingly admits to Poirot that she found God because of the incident involving the Armstrong family, and when the detective tells her that God should be left to enact justice, her immediate, passionate response is:
"And when he doesn't?!"
To add even more drama to the scene, Linda Arden (alias Mrs Hubbard) justifies their actions by stating plainly:
"We looked to the law for justice, and the law let us down."
This is such an emotional scene which I really don't think is emphasised in the book. Christie's original plot saw Poirot sympathising immediately, and calmly deciding to let the culprits go. The television adaptation was a definite move away from the book, but I actually preferred it. It simply wouldn't be an easy decision. It would be a huge struggle for someone who has lived their life by the law. Colonel Arbuthnot even draws a pistol on Poirot when he threatens to turn them in, but Mary Debenham tells him plainly that they are not murderers; that they only did such an awful thing because they all believed it was just. You can see that at this moment, Poirot is finally convinced that they are not criminals - only people in pain who feel let down by those in positions of authority. In my opinion, this was absolutely perfectly produced by all of those who worked on the 2010 remake.
The Style and Tone
"There are no jokes in [the story]. It is an essay in brutal murder, and I wanted to reveal that fact. It is not about a Poirot who is famous for his pernickety behaviour, or his funny hair and moustache net; it is a story about evil, and whether it can ever be justified"
This is another quote taken from Poirot and Me by David Suchet. He references the fact that although Poirot was often written by Christie to be a comical character, this was not the case in Murder on the Orient Express. And he's right. In many other Christie novels, I have read comments that mock Poirot's appearance, his character, and his methods. Yet in this particular story, Poirot is not there to be funny.
It's true that Christie put no jokes in her book, but when you read it, it just isn't as dramatic as Suchet's version creates. This is a real benefit of having visuals and sounds to support a plot. The music, the tense looks between each character, and even the cold colour of the film all create that feeling of stress and isolation. To be able to see a character and their surroundings can engage a viewer in a way that a book often cannot engage a reader. Everything about the adaptation is dark and full of tension, and this is done to really great effect.
Add to this the small but significant details; Princess Dragomiroff telling Cassetti why he deserves to die, while he is being brutally stabbed; the addition of Mary Debenham's paralysed arm, pointed out by the victim. The coldness in particular is used to add tension. The characters are all noticeably suffering, and these details are added to increase the overall drama of the story. The original book contains all the dark and brutal details of the plot, but this adaptation really brought them to life. I imagine that some people believe that this remake exaggerated these dark moments too much, but I would wholeheartedly disagree. Yes, it is very different to Christie's original. Yet I believe that all the creators of the 2010 version have done is build on the foundations of the book, bringing it to life in a way only visual media could do.
The Verdict
On completion of this 2010 adaptation, David Suchet confessed:
"I suspect it may never be quite as popular as the earlier film, but the director, the writer and I were trying as hard as we could to stay true to the tone and depth of Agatha's original, and I think it shows exactly what I mean when I say that my role as an actor is to serve my writer."
It baffles me that this version could ever be considered more unpopular than Albert Finney's portrayal, but I can see why Suchet might think this. His portrayal of Poirot in this adaptation is incredibly dark, without any of the humour that many fans love about the detective. This remake is dramatic, tense and very emotional. However, I think it's beautifully crafted. There is a reason that the humour is non-existent, and there is a reason why no jokes can be found. This television drama focuses on the bare bones of the plot. The tragedy of Daisy Armstrong, and the pain of those who cared about her but were left behind.
This adaptation does not add any extravagant details to the plot, and it doesn't change the characters in unnecessary ways. It is as faithful as I could ever imagine a remake being, and Suchet most definitely served Agatha Christie; by recreating and emphasising the important and thought-provoking aspects of a story that has most definitely been done justice.
Rating: ✫✫✫✫✫
The Film
Of all the actors to imagine playing Poirot, Kenneth Branagh would not have been my top choice. Probably not even in my top ten. It's therefore unsurprising that I was a little dubious about the success of this new remake of Murder on the Orient Express. Having now seen the film, it really does have its merits, but it also does have its flaws. Let's look at how this film compares to the original novel before discussing both the 2010 and 2017 adaptations of the book together.
The Plot
Although the fundamental points of Christie's plot remain the same, there are some very drastic differences in this film.
