I'm pretty sure Poirot's apparent sanctimony in the Suchet version was actually him trying to justify the theatrics that led to the soldier's suicide in the prologue. He's trying to convince himself that he was not at fault for what happened. His entire arc in that adaptation is about how far he can go in the pursuit of justice before it ceases to be justice.
he's been very contradictory in his justifications before. That usually happens when a showrunner is more concerned with being outlandish & modern; the continuity tends to suffer. And that's what the second wave of Poirot producers were doing by their own account.
I was the screenwriter of the 2010 Suchet version, and I really enjoyed your thoughtful and passionate video on the various adaptations. I've adapted many novels that have been adapted numerous times (Dracula, Treasure Island) and the previous adaptations weigh heavily on the decisions you make. Sidney Lumet's wonderful 1974 film is frequently shown on TV in the UK (and is the model for the TV series),and we felt that there was no point in trying to replicate it, but to bring something new to it. Also, as many commentators on this thread have observed, we were coming to the end of the TV series and were laying the ground for Poirot's death in Curtain. ... What I loved about Orient Express was that for once Poirot is the main character, he isn't merely the deus ex machina who solves the puzzle, but the story actually happens to him. So how does he react, how does it change him? I thought it would be interesting to see this man, who has spent his life administering justice, have to question who he is and what he has done with his life. The effect of the suicide of the British army officer, and the brutal community justice of the stoning in Istanbul (and evidence exists of this happening in Turkey at that time) have a shake him profoundly, and then on the train he is confronted by a murder perpetrated by good civilised people because the justice system has let them down. Poirot's concept of civilisation breaks down in our film (literally, from him having to share a bedroom with a stranger to the train breaking down, and the electricity failing) and he comes face to face with a case that challenges all he has done in his life. all he is. Has it been worth it? Has it been right? ... Think of our film as Poirot's Hamlet, where he is questioning his very existence.
Thank you for commenting! I certainly didn't expect this. Even having lived in Los Angeles, I've rarely had the opportunity to meet (in person or otherwise) screenwriters and to hear how they set about creating a script. I can appreciate the challenge of adapting a story that's so well known and has already been adapted multiple times. I think the approach you took makes sense. What upset me the most about the end result was that, for me, Poirot has always been a moral compass, and it was a shock to see him behave in a way that felt so contrary to that. But I appreciate the perspective you've shared, and I'll keep it in mind.
@stewartharcourt5645 I just watched the 2010 Suchet version the other day for the first time with my sister and it was GREAT! I especially love the line “then you let God administer it!” In reference to judgment being delt out. Everyone WANTS to do the right thing but when tragedy occurs (ex: murder of a loved one) we start to question what that is, especially if we feel like we have been forsaken either by God or people
Never thought I would get the opportunity to thank the screenwriter for their adaptation of Orient Express. For those of us who have watched David Suchet as Poirot and grown older with him, the portrayal of this man by Kenneth Branagh was jarring. Completely wiped out the character that I had loved. For those who weren't familiar with Christie's concept of the man through all her books, they enjoyed Kenneth's movie. In the Suchet version , to support the script, the high level of production and the ensemble of actors they pull together in British productions,is the best there is. I get pulled into the characters and the story because if it. The overuse of modern technology leaves me cold. I do not see the world like a high definition green screen. Its phony. It's like Kenneth had all this freedom of character and modern technology and he was going to use everything available and cram it into one movie. I appreciate how the screenwriters and Suchet acknowledge that when we get older, we look back and question our decisions and actions. All his life he held man made law to a very high perfect obssesive standard. Could he uphold that same standard with Gods law which is based on forgiveness, empathy and understanding. Brilliant. The conflict on Suchets face as he is walking away from that train is a masterclass of acting. Can't tell you how many times I have rewatched this version over the years. Again, a big thank you for your work. Very much admired and appreciated.
I really enjoyed your interpretation the Most out of any adaptation. I felt that it was very faithful to the book and I came away with the most profound thoughts about justice and crime. Thank you for your adaptation!
@@MysteryMiles Hi Miles. I really like your channel, it's thoughtful and fun. I did six or seven Christie films back in the day, if you ever have a question on why decisions were made about the films, or how the end film came about, then just DM me on Twitter @StewartHarcourt. Best wishes
Because I am a fan of David Suchet’s Poirot, I have rationalized Suchet’s Poirot becoming more religious and beliefs of right and wrong to the fact that he is aging and changing attitude toward life. I dislike Branagh’s interpretation and find his Poirot movies overdone and ridiculous.
I think that's a really valid interpretation. Lots of people do become more religious as they age. I also think the context of this particular case (a whole 12 people orchestrating a calculated plot to kill someone) also plays a part in Poirot's reaction.
I agree with you 100%. Moreover, Poirot hates being made a fool, and as a very perciptive person, he knows it from the begining. Throughout the whole investigation everybody tries to feed him some trumped up theory, he did not encounter any sincere statement, which simply infuriates him. So I found his outrage very beliavable and suitable in the context of this story. And Suchet acted it very powerfully.
I think because I enjoyed Finney's version so much I felt Suchet came off as too self righteous but then again, I hadn't watched the rest of the series yet!!
I think you missed the fact that Suchet's Poirot is clearly going through a crisis of faith, not so much faith in God but faith in justice. That's why he acts so callous toward the friend of the soldier who committed suicide and toward the stoned woman. Internally he is in turmoil but he is trying to convince himself that ultimately justice is always righteous. Later during the reveal he breaks down saying that if 'justice falls then you pick it back up and hold it even higher'. That otherwise we become 'savages'. This encapsulates his moral conflict. He feels like he has become part of a system of justice that is divorced from humanity, from God, but as he has always lived his life according to a perfect order and now his heart is in conflict with itself. After his ultimate decision to show mercy, he walks away crying unsure of his choice. His faith has been shaken but it has not broken him.
