Foremost to the actual plot of the Suchet MOTOE movie, Poirot has a lot more hand-wringing internal moral debate about what he eventually decides than in the book. As I recall, he had almost no qualms in the book.
Secondly, there was the deeply weird “honor killing”/lynching that Poirot witnesses in Istanbul before he catches the train. As an explanation of why he doesn’t intervene, he moralizes rather sanctimoniously.
How did the book deal with it? It wasn’t in the book. :smack: Poirot is an ex-cop, and IMHO (as characterized in the books and the earlier Suchet TV shows) would have at least immediately fetched a policeman – he wasn’t in some backwater, Istanbul was the cosmopolitan and relatively modern main city of relatively secular Turkey, and what that crowd was doing was no more acceptable there than in the heart of London or Brussels in the same year. :eek:
And thirdly, there’s a whole lot more visual references to Poirot carrying, and reverently kissing, a rosary in MOTOE than in all the years of Suchet TV shows before it combined.
Yes, Poirot was always making offhand references to le bon Dieu, and more than once opined that it was only God’s place to take a life. But he also opined that a murderer thinks they’re killing for a good reason the first time, but then kills more and more easily until merely for convenience, so it’s best not to kill at all. IMHO, he never wore his Catholicism on his sleeve in the earlier Suchet episodes, and certainly not the dour version in MOTOE.
For this adaptation, I really like the religious overtone. And the short army plot that was in the beginning. Since I read the book first, it added an internal conflict to the story and made it more interesting. And I feel it added depth and more emotional core to the Poirot. He’s a more rounded character rather than a collection of quirks.
Well, it certainly makes him an inconsistent character.
Spoiler alert.
In this adaptation of MOTOE he chastises the assembled cast for committing murder, even though the victim was a horrible evil murderer himself. In his last case, Curtain, he himself murders a man who never actually commits murder but who relentlessly influences other people to commit murder. In other words, he does more than take the law into his own hands, he surpasses any punishment the law would ever mete out. And as an atheist I find the gratuitous interpolation of rigid religiosity always repellent, repugnant and revolting. But that’s just me.
Has anybody here actually ridden the Orient Express? Or Paris-Moscow? Was there fine dining, etc., available, like in Christie’s novel (hopefully with fewer murders), or are those days long gone?
Jacobi and Branagh are two of my favorite male, English speaking actors, and Dench is one of the best female English speaking actresses. I guess I’ll have to go see it.
When I saw the Finney version I’d never read the book, so the ending was a surprise to me. Thank goodness nobody spoiled it.
Hold on. What’s Pilar Estravados doing in this story? She’s from “Hercule Poirot’s Christmas” where she’s your basic brazen hussy. Suddenly she’s a humble missionary? I get it, she’s supposed to be the Olsson character. But why use the name of a character that already exists in a Christie book where she’s about 20 years old in 1938 and middle aged in 1934?
I don’t remember where I read it–I think possibly on IMDB before their message boards got shut down–somebody was of the opinion that the David Suchet episodes are actually three different series under one name.
It makes sense to me. The first seasons are different from the middle ones, and they in turn are different from the last seasons.
I’ve always enjoyed Brannaugh, but I’m have issues with the way his Poirot looks because in my mind Finney’s Poirot is exactly how I’ve always pictured him.
I’m going to take the bold stand and proclaim this Christie’s worst book. The solution is beyond preposterous, there can be no suspense and the need to have everyone stand around and talk doesn’t help, the characters are caricatures with the Americans even more so. Christie was enamored of the upper classes, true; this shows up in all her Poirot books and many more. The class distinctions in this one are patently offensive.
Christie could write about people. The Tommy and Tuppence books are decent and so are her early non-series mysteries with young ladies as heroines. Then she spent almost the entire 1930s writing about Poirot and getting trapped in plot ingenuity at the expense of characterization. Orient Express was in the middle of this period. And after Christie pronounced Poirot insufferable. She was like L. Frank Baum, who tried to kill off Oz several times but couldn’t get the public to buy his other books.
Kenneth Branagh is nothing like my conception of Poirot but movies never care. What I really want is to go back in time when Branagh was married to Emma Thompson and have them star as Steed and Mrs. Peel in the movie version of The Avengers - and replace the horrifying memory of Ralph Fiennes and Uma Thurman in those roles.
That’s a Steadicam shot. Steadicam was introduced in 1975, so, too late for the first film, but it has been around longer than CGI.
I agree that the book isn’t great (relative to Christie’s other books), but I still love the '74 film.
Christie couldn’t write Americans very well. She really sucked at writing American dialogue-- so did Josephine Tey, another generally very good writer with a very engaging narrative voice. I have a feeling neither of them knew many Americans, and relied on Hollywood films for their ideas of how Americans talked, so ordinary people went back and forth from talking like Katharine Hepburn in a fast-talking comedy, and a Hollywood gangster. Or else they’d write an American who had lived abroad extensively, so they could justify having the person talk pretty much like an Englishman.
I’m reading Lord Edgeware Dies right now, and it has two Americans (one of whom is supposed to be Jewish, no less), and so far I haven’t figured out why they need to be American, because they’ve both been in England for a while, and talk pretty much like everyone else.
This was actually a deliberate decision by yhe program makers. They wanted to make Curtain a sort of sequel to MOTOE, where Poirot was left feeling uncertain about the morality of one, which affects his actions in the other.
Also, don’t forget that in both the novel and TV version of *Curtain * …
… Poirot still feels guilt over his extra-judicial execution. He doesn’t claim it as morally right. He throws away the medicine that is keeping him alive, and accepts the natural progression of his medical condition as punishment for his actions.
I was not aware of this continuity in these two episodes. How does one know about something like that?
As for the Orient Express, it is on my bucket list, but it is hella expensive. Even just the overnight Paris-Venice trip is $2600 per person, and the full 5-night Paris-Istanbul trip is $13,000 per person, double occupancy.
After watching a couple films recently that had good visuals, but weak story, I concluded (admittedly unfairly) that Hollywood is still great at presenting glamour and bling.
Yes, but as I watch the series on and off. The continuity doesn’t bother me. Also since he is older and it’s not surprising that he got more religious.
Also an atheist, didn’t bother me at all.