This is evident as soon as it starts. As with the 2010 adaptation of the book, this film begins with a lot more action than Christie originally wrote. As a standalone film, this version was faced with the challenge of establishing Poirot's character quickly and effectively, so that the plot can proceed as expected. There was a definite attempt to do this, but I'm not really sure the character was done justice. It seemed a little bizarre to have Poirot perform a speech revealing a case to an enormous crowd. Poirot is, and always has been, in favour of intimate reveal scenes, so this immediately seemed completely out of character for me; exactly the opposite of what they were probably trying to achieve.
✼
Nonetheless, there was a lot about the film that I really appreciated. I loved the emphasis that was made on Monsieur Bouc convincing Poirot to take the case because of the likelihood of racism implicating innocent passengers. Bouc comments that if the real culprit is not found, Marquez may be implicated because of his name, or Doctor Arbuthnot because of the colour of his skin. In the original novel, Bouc is very prejudiced against the Italian Foscarelli (renamed Marquez in this film for absolutely no reason that I can see), and this overshadows his judgement. Although this film didn't use this exact plot point, the nod towards it throughout the film was really significant in my mind. It referenced the book in a really subtle but effective way.
I also thought it was clever to set up the discovery by Poirot that Mary Debenham was the Countess Helena's old governess. At the very beginning of the film, before the passengers embark on their journey, Mary is heard telling Poirot of her love of teaching Geography to children. When the Countess later mentions the same idea, you can see the connection being made in Poirot's mind. You don't always get this in the book. In fact, in Christie's version, you often feel that Poirot just automatically knows things he never would. This was a great way of combatting that, and it was nice to be able to see Poirot put the facts together to reach a correct conclusion.
I also thought it was clever to set up the discovery by Poirot that Mary Debenham was the Countess Helena's old governess. At the very beginning of the film, before the passengers embark on their journey, Mary is heard telling Poirot of her love of teaching Geography to children. When the Countess later mentions the same idea, you can see the connection being made in Poirot's mind. You don't always get this in the book. In fact, in Christie's version, you often feel that Poirot just automatically knows things he never would. This was a great way of combatting that, and it was nice to be able to see Poirot put the facts together to reach a correct conclusion.
✼
The ending of the film is something else entirely. The truth about what happened to Ratchett remains exactly how Christie imagined it (thankfully), but there was a lot of unnecessary action added again. What was the point of the scene between Poirot and Mary Debenham, where Doctor Arbuthnot interrupts and fires a pistol at Poirot? It was unnecessary, it didn't fit in with the tone of the story, and it was just downright irritating.
The actual reveal itself, however, was very dynamic, and I enjoyed it. For the characters all to be lined up exactly like a jury was a very clever idea, and was very visually effective. Yet I'm still not sure how I felt about Poirot putting the pistol on the table and telling the passengers to kill him. I originally thought it was out of character and melodramatic, but now I realise the whole point was so that the detective could see whether they were honest people; whether they were cold-blooded murderers, killing for their own gain, or if they were acting for justice. I still have mixed feelings about the scene, but I see the reasoning behind it, and why it made it into the film.
As a sidenote, I also loved the reference to Death on the Nile right at the end!
The actual reveal itself, however, was very dynamic, and I enjoyed it. For the characters all to be lined up exactly like a jury was a very clever idea, and was very visually effective. Yet I'm still not sure how I felt about Poirot putting the pistol on the table and telling the passengers to kill him. I originally thought it was out of character and melodramatic, but now I realise the whole point was so that the detective could see whether they were honest people; whether they were cold-blooded murderers, killing for their own gain, or if they were acting for justice. I still have mixed feelings about the scene, but I see the reasoning behind it, and why it made it into the film.
As a sidenote, I also loved the reference to Death on the Nile right at the end!
The Characters
Kenneth Branagh made a really great effort at the role of the famous Belgian detective, but he just isn't Hercule Poirot. It must be really difficult to live up to the reputation that David Suchet has built up over the years, and I really commend Branagh for trying to do something different with it. His appearance is obviously not quite right; Poirot is known to dye his hair jet black, he is overweight, and his moustache isn't quite that bushy and uncontrollable. Yet it was also his personality that bothered me. Poirot isn't an action hero, and it really went against the fundamental traits of Christie's calm and considered character to make him act this way.