Who gives a fuck about Suchet? Every time I hear how Suchet is the best and most authentic Poirot, when in reality he puts his own religious-inspired twist on the character that couldn't be further removed from Agatha Christie's original. Superficially he might be a blueprint of the original Poirot, but essentially he is a corruption of everything Poirot stood for.
The Suchet version is IMHO by far, beyond any doubt at all, the BEST adaptation so far of this novel. 01:34 Oh come on! That version is an utterly ridiculous adaptation! 04:10 Well, yes. Because they seem human. It would be different if Poirot went around hitting people, but he sometimes loses his tempter under some circumstances. Not a necessary choice, but an absolutely valid one. 04:34 Unperterbed? I do not agree. He seems to me a man who is trying to deal with parts of life he does not like. He is a bit twitchy, somewhat nonplussed even in subtle ways. I would go so far as to say brittle. For that matter, I would also point out Poirot has a somewhat ruthless streak, at times almost a little cruel. 05:00 YOu see, I think Suchet's Poirot changes over time. Which is hardly surprising. It makes him more human. 11:18 Making the Calais coach as physically uncomfortable as it was emotionally and intellectually was one of my favorite aspects of this version. 18:43 And he sees that. One of the favorite aspects of this version is that the murderers seem themselves traumatized by what they have done. And THAT is what cracks Poirot's shell. 19:05 This is a bete noir of your own. This extreme rejection of characters being religious, specifically Christian. Poirot of the books IS religious. Sorry, but he is. And he is a dynamic character, changing with age. Trying to pretend people in the 1930s were not quite a bit more overtly Christian than now, is simply being inaccurate. This is your personal issue. YOu have plenty of valid points about religion, especially organized religion, but this reflex reaction that it is always forever BAD and including it in a story is always forever BAD is flat out formulaic and even reactionary. 20:41 Making a story more dramatic, more compelling, more disturbing is rarely a bad thing. This version is an IMPROVEMENT on the novel in that regards. Although I think it is left up more to the reader precisely how each individual is responding to events. Something you can do in the literary media far more easily than a dramatic one. (and may I say the earlier version's ending of everyone cheerfully toasting each other always made my blood crawl...these people committed MURDER, the murder of a vicious human being, but a human being none the less, and that is NOTHING to celebrate). 21:25 I will also note Branaugh is not playing a human being but a collection of quirks. I see no heart in his Poirot, no passion. I am not rooting for him or much care what happens.
I loved the Suchet version and felt that as the series went on and Poirot aged, he clung more to his religion as he bent under the weight of being alone in life and involved in so many brutal murders.
@@TheEarth1874Then you have low standards and I can’t believe you like the 2017 version. That’s utter madness! KB is beyond wrong for the part and he butchered the character of Poirot. KB is a narcissistic me me me and it’s all about him in the whole thing!
I appreciate this discussion. I think the Suchet version is in keeping with the character of Poirot, in spite of the injection of religiosity. I think you have missed some key characteristics of Poirot. There are hints through all the books of his moral absolutism, underpinned by orthodox Catholicism, actually often harsh, but also tempered with compassion. (He often says "Nom d'un Nom" which means "name of God".) I think the producers emphasized that internal conflict, which seems incongruous, because of the character arc of Poirot and also because they realized that modern viewers would/should have had the dilemma of: what is justice? The book glosses over that dilemma, which seems typical of Christie's style. So the adapters added it back in. It would have sufficed to have Poirot agonizing/cogitating/stressing -- he's being the jury, considering each perpetrator and their motives and whether judicial action would be just to each individual. The religious aspect is Not Out of character, but it is so buried throughout the books that it feels awkward to modern viewers. It was also excessive in the movie. One last point: David Suchet so carefully embodied the personality of Poirot that I don't think he would have agreed to the prayer scene if it had been out of character. Unlike Branagh's action-hero idiocy.
With the TV show, I feel like in the later part of series they were putting Poirot through a character progression where all the evil and deception he had experienced over the years was making his mind darker and causing him pain, and he was holding on tighter to his religion to get him through it. I don't mind them wanting to give him development rather than always being the same but I think they took it too far. It was also affected by the fact that murder mysteries in the early 2000s had become darker and more dramatic in general. Miss Marple got the same treatment, adding in new elements just for sensationalism.
@@kugelweg Do you have a source for that about Suchet? I looked and I found some other people saying it but couldn't find a source. Poirot in the books is said to be Catholic several times, though it's more of a character detail, not a defining trait. I don't think it's bad for the adaptation to take a detail from the book and explore it further, I'm more put out by the changes to his morality (often contradictory between episodes) and the extent of the darkness they added to his character. What got me most was how mean he was to Hastings at times in Curtain, while at other times calling him 'cher ami', with no apology or anything in between. I think overall the mid seasons were the best.
@@phoenixfriend Yeah, I couldn't find anything either. Other than that Suchet had converted to Anglicanism in the 80's and was confirmed in the early 2000's. Nothing about him putting his own beliefs in the show. To my mind, the later shows -- particularly MotOE -- come across more as more motivated by anti-religious bigotry than as anything else?
@@phoenixfriendIn the Curtain episode/film he’s on his death bed and a shadow of his former self which is very sad but I think he didn’t mean to be mean. I think all old people who are about to die have mood swings which is understandable.
@@phoenixfriend I will dig around and find where I saw that. I do recall reading things that referenced the fact that Suchet was Anglican and when he became a producer of the show, religious aspects appeared. Let me look around.
