I think it goes without saying that everybody has read or at least heard of “Murder on the Orient Express”, one of Agatha Christie’s most famous works. However, if some millennials still have no idea what I’m talking about, then the name Hercule Poirot might ring a bell. Each one of us has surely come across a short description or a slight mention of the fictional Belgian detective, with an egg-shaped head, a carefully grown moustache and a bundled-up costume.
In order to discover the world of Hercule Poirot, there’s no need for you to start off with the first book in the series. You can ask other people for recommendations and you will most certainly be advised to pick up “Murder on the Orient Express”. Why so? Is it because of the unexpected place for a murder? Or perhaps it is Poirot’s unique cleverness which stands out the most. After all, it is quite an achievement to work out a crime with a limited source of clues and all sorts of background stories from complete strangers.
There’s a lot to say about Agatha Christie’s Hercule Poirot, but this time we’re going to focus more on the contemporary detective who slowly made his way onto the big screen... again. Because, of course, we must not forget about the first adaptation of the book, back in 1974, which clearly captured Poirot’s personality at its finest. It is often said that modern movies ruin our entire perception of a story (or just a character). Thus, you may ask yourself: is 2017’s “Murder on the Orient Express” a ride worth taking? I can only answer that towards the end of my review.
*This review contains spoilers*
I must say that it’s quite interesting that the director of the movie, Kenneth Branagh, also chose to take on the role of the detective. He undoubtedly had the freedom to portray him just as he wanted to. When it comes to Poirot’s appearance, the most obvious change is the lush grey moustache, which is a far cry from the small, almost insignificant one in the 1974 movie. Moving on to the plot, there are only a few differences which don’t interfere too much with the natural course of the story. Despite knowing what the movie is all about, surprisingly the adrenaline rush still kept me entertained till the end. If you can’t tell already, unpredicted events in unlikely places truly draw my attention.
The movie begins with Poirot solving a theft in Jerusalem, a situation which illustrates the detective’s brilliance right from the start. The man wants to rest for a while in Istanbul, but another case awaits him in London. He soon finds himself on board of the Orient Express through the help of his friend, Bouc (Tom Bateman), the director of the train. Aboard there are also 13 other passengers and a train conductor, Pierre Michel (Marwan Kenzari), each with their own background story: The Widow Caroline Hubbard (Michelle Pfeiffer), The Governess Mary Debenham (Daisy Ridley), Dr. Arbuthnot (Leslie Odom Jr.), The Missionary Pilar Estravados (Penelope Cruz), The Assistant Hector MacQueen (Josh Gad), The Butler Edward Masterman (Derek Jacobi), Princess Dragomiroff (Judi Dench), The Maid Hildegarde Schmidt (Olivia Colman), The Professor Gerhard Hardman (Willem Dafoe), The Salesman Biniamino Marquez (Manuel Garcia-Rulfo), Count Rudolph Andrenyi (Sergei Polunin), Countess Elena Andrenyi (Lucy Boynton) and The Gangster Edward Ratchett (Johnny Depp).
It feels as if they had nothing to do with each other, but in reality their paths are intertwined. The first hint to a potential problem is Ratchett’s request to be protected by Poirot on the 3-day journey to London, due to threatening letters from unknown enemies. Even so, the detective refuses to help the intimidating businessman, which leads to Ratchett’s sudden death over the following night. The train is also derailed by an avalanche, stranding the passengers, but also giving Poirot enough time to properly take care of the new case. And that’s when the whole magic happens. The detective investigates the body with 12 stabs, suspects and interrogates each traveler, uncovers secrets and also finds out Ratchett’s true identity: John Cassetti. Poirot comes across a note which connects Ratchett to the unfortunate Armstrong case. Some time ago, Ratchett kidnapped a little girl called Daisy Armstrong and held her for ransom. Although her parents had sent the money to release her, Daisy was still found murdered by the businessman. The girl’s death caused her mother to die after giving a premature birth and afterwards, her father committed suicide. The family’s nursemaid also hanged herself after being unfairly arrested.
The Armstrong case may seem as a complicated addition to the whole story, but it actually helps Poirot immensely. Adding together Ratchett’s real identity, the suspects’ stories, the trail of evidence and Poirot’s fascinating attention to the slightest details, we finally discover that all 12 passengers and the train conductor have worked together to seek revenge and murder Ratchett. My favorite part is when Poirot reveals each suspect’s connection to the Armstrongs, whether they are remaining relatives or close friends who have been deeply affected by the family’s tragic end. I have to agree with the fact that the story does have an exciting plot twist. I suppose no one would have initially guessed that all suspects were actually guilty.
If we were to briefly compare the two versions of Hercule Poirot, I would only point out the following. In the movie from 1974, the detective is often seen as someone who should not be taken seriously (because of his rather silly appearance). Meanwhile, in the new film, there are countless people who recognize Poirot (and even the man himself claims he is, indeed, the greatest detective in the world). Another major difference is Poirot’s overall personality. While the 1974 adaptation features a detective who presents the truth as it is and often uses words as weapons, in 2017 Poirot chooses to present himself as a bit of an action star. He does have much more style when he gracefully swings his cane and shows off plenty of courage by the time he gets involved in gun fighting. Unfortunately, this is where Poirot’s true essence gets lost. I shouldn’t complain, though, as this new side of his probably functions as a necessary dramatic touch, in order to keep the contemporary audience exhilarated at all times.
We are all aware that Poirot is a perfectionist who sees the world as it should be. That is why imperfections stand out at once (“like the nose on a face”) and help him deduce the most hidden truths. However, what I can’t understand about the detective is his decision to forgive the passengers and tell the police a simpler version for Ratchett’s murder. Unlike the old movie, this modern adaptation definitely focuses more on Poirot’s reaction towards every single story he hears, every clue he stumbles upon. He is often feeling troubled and there are also some short scenes in which he asks in disbelief what his next step should be, while looking with sadness at a photograph of his dead wife. The way he sees it, the people who have conspired to kill Ratchett are not only seeking revenge, but also their own sense of justice. To make long story short, Poirot is stuck between two statements: “There is right. There is wrong. There is no in-between.” and “Can murder be justice?” But in the end, he states that “the scales of justice cannot always be equally weighed” and advises the killers to find their inner peace. Despite his obsession with balance, the ending is completely unbalanced. Murder could never be the solution to any problem and could never serve as a sense of justice. Not to mention that no one in their right mind could actually be at peace with themselves after having killed somebody. But who knows, maybe it’s all just in my head, as I haven’t seen a single complaint about the ending so far. In this case, I see the movie as it should have been. Its imperfections do stand out like the nose... above an extravagant moustache.
Leaving my personal views aside, let’s answer the question from the beginning: does the movie provide a thrilling ride on the Orient Express? Yes, it does. It’s action-packed, pleasantly aesthetic, with picturesque wintery sites, mouth-watering cuisine and an extra pinch of drama (because let’s be honest, who doesn’t love a bit of it?).
Comments
Post a Comment