✼
Yet this wasn't the only problem with this cast of characters. MacQueen is made to be a thieving drunk, the Count and Countess were reimagined as self-medicating and away with the fairies, and Colonel Arbuthnot becomes Doctor Arbuthnot in an unnecessary merging of two crucial characters. Hollywood really hit these characters hard, and took away the real essence of their defining qualities. In an attempt to make the characters more dynamic and interesting, it seems that what actually happened is they completely changed from what Christie originally created. It is, however, interesting that this 2017 film chose to make the same change that the 2010 adaptation did - to include the doctor in the jury. I said in regards to the other version that this was an idea that I loved, and I think it was a great idea here as well, although perhaps not executed as cleverly.
There is also the obvious difference of the inclusion of Pilar Estravados, a character originally found in Hercule Poirot's Christmas. What really bothered me about this is that Pilar replaced Greta Ohlsson, a character with exactly the same personality and beliefs as the character she was replaced by. Pilar was made to be religious, just, and vocal on what was right and wrong - exactly as Greta was in the book. The only reason I can see for the change is that Pilar fitted the appearance of Penelope Cruz better. To make a change for such a non-problem really bothered me, as it's just completely unnecessary.
Mary Debenham also disappointed me. She wasn't at all how I had imagined her. Daisy Ridley just didn't play her personality in the way she was described by Christie. Ridley makes Miss Debenham flit continuously between kind and open to aloof and blunt, which is a complete confusion of the character's personality. She never really seemed to maintain a consistent character in my eyes, and this really let me down.
✼
Despite all the complaints I have about these characters, there was one who I thought was played to perfection. Johnny Depp was absolutely perfect for the role, and he was exactly how I had imagined Ratchett to be. He looked dark, and capable of evil, and his erratic actions were just how Christie had described them. He has just the kind of smirk that would inspire Poirot to say, as in both the film and the book:
"I don't like your face."
You can perfectly believe that Ratchett has done monstrous things, and I think for me, this is the most accurate and believable portrayal in the entire film.
The Themes
Having had such a lengthy set of notes about the themes that can be found in the 2010 adaptation of Murder on the Orient Express, I felt that it would be only right to discuss the themes in the 2017 film as well. However I really struggled to find a lot to say. The use of psychology, a fundamental trait of Hercule Poirot, was not mentioned once, aside from the fact that we see the detective sit back and think deeply once or twice. This was a big departure from the deep thought Poirot usually gives to every detail.
It's clear that this film also doesn't focus in with as much detail on the morality of what occurs. Poirot has a minor struggle with his own beliefs at the end... but barely. It is, however, true that there is more discussion of justice in this film, which is a move back towards the original voice of the book. I've already mentioned that the end of the book was very calm, and this adaptation felt more in character with that. But I do still believe that the film could have afforded to go deeper with these themes. A film can utilise so many techniques, especially in visuals and sounds, and I think Branagh could have easily made this a lot more poignant. The film could have afforded to delve deeper into the significant idea of right and wrong, making a more interesting and thought-provoking piece of cinema.
The Style and Tone
One thing that really struck me about this film was the effort that Branagh put into establishing Poirot's character, and this has a major effect on the style and tone of the overall film. David Suchet had the luxury of having already set himself up in the role, so in his portrayal in Murder on the Orient Express, he could really focus on the one story alone.
Branagh had to set up the different peculiarities of Poirot's character, and I really appreciated how hard he tried to do this. From the opening, where he criticised the irregularity of two boiled eggs, to the moustache cover that he slept in - he pointed out regularly that this detective was one of a kind. Although Christie put no humorous moments in her original novel, I think this film really needed these additions. Otherwise, the viewer doesn't get the real feel for the character.
I did however feel that the tone was off-kilter in some places. It is naturally a very 'Hollywoodised' film, which was to be expected. Yet it flitted sporadically between jokey and serious, and this all felt a bit random. It takes a really careful balance to be able to pull off both of these tones in the same film, and I'm not sure it was quite right in this adaptation. I could see exactly what Branagh was trying to do, and I loved the intention behind making it both light-hearted and sincere, but I don't think this always worked in the context of the story.
Branagh had to set up the different peculiarities of Poirot's character, and I really appreciated how hard he tried to do this. From the opening, where he criticised the irregularity of two boiled eggs, to the moustache cover that he slept in - he pointed out regularly that this detective was one of a kind. Although Christie put no humorous moments in her original novel, I think this film really needed these additions. Otherwise, the viewer doesn't get the real feel for the character.