One other thing I'd like to bring up that you only addressed briefly with these two adaptations: the setting. The Finney version is masterful at presenting the tension *OF* the space. The Orient Express is luxurious, but it's cramped. As anyone who has travelled by train or airplane knows, this is always the case. There's a claustrophobia as passengers push past each other in the narrow corridors, as the camera pushes in tightly on them during interrogations, even this shot at 9:51 in the more spacious dining car shows the characters practically huddled in on each other. 11:08 This aspect is maintained in the Suchet adaptation but the addition of the utilities failing ups the stakes. When the train gets halted by the snow drift, there's a lingering shot right after in the dining car: the plates and glasses (neatly made up for tomorrow's breakfast) are turned over and smashed. It's the first instance of the "breaking" of the comfort and glamour of the Orient Express. Throughout the rest of the movie as the lights go dark, the heat dissipates, and the faucets freeze, the opulent train becomes a frozen hell a la the deepest pit of Dante's Inferno. This is an *incredibly* impactful piece of visual storytelling as it adds to the episode's religious theming and its figurative cold tone. But the Branagh version... just look at this shot at 21:21. The passageways seem wider on this train set (11:51 & 15:50), the framing during interrogations is rarely tight enough to create a sense of foreboding, and they just can't wait to get off the train, huh? Ignoring the stupid scene of Poirot on top of the train or all the overblown action shots around the trellis, the camera keeps showing or moving to the outside (12:24, 12:50, 13:02, 13:37). These make for a more airy, open feel to the film directly overruling any attempts at creating a sense of claustrophobic tension or paranoia of being in close proximity to the killer. Lastly, there's Poirot's denouement with the suspects which takes place OUTSIDE THE TRAIN in front of a tunnel. It comes complete with a pointless and hackneyed reference to The Last Supper with the 12 laid out like Jesus and the apostles. If the Suchet version makes masterful use of the elements, the Branagh one is the most flaccid in its use. They're surrounded by snow and ice, but I get no sense that its cold. Poirot's words are harsh, but the environment isn't and these people may as well just be waiting for a bus. This is a set. And that's a consistent problem throughout the Branagh version: the train is pristine, the furniture is freshly lacquered, the glass is spotless. You'd expect the first class accommodations to be tidy, sure, but the kitchen car, the baggage car, the train exterior as well?! This isn't Titanic, we're not on the Express' maiden voyage. And yet everything is immaculate; of course it is, it's freshly arrived from the Props Department. This is such a film set, that it takes you out of the mystery. And that is my overly long rant in praise of Suchet adaptation's use of set dressing.
Nice...yet, the Suchet version took TREMENDOUS liberties with story and characters, as all of Suchet's adaptations did. I appreciate your acknowledgement of Branagh's set dressings, but let's acknowledge that poor set dressing of Suchet's adaptation--the set dressings had LITTLE to do with what Agatha Christie actually WROTE! I LOVE Suchet's MOTOE, but I also acknowledge that my love of his adaptation stems from it NOT adhering to what AC wrote.
@@kugelweg And I acknowledge fully that my appreciation of these forms of media comes from a film-centric background as opposed to a purely literary one. Rather than focus on whether the elements I described are loyal or inaccurate to the written word, I think it's more important to consider how they support or hinder the message or theme the filmmaker is trying to convey with their unique adaptation; yet, the themes that jump out at me from the Branagh version's set dressing are "artificiality" and "theatricality" and I find them at odds with the serious mystery that forms the core of the story. Tangentially related, but I take umbrage with *some* people who comment here (not naming names or pointing to anyone specifically) that act like literary purists and behave as if a movie should *always* follow strictly according to how the book was written. Never mind the fact that books and films are entirely different forms of media and operate under VERY different constraints and demands; never mind that Agatha Christie wrote these stories without film adaptations in mind; never mind the fact that some of her works from this time period contain some frankly repellant commentary about people from other cultures. "Keep it all the same," they seem to cry, "the written word is law!" It's a pedantic, precious, and frankly pretentious argument to take, in my opinion. From my point of view, the key is whether or not a good story gets told well. Even if it deviates away from the source material, the film can still be enjoyed if it has its own merits.
I cannot stand the Branagh version! The fact that he sits outside the train wearing only a lounge suit, though surrounded by ice and snow, drinking coffee that doesn't have steam coming from it - great Heavens, with a world of CGI to play with he makes one of the worst films I've ever seen.
For me, this is pretty simple, actually. 1974's Murder on the Orient Express is undoubtedly the best and the garbage fire made my Kenneth Brannagh in 2017 is the worst (and also one of the worst Poirot adaptations of all time). It's a perfect demonstration of why you don't mess with the classic when you don't know what you're doing 🤷♀️ While the David Suchet version is far from perfect, I disagree on one point. I don't perceive his Poirot as harsh and judgemental, but rather someone who is struggling very hard with existential crisis and grappling with the questions of morality, justice and revenge, and ultimately losing a war against himself. It's a divergence from the source material, no doubt, but you can see the intent of filmmakers beyond just making a quick buck off the back of the original while relying heavily on the new generation of movie goers ignorant of the 1974's masterpiece.
I loved the Suchet version and felt that as the series went on and Poirot aged, he clung more to his religion as he bent under the weight of being alone in life and involved in so many brutal murders.
I think the main problem is chronological Murder on the Orient Express happens after Death on the Nile and his tour in the Middle East and you cannot reconcile the portrays as he is far too different in Murder on the Orient Express. Suchet Murder on the Orient Express was 2010 as Death on the Nile was 2004, I think they should had just made the Middle East Tour in the same series much earlier that of Murder in Mesopotamia in Season 8, Death on the Nile in Season 9, Appointment with Death Season 11 and Murder on the Orient Express season 12 that even if its 5 years its still 5 years and something is certainly off with him in Orient Express.
Gods will not give you justice as they do not exist, they are a human invention made so we can fantasize that they do. Poirot needed a good hard lesson in this, as do so many "faithful".
Oh gosh, the 2010 version is one of my favorite Poirot episodes. I think delving into the moral dilemma, though it was not in the book, added richness to Poirot’s character. Suchet’s acting at the end where he is unsure but is clinging to his rosary and praying in his mind, was amazing and very moving.
The Suchet 'Murder on the Orient Express' is my favorite. I have enjoyed the short stories but confess I haven't read many of the novels. I love the Albert Finney version, but it was definitely of its time. The Branagh movies can all die in a fire. I made it three minutes into the video and knew this was not for me. Suchet's MOE begins an arc toward the final season's adaptation of Curtain: Poirot's Last Case. [Short story] Poirot on numerous occasions has come across as rigid and self-righteous. He rarely operated in morally gray spaces. This version of MOE, at least for me, is the fracturing of the Poirot's morally rigidity. If anything, the more he protests of the higher judgment of God, Suchet deftly portrays Poirot's doubts and fears. Ultimately, Curtain decimates Poirot's crumbling belief in a final and just punishment for evil doing. IYKYK.
OK, but these stories/adaptations have LITTLE to nothing to do with Agatha Christie's Poirot and the stories she wrote. You are welcome to enjoy whatever you wish, but don't do so with the vapid idea that your beliefs are what Agatha Christie intended, because clearly they aren't! Suchet's MOTOE was a distasteful mistelling of Agatha Christie's fine novel. As any Christie fan knows, Poirot did not "come across as rigid and self-righteous" in Agatha Christie's stories, only in the silly adaptations that you love so much. Agatha Christie NEVER wrote MOTOE as a segue into Curtain or any other novel. MOTOE was written LONG before Curtain, so clearly AC wasn't trying to begin an arc toward the final story. David Suchet's team made up a bunch of silly stories that you enjoy. THOSE stories "lead" into Curtain, but in the worst way. They don't follow Agatha Christie's original intentions for her stories or character. The fact that you feel that the adulterated Suchet version of Motoe is creating an ARC toward the final season shows how desperately ignorant of Christie's stories you actually are. Do NOT defend a poor representation of Christie's work by referencing the fact that it is leading to OTHER poor representations of Christie's works. You sound absurd and uneducated, defending a terrible representation of a Christie novel by pretending that Suchet's adaptation of MOTOE was correct.
@@kugelwegDon't you think using terms such as vapid, absurd, and uneducated are a bit harsh and unnecessary when entering into a friendly exchange of opinions about (of all things) "which movie was the worst." And, just for the record, telling someone they are sounding uneducated because they express a subjective opinion that you disagree with doesn't make you sound more educated than them. It just makes you sound a little mean. Was someone mean to you? Anyway, what Agatha Christie intended...well no one can really know that unless they read a specific quote by her or spoke to her in person, right? So, relax. There is no correct or incorrect way to adapt a book to film. It's all subjective artistic expression. There is only all our different opinions about what we would prefer and about a million reasons why we might prefer one version over another. So, take a deep breath and try not to take yourself so seriously next time. You might have more fun that way. Of course this is only my opinion. I'm a huge Christie fan by the way. I've read every Poirot novel and short story as well as many many others. Which is your favorite? Mine is The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. (Oh, and also And Then There Were None...crazy how they had to keep changing the name of that one.)
@@nancyhogue7317 I disagree in that Agatha Christie made Poirot's character, and the stories, very clear. He DID operate in morally gray spaces, so the OP is incorrect. I can't say whether or not someone being mean to me is what caused my reaction. It's more complicated than that. My favorite Poirot stories are Mrs. McGinty's Dead and The Big Four (shocker, I know!). I also LOVE And Then There Were None. Yes, the story had many names as racist statements became less normalized. I'm not saying the book was racist, but the title is a bit insensitive for modern folk, with good reason. By the way, you seem awfully nice! Thank you for that!
Ooof. Poor Suchet adaptation. I love it personally XD Poirot IS Catholic in the books though. It's mentioned in more than one story. The Chocolate Box is one that comes to mind
The Chocolate Box, Lord Edgeware Dies, Mystery of the Blue Train, Curtain. Any story where he refers to "le bon Dieu" which is . . . all of them? Giles' comments are really strange coming from someone who claims to be a well read Christie fan. Yes, Poirot's religious beliefs in the movie and the way they inform his character are completely wrong and unfaithful to the books. But Giles doesn't say that. He says that no Christian would historically possess Poirot's character traits. Which -- even if Poirot hadn't been a Catholic in the books -- would be completely ridiculous. Since Poirot *was* a Catholic in the books, this position becomes bizarre and incomprehensible.
@@valgardener7656 Why are you calling him "Giles?" That's not his name, you can see it clearly below the video. I personally like how the Suchet series depicts Poirot's religious beliefs throughout most of the series (they seem realistic for the time period of the 1930s and yet tinged with a compassionate tolerance), but I can appreciate Mile's objections in this particular episode. Poirot is a multifaceted character and a fan can understandably be upset when one aspect (in this case, his religion) is played up over another aspect (his joviality and empathy). You can disagree with him without being insulting.
@@Unownshipper Okay, except that is not what happened on a couple of fronts. 1) The filmmakers didn't "play up" Poirot's Catholic beliefs, they changed them completely, to the point where Poirot is now a completely different character (Javert) rather than just a less multifaceted one. 2) Miles-not-Giles didn't object to Poirot religious beliefs being distorted. He objected to the fact that Poirot was portrayed as devout at all. He's "disappointed" that they made Christianity " a cornerstone of Poirot's character" -- even though it WAS -- because "historically in many forms [Christianity] tends to be pervasive and harmful". That is as if I said that I didn't like that they cast Poirot as a man, because historically men do horrific things to women. Or if I hated that they made him Belgian, because Belgium "historically" committed x or y atrocity. Those arguments are appeals to bigotry and nothing else. And they make no sense as film criticism, because book Poirot was able to be a man and a Belgian without being a genocidal pervert. So by making those arguments, I would be basically lying; denying the reality of who the character is. But when Miles-not-Giles makes this "Christianity is pervasively harmful" argument, which is just as bad, you are fine with it. It is only my *objection* to bigotry that you find insulting, not the bigotry. Well, sorry, but at least I insulted the person who was a bigot for being a bigot, as an individual. I didn't judge him by the "pervasive historical failings" of his race, nation, or religion.