I did however feel that the tone was off-kilter in some places. It is naturally a very 'Hollywoodised' film, which was to be expected. Yet it flitted sporadically between jokey and serious, and this all felt a bit random. It takes a really careful balance to be able to pull off both of these tones in the same film, and I'm not sure it was quite right in this adaptation. I could see exactly what Branagh was trying to do, and I loved the intention behind making it both light-hearted and sincere, but I don't think this always worked in the context of the story.
This being said, visually the film was spectacular. Every frame was well considered, and I thought there was fantastic cinematography throughout. I could get over the fact that Poirot would never walk on top of a train carriage just because the shot was beautiful. Another scene that stood out was the overhead shot, where Poirot and Doctor Arbuthnot discover the body. All we can see during this scene is the tops of their heads, which I wouldn't ordinarily think would work, but I enjoyed these different visions. The whole thing was a truly unique interpretation - very modernised compared to what we might expect a Christie adaptation to look like, but really great for the fact that it was interesting and different.
The Verdict
This was a really beautiful and well constructed film, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. If you look at it as a standalone movie, I have a lot of praise to give it. The shots were visually spectacular, the characters were really interesting, and the way Branagh tried to establish the main character I really appreciated.
That being said, the fundamental problem with the film is that it just isn't a Poirot story for many reasons. The plot had a lot of unnecessary additions, which in my mind just confused the point of the story. The whole idea was that the culprits were not criminals, and that they were civilised people who were in pain. So why was there so much action? Why did Colonel Arbuthnot suddenly decide to pull a pistol on the detective? (I'll confess I'll never get to grips with that pointless scene.) The whole balance of the story, I found, was upset by these details.
In addition, the characters on the whole weren't quite on the mark, with the exception of Ratchett. Johnny Depp played a fantastic villain, and that was one of the aspects of the film that I would praise the most. However the other characters I had some problems with, and then there was Poirot himself. Branagh captured a lot of aspects of Poirot's personality, but he also missed a lot. The general appearance, as well as the whole demeanour of the detective I felt very let down by.
I realise that I have made a lot of criticisms of this film, and I don't want it to be thought that I hated it. I actually really enjoyed the film, and I thought in general it was constructed and produced very well. Nethertheless, in my mind, there is a difference between a good film and a good adaptation. This was a wonderful film, but I thought it was just an okay adaptation.
In addition, the characters on the whole weren't quite on the mark, with the exception of Ratchett. Johnny Depp played a fantastic villain, and that was one of the aspects of the film that I would praise the most. However the other characters I had some problems with, and then there was Poirot himself. Branagh captured a lot of aspects of Poirot's personality, but he also missed a lot. The general appearance, as well as the whole demeanour of the detective I felt very let down by.
I realise that I have made a lot of criticisms of this film, and I don't want it to be thought that I hated it. I actually really enjoyed the film, and I thought in general it was constructed and produced very well. Nethertheless, in my mind, there is a difference between a good film and a good adaptation. This was a wonderful film, but I thought it was just an okay adaptation.
Rating: (as an adaptation) ✫✫✫
The Final Verdict
The Plot and Characters
In regards to the plot, the adaptations have stayed relatively faithful to the original story. Both remakes follow less of a rigid structure than Christie laid out in her book, which is only natural given the different demands of a film. Yet the essential plot points are maintained in both. However, they both do deviate in different ways. The 2010 remake does this by emphasising the sincerity of the events and the moral struggle of our fictional detective, creating a very tense and dramatic final scene. The 2017 film made the whole plot more light-hearted, and packed in the action to make it a real blockbuster occasion. In simple terms, the 2010 drama emphasised heavily what was already present in Christie's novel; the 2017 film added a lot in to make the story more complex.
In terms of the characters, I feel that the essence of each character was essentially maintained. But there are definite differences. I think we can all agree that Kenneth Branagh's moustache in the film is inaccurate. Yet having read the books, I'm not convinced David Suchet's moustache is necessarily on point either. In Poirot and Me, Suchet states that
"Sadly, the moustaches I was offered [were wrong]: far too big, drowning my face, so that I looked like a walrus - quite horrible."
...
"We based our moustache on the description that Agatha Christie herself gave in Murder on the Orient Express."