@@valgardener7656 I can personally and fundamentally disagree with Miles' take on religion, but I can recognize his right to that kind of opinion without resulting to calling him names. Lots of people share that stance because it's a certifiable fact that some people with power have historically used religion as a justification of their abuse/scapegoating of minority groups. This can naturally lead to a skeptical outlook towards organized religion, and you're simply not going to change that. For you however, I don't know where to start with this kind of response you gave. Instead I'll ask why you watch this channel? I mean, Miles has brought up his objection with the Suchet series' focus on Poirot's religion before in episodes where he covered Cards on The Table and Appointment With Death, so you must have expected something akin to that with how much the Suchet MOE leans into that part of Poirot's life. This can't be good for your health.
@@Unownshipper You make a good number of points, none of which are actually good points. I, also, dislike the religiosity of the later Poirot films. Immensely! It is intrinsically unpleasant, unfaithful to the character, and distorts some of Christie's central themes. Do you see how easy it was to say that, without resorting to weird, off-topic, sweeping, bigoted attacks upon giant swathes of the world population? That is where you and your friend fail, and fail hard. It does not matter what "some people in power" do. Poirot is not one of them. He is a Belgian WWI refugee settled in England, who like many such refugees, is a devout Catholic. Attacking him and his faith and his countrymen and a whole lot of other people besides on the basis of what "some powerful people" do is not the behavior of a good person. Like most people without a leg to stand on, you first argue that he has a right to his opinion, but that you are shocked, SHOCKED, that I dare to express my opinion on his opinion. Then you want to know why I'm even here, if I'm not going to mindlessly agree with everything he says. No, haven't seen his "Cards on the Table" video. But like I said, if he objected to the way Poirot's religiosity was portrayed in the later films, then I would 100% agree with that. That is not what he did here. It is what he should have done.
For me, and maybe as an Orient Express history buff, I am biased. But neither the 2010 or 2017 version were able to capture the Grandeur of the opulent train. I get there were logistical issues like the 74 film being able to actually get cars from the train, plus a working engine. But the interiors were still recreated on sound stages in the Uk with marvelous attention to detail. The latter versions just feel like an impression of the train, just doing generic art deco motifs you'd find at pier 1 imports. Plus the score by Sir Richard Rodney Bennett was so great they actually cut out the sound of the steam train just to let it set the mood of the glamor of Europe's most celebrated train.
So, the Albert Finley version is disqualified from judgement because it is ‘Cinematic Gold’; the Molina version is silly but still disqualified and you haven’t seen the Japanese one so is also disqualified. Then there were two ( see what I did then?). You don’t like either but will reluctantly settle on the 2017 version as being the worst of 2! Reminds me of a friend who didn’t drink coffee but insisted she liked it. Her explanation was that she just hadn’t found one she liked.
Poirot was in shock when the soldier killed himself. He never saw that coming. He hardens his heart to keep himself safe from his self and is nonchalant about the stoning, trying to justify himself. He is so messed up because he feels guilt about the suicide he believes he caused. So as he goes along in the movie he continues to become angrier that he feels guilt and it shows. After all, he does not want to doubt himself because if he does then everything he has always believed comes into question. He is shaken to the core because he now doesn't know if he has been wrong all along and his faith comes into question also. No he is not more religious. He feels more and more guilty and he knows he has a God to answer to. He begins to feel he is not infalable and could be wrong so he is stressed to the limit, which shows up regularly in his actions. In the end he felt he had to make a choice and break his code of justice. It's a hard pill to swallow, but if he had went the other way there were others who would die and he doesn't think he can take any more guilt. -- ok that is my take on it. I tried to watch the Brannagh version but it was too stupid for words and had to give up. David Suchet will always be Poirot. So far no one else has even came close. #DavidSuchetisPoroitforever Goodnight all! -your friend, Mindy
You seem to know a little about human psychology. That would explain his behaviour and his coldness towards others in this. I love how David Suchet really plays his character grappling with his conscience and morality in this.
1. In the Suchet version, I actually can understand Poirot focusing harder and harder on his religion and the idea of a "higher justice" as the years go by. It gets across that the years of solving murders and catching absolutely *despicable* people was starting to get to him and making him wonder what it was all for when the amount of evil in the world just doesn't seem to decrease. Crescendoing in Poirot in the finale, holding on desperately, despite knowing deep that he is in the wrong. I do agree that they went too far in making Poirot too absolute and sure of his own moral code. 2. While the Branagh version generally looks good, the Suchet version's cinematography and direction is just so much better. The cramped, uncomftorable corridors of the train making the entire episode feel claustrophobic, the luxury of said train "broken" by the encroaching cold and darkness. Almost like they've wandered into the final layer of Hell
@@filipvadas7602 But Poirot being so absolute is what creates his personality, what makes him different. He prides himself on always being righteous. He is so sure of that...that therefore he cannot fail. But he did and he was so damaged by it that he was determined the killers were WRONG and he was not going to let them escape their punishment. When he decides to break the law it was almost more than he could take, because the law was always, always right. Again if Poroit didn't think the way he did, he wouldn't be Poroit. Then, what would be the point. Ok, just my opinion. I loved some of y'alls thoughts on this and enjoyed very much reading them.
Hi Miles, I liked your video. David Suchet once said that in Orient Express Poirot is tiered of all the deaths and is chronologically his last major case. Because he could not see white and black anymore he was losing his sens of justice hence the shouting. I have many opinions about both movies, but , 2017 Why is he asked to go to Egypt for a case when death on the Nile was pure happenstance for him being on that boat.
@@kugelwegNo it was Donald Duck he went to investigate at the river Nile before the actual murder on the Nile actually happened 🤪 If this makes no sense that’s because Kenneth Bragahn’s stupid adaptations make no sense and I think I spelt his surname wrong but I don’t care 🫠
I think the thing with the 2010 version that I appreciate most, is that it has the most accurate depiction of the Simplon Orient Express' operation during that period. It is something that the 1974 gets kind of wrong (understandably so from a budgetary concern) and something that that the 2017 version throws completely out the window. If you watch the 2010 version carefully, you can clearly see coaches added or subtracted as it makes its journey westward, a practice that Christie even mentions in the original novel.
I would be curious to know which of the films in the Poirot series Suchet liked the best: the first years that were light and humorous with Miss Lemon and Captain Hastings, or the later years which were much darker, edgier, added unnecessary sexual elements, and tampered much more with the source material. (I know which ones I liked best.)
I feel like the darker, later stuff works beautifully sometimes, but not at all all of the time. I feel like it was a deliberate choice to show both Poirot's aging and the coming of WWII. Still wasn't always necessary.
2017 - I love the melodramatic ending of 2017 version and the overall feel of the film. But am influenced by the fact that this was the 1'st adaptation I watched, and as I have not read the book yet by that time the reveal was real reveal for me. 2010 - I do like this version (because of David Suchet 🤣) . I like that the passengers were told Poirot decision after he spoke to the police - it did add to the tension. I agree that that they made Poirot unlikable in this movie, and too much of serious religious berk that does contradicts his overall cheerful and slightly humorous portrayal that I know from books and other parts of TV series. I do love the scene were Casetti and Poirot pray in the evening - the contrast of what we know about them and what their prayer is about is startling. Japanese version - well, it has a specific acting style known from their dramas. Most people will not like it but I found it humorous and a little charming. Fact to note is that this version has a second part that shows whole action from planning of the crime to what was happening in background after Casetti was murdered by guilty party. Overall it is not a bad adaptation. I'd like you to watch it and give your opinion. I have not watched other adaptations, I'd be correcting it asap. My verdict is - I actually like all versions the same, because none is actually truly following the book but I found sth to like in each of them. I read the book after watching 2017 version and although I enjoyed it, I think that more dramatic reveal from movies is more suitable. I actually found it rather abrupt and lacklustre how book Poirot delivered the resolution of the case and agreed to deliver assassin version to the police.
I think you make all great points here, Suchet’s Poirot becoming increasingly religious and irrationally angry made him more and more unlikeable but Branagh’s filmmaking from start to finish is overblown and not suitable to the subtleties of the novel, or of any Christie novels. They are all train wrecks in my opinion.
actually the Suchet version is the best of all of them.. He´s the only one to truly show the inner turmoil that such a case would spark and force one´s mind to delve into.. the solemn ending was precisely what made it believable. I´ve all versions and 2010 version is the only one worth..
I loathe Kenneth Branagh's versions of Murder on the Orient Express and Death on the Nile, mainly because of Branagh himself. In general, I like Branagh as an actor, but the character he is portraying has nothing in common with Poirot but the name. I didn't particularly care for David Suchet's version, but I still like it better.
Branagh’s Poirot is a brooding idiot, making wild accusations and stumbling upon the solution (rather than feigning ignorance to lure the culprit into a false sense of security)
I just got finished rewatching the 2010 film before watching this, sorry but i still love it and yes i think its better than the 70s film. Please do not drug my tea and stab me in my cabin!
The video was very persuasive, & I agree with a lot of your points about the Suchet version, BUT I like the set-up it makes for the adaptation of Curtain. That moral absolutism that he compramised, but also relied on through the years, having to be sacrificed to stop a killer. Come on! That's so good.
Hardly surprising that we agree, but I like Suchet's version A LOT more than you did. Having not seen Branagh's version, my worst would've been the Alfred Molina version, but obviously not covered here. But anyway, I hope you're doing well and have a Merry Christmas. By the way, any thought to doing a video on the new Christie books written by someone authorized by her estate? I seem to remember there's 3 or 4 novels out right now.
Merry Christmas to you as well! I remember trying The Monogram Murders some years ago, and it might have been the fact that it just didn't feel like Christie to me, but I couldn't get past the first few pages. I /might/ give it another try someday....
@@MysteryMiles I guess it would be difficult to read something that isn't "pure" Christie. I have a handful of her books somewhere. I haven't read them in a long time... Maybe i should treat myself this year and buy one. for the holidays.
Personally I've always interpreted the reveal scene in the 2010 version less as Poirot being morally absolute than him being outraged at the vigilanteeism of it all, and being worried about how it can spiral, how many times he's seen it spiral. The key line to me is "you can't take the law into your own hands." He needs that to sink in with all of them. And the guy threatening to shoot him and the manager proves his point all the more. I don't know when he makes the decision to let them all go, but its certainly before the scene with the cup of tea, in my mind, possibly starting right from the point when Mary prevents the shooting. But to have a scene where he verbalizes that decision would take the wind out of the immensely powerful ending. This is one of my favorite films in the entire Poirot canon. It's dark, claustrophobic, extremely well acted, and the music is perfect. It really shreds Poirot down to his core and makes him have to truly, physically and emotionally, confront the endgame of the case, instead of being able to leave it aside once it is finished
I love your style of analysis. I have seen some of the movies, some over a decade ago and some of the stories mangled into American TV shows that have nothing to do with Christie. Having the novels and different adaptation at the same table is - don't want so sound over the top, but can't find better words - kind of enlightening and eyeopening. Getting to see all the strengths and flaws taught me a lot about storytelling and working with a specific medium (screen vs. book). So thank you for sharing your knowledge, analysis and opinion and helping me to be a better writer!