I do think that Branagh's moustache is over-exaggerated. Yet Poirot's moustache is described in the book as enormous, which doesn't seem to tally with Suchet's. The truth is that it's probably somewhere in between. There is also the problem that Poirot famously dyes his hair and moustache black, is overweight, and is described by Christie to walk with
"rapid, mincing steps"
This is a description that, despite imperfect, I can equate with Suchet's portrayal of the character. Unfortunately, I cannot do the same with Kenneth Branagh.
The other characters also have major differences between the two adaptations. Ratchett is far more convincing when played by Johnny Depp, for example, whereas Jessica Chastain is more accurate as the cool Mary Debenham. It is, however, interesting how both versions depict the doctor as one of the culprits. This is not the case in the book, which sees the doctor basically as detached from the case as Poirot. I think it was a really clever idea to put the doctor as a significant piece of the murder, and I love that this move was made, despite being a move away from the book.
The other characters also have major differences between the two adaptations. Ratchett is far more convincing when played by Johnny Depp, for example, whereas Jessica Chastain is more accurate as the cool Mary Debenham. It is, however, interesting how both versions depict the doctor as one of the culprits. This is not the case in the book, which sees the doctor basically as detached from the case as Poirot. I think it was a really clever idea to put the doctor as a significant piece of the murder, and I love that this move was made, despite being a move away from the book.
Theme, Style and Tone
There is one clear theme that is sparked by Christie's famous novel, and is represented in both films differently: justice. The way of delivering this theme is very different in both versions. Suchet's portrayal focuses on the religious struggle, and the very personal moral dilemma that Poirot faces. The 2017 adaptation represents the situation in a much less dramatic way. Branagh doesn't show Poirot to be emotionally affected - here it is a more professional dilemma. This is the same issue, but whose interpretation fits better with the original tone of the book? It could be suggested that Suchet goes too far in his dramatic portrayal compared to the to-the-point style of Christie's writing. Yet I think he still captures the major theme of the book very well, and it is just emphasised maybe a little more than necessary. In comparison, the 2010 film is a counter-balance to Kenneth Branagh's version where I don't think there is enough sincerity displayed. It's very slapdash in places, and I'm not sure this does the very emotional backstory of Daisy Armstrong justice. Despite using regular jokes in her other novels, Christie refrained in this book as she wanted the reader to appreciate the serious undertones to the story. Branagh makes a more light-hearted film, which would probably be more popular with those who aren't familiar with the character of Poirot - it is just my personal opinion that the story works better as a dark and thought-provoking story than a gentle murder mystery.
The other really important theme of the book is the isolation that is caused by the snow. I haven't actually mentioned this yet, as it hasn't quite fitted in with the context of other subjects I've discussed. However, when you compare the two films, it's important to note that they use the same idea in very different ways. The 2010 television film uses the cold and darkness to make the final reveal that much more dramatic. The tension has built and the passengers are suffering heavily both physically and emotionally, and the climax of the film peaks right at the moment when all warmth has disappeared. The snow in the 2017 film is used in a more visual way. In terms of plot points, the snow is only really used to set up the visual of the jury during the reveal scene, by claiming that passengers had to leave the train due to it being unsafe. What really stands out is the cinematography. Every scene is artistic, and the appearance of the snow makes an impact in this way rather than to inform the key points of the story. Both of these uses are effective in different ways, and the difference really highlights the essential disparities between the two interpretations.
When talking to David Suchet about the possibility of his playing Hercule Poirot, Agatha Christie's daughter Rosalind Hicks famously told him:
"I want you to remember that we, the audience, can and will smile with Poirot. But we must never, ever laugh at him."
We never laugh at him in Suchet's interpretation of Murder on the Orient Express. We do laugh in Kenneth Branagh's portrayal, although we laugh with him, not at him. The more recent film is just too 'Hollywoodised' to really be considered an accurate portrayal of the beloved Belgian detective. I thoroughly enjoyed watching it, and I loved seeing somebody different have a go at embodying this character. I'm just not sure if it was done to the same standard. David Suchet had already established himself as Poirot, and this meant that he didn't need to use jokes and quirks to appeal to the audience. In all honesty, I think this fundamental point really helped him maintain the integrity of Agatha Christie's novel in a way that Branagh didn't. The book was a serious nod to the fine line between justice, morality, and the law, and I really feel the story works better when this is maintained.
No comments:
Post a Comment