After watching Sidney Lumet's version yesterday, that's undoubtedly the best adaptation, from the wonderful cast, including Albert Finney, Ingrid Bergman, Lauren Bacall, and other greats of the acting world, and also a mention for the beautiful music by Richard Rodney Bennett too. xx
I've read every Poirot novel and short story. I have to say, I'm not at all bothered by the television show's sometimes far afield versions of Christie's stories, as often happens when adapting book to film. I feel Suchet was the best at faithfully capturing the spirit of the Poirot character and loved watching him do so. Furthermore, I loved the Suchet version of MotOE and always felt that as the series went on and Poirot aged, he became sadder and clung more to his religion as he bent under the weight of being alone in life and that intimately involved in so many brutal murders. It made him more human to me. Poirot has always been one of my favorite fictional characters and I'm very grateful to Agatha Christie for creating this wonderful little man and to David Suchet for bringing him to life so accurately (at least to me and, by the way, millions of others). No other actor has come close. Of course, that's only my opinion.
I'm not sure what you mean by "to me and, by the way, millions of others", as if having "millions of others" agree with you makes you more right than others. Suchet did NOT bring him to life accurately. If you had actually READ the books and stories (and understood them) you would know that. Poirot did NOT become sadder, nor did he cling more to his religion as he bent under the weight of being alone in life. That's not the Poirot that Agatha Christie wrote. How can you say Suchet and his adaptations accurately depicted Christie's character in the same paragraph in which you also admit that he veered from what Christie wrote?! Not only does he not LOOK like the character, but his mannerisms, feelings, responses, and behaviors are vastly different from what she wrote! I suggest you READ the stories and books (preferably in your native language this time) and then check back, with textual references to the things you claim Suchet got right. You look foolish as of now.
@@kugelwegYou look incredibly foolish by what you just said. Everyone’s opinions are valid and although I don’t agree with yours I don’t think you’re foolish for having different opinions and calling someone foolish just because that person has a different perspective of the character of Poirot than you do doesn’t make that person’s opinion any less valid than yours and certainly doesn’t make her look foolish. You look foolish for saying that.
@@suzie_lovescats Except my perspective is LITERALLY based on the book character. There is no debate. Poirot was NOT religious in the books. How did DS bring the character to life so accurately, when he is LITERALLY doing things that weren't written by Agatha Christie? It is foolish to claim to have read the books, then turn around and claim the man who doesn't look like, or act like, the character played the character accurately. Everyone knows Poirot didn't cook 5 star meals for his friends. Everyone knows Poirot didn't go giddy over the countess or the gal in Belgium. Everyone knows Poirot had a full head of hair and enormous mustaches. Everyone knows Poirot wasn't overtly religious or preachy. No one who has actually read the books would think this was a matter of a "different perspective". The character's mannerisms and looks are not open to debate. Your comment is rather said, and didn't make the point you wished it to make.
@@kugelwegThat’s just your opinion though. And speaking of accuracy why do you like a haunting in Venice better than the Halloween party with David Suchet in if you like accuracy so much? Because Halloween party is far more accurate to the book than haunting in Venice.
Sorry for grammar issues here. Norwegian guy writing on a phone. I enjoy your videos a lot. You are truly an Agatha Christie fan to the core. But I am most admit that I actually loved the Suchet version of The Orient Express. I am not religious in any way, but have never had any issue with Poirot being portrayed as a catholic. For me it makes sense. The year is 1936, and you have grown up in an home that shapes your value and believes. I also enjoy that you can directly make a comparrison between Poirot and Ratchet. Both being religious for two very different reasons. It also portrays a traumatized victim, finding some relief in her faith, and motivation to seek revenge. Showing religious belives in many different forms. For me it is a debate of our morality. From our believes to our laws. Where Poirot stands on the hill of anarchy being worse, and we have to sacrifice for maintaing a sociaty. Infact the stoning scene fits perfectly in with what is gonna happend to Ratchet soon, and ironicaly one of the murderers finding that wrong, but feels justified to take on Ratchet later. Poirot making the comparrison to the death penalty in England, seems rather tolerant to me actually. We are doing a lot of the same thing at this time, based on our believes and laws. We are against homesexuality at this time, and not that far away from stoning them. Once more showing he is the outsider that sees the cultures from their perspectives, and being honest that the concept of "justice" it not pretty. You want to see this episode as being a seperate version to the show. But I honestly think that is a mistake. For it is by comparrison that we see a Poirot that is visible shaken by the suicide of the man in the begining. His words and actions are to very different things. He had passion in the first scene, and now he looks empty. Justice didn't happend, and he is now directly responsebal for a tragedy. He listens to the people around him, but look how David plays him now, versus is usually stick. He is absent minded, can't recollect where has seen the trainline director before. He can't even say no to come on the train. The fight is out of him. For me it is a broken man we see, who feels reponsebal. Infact it almost makes him not want to take the case of Ratchet. He argues the local goverment should do it instead. He doesn't wanna be there, and is drawn into the case against his will. Everytime someone calls him a genius, he feels enoyed. insteand of proud. He mocks his own name once, feeling he didn't really got to express himself the way he wanted to the upset woman on the train. Dealing with his personal issues, which is gonna tie in excellent with Poirot's lase case. This story seems to tie in with moralty, and death aswell. Everyone on that train, including Poirot is a broken person. Hoping that they can continue to go on, if justice can happend. They don't get that ending. Justice becomes artifcial. The individual becomes more important. A Poirot that has believed equally in god and law, is now torn. This man makes now sense for me to comit his final act in Curtain. Now only hoping for mercy, for what he still believes is a horrid act. But feels now justified to do, in order to protect others. I like it, and could go on and on how much I love Suchet as Poirot. The small touches, and the sadness and emptiness they have made that train feel. The usually arrogant, and egosentric Poirot, wouldn't have worked if u didn't take him down a notch in the begining. I have seens so many different versions of the Orient Express before, and it was nice to see a more raw and bare version of it. I also love that it points a mirror to us in western civilization. We find that stoning disturbing, but we are gonna feel these 12 people did the right thing, in murdering that scared criminal in his bed. A man so scared that he seeks redemption, hoping that giving the money back, and making him not profiting from his crimes, is gonna spare him. When is killing right, and when is it wrong? Are we justified ever to kill. "You shall not kill", is one of the ten commands, that probably is a very basic thing for Poirot. Yet me and you both now he is gonna break that soon. This episodes answers for me, why he can.
The books also indicated that Poirot is Catholic. It's not something invented for the movie. I'm with you, I very much enjoy the 2010 Murder on the Orient Express.
I also have no problem with Poirot being Catholic, because he was. But his character and his faith and the way his faith informed his character are completely different in the books as opposed to this movie. Yes, it was Christie's intent to take him down a notch. But when she did, the person she took down a notch was Hercule Poirot, not some caricatured religious-zealot strawman.
I get that you love Suchet, but his portrayal of Poirot as being so deeply religious that it affected his behaviors is off book and un Christie-like. You can try to justify your love of Suchet and his odd and incorrect portrayal of Poirot in this film, but your ideas are still wrong! Poirot, in Agatha Christie's books, was Catholique but not overtly so. Clearly his religion NEVER took precedence over his sense of moral goodness. It is silly to believe that Poirot didn't take the case of Ratchet because Poirot has had all the fight taken out of him. OBVIOUSLY you have never read Agatha Christie's books. And you clearly are a vapid fan of David Suchet, even though he raped and murdered AC's stories in so many ways!
This is a minor point: I actually liked it when Poirot/Suchet lost his temper at the end of “Three Act Tragedy.” The killer in that one is so devoid of all empathy that he plays the victim and tries to place Poirot himself in the villain’s seat. “What have you done?” “What have I done? It is YOU who have deceived ME!” Granted, Poirot’s lines could’ve had more impact on the killer if they had been delivered more calmly and calculated. But his anger shows he’s human and is affected by something that is truly revolting to witness: A murderer who cannot conceive that they’ve done anything wrong in the slightest.
Yes that’s right but I think he was so emotional when he said that because that’s his friend who betrayed him and it must really hurt him. It looked like he was going to cry at the end. This is why it’s annoying that Miles thinks him losing emotional control is somehow wrong but in some situations it’s justified and proves his only human.
I wish the Suchet version was made earlier in the series when the tone wasn’t so grim. As much as I cherish that series, I rarely revisit this version, there’s just something very off-putting about it.
David Suchet is MY Poirot but the Albert Finney movie was great, a gem, a classic. And I can enjoy all adaptations because I just don’t count them as the real Poirot, just a similar story.
Im really surprised to hear you dislike the david suchet adaptation so much, i absolutely love it. Probably wont be able to change your mind kn it but I'll at least advocate for the changes they made. The fact that this story comes so close to the end of the series ( penultimate season if i remember correctly) means that poirot's character has deceloped since the beginning, and i see this episode as the start of his arc that leads to him commiting the murder in curtain. Without his outlook on life becoming so much more extreme, it would feel like a complete 180 on his character to have him commit murder at the end of his life. Up to this episode he's spent countless investigations seeing the evil that humans can do to eachother, to me it makes sense that he clings so hard to religion because without it he'd have to accept that the world is just an evil place. And from religion he knows that no matter what the rules are, if you break them then you need to be punished. At the end of the story when he gives the police the fake murder story thats the start of him accepting that sometimes it's the right thing to do wrong. It takes the ending of murder on the orient express and uses it as a means to develop his character for the final season.
That’s how I see it. I like that his character developed like it did because it wouldn’t be interesting otherwise. That’s one of the reasons why the 2010 version is my favourite.
*RESEARCH and PROPER PRESENTATION please!* NO piece of paper says Daisy Armstrong in full. Last few letters of 1st name & vice versa, with space between. Poirot deduces the rest.
It is an excellent film and incidentally the only version of MOE which Dame Agatha actually saw. Apparently she really liked it, her only criticism being that she thought that Albert Finney's moustache was wrong and should have been bigger. I wonder what she would have thought of the Suchet and Branagh versions (although I think I have an idea.)
Totally agree. Although Albert Finney is not my pure idea of Poirot, that version has everything the others do not. It is pure class with an amazing cast.
In the books Poirot is always going on about how he disapproves of murder so I can see why they interpret it as rage. But I will not forgive Agatha Christie for then making him one in her final book. As much as I enjoyed it.
A great and powerful video as usual. I hope you watched the Albert Finney version as a palette cleanser afterwards. That film imho is still the best Poirot adaptation ever and maybe even the best adaptation of an Agatha Christie novel, though I have still not watched A Haunting in Venice, which maybe a masterpiece but I'm not holding my breath.
I wouldn’t call A Haunting in Venice an adaptation exactly, but as a movie I found it rather enjoyable. It plays well with paranormal elements which are just about explainable if you squint a little and has a Christiean feel despite having changed the setting and much of the plot.
I loathe both David Suchet’s and Kenneth Branagh’s versions of Murder on the Orient Express. As far as I’m concerned the 1974 version starring Albert Finney is super…..!!! And I’ve watched it over a dozen times…!
I was born in 1988 but honestly eveything my generation filmmakers touch is turned to shit… or even a bit older filmmakers. It’s all about Marvel or Fast and Furious-ation of cinema today, you cannot just tell a story, you need turn the characters up to 11… you need Poirot on the roof of a train, you need kung fu and choreographed knife fights etc.
Miles, I have never felt such kinship with you as your passion about the Suchet Murder on the Orient Express (MOE). I LOVE David Suchet but that MOE is oppressive and sanctimonious in such an odd way for the series, Suchet's legacy, et al. I remember thinking, did one of the powers that be have a tragedy they felt penance for or something dramatic that oozed into the production? It was odd and unwatchable. PS: REALLY like your note on both Suchet and Branagh MOE that it is NOT about convincing Poirot---he already knows. In the book it is clear. He is empathetic to the "jury" and as you expertly said, he is convincing Bouc et al. Merci for another awesome video! Starts my day of technical editing with inspiration. 🌹
I'd argue that it isn't about Poirot "convincing" Bouc et al. He does not try to convince them. If I remember, he simply presents the two possible solutions. And they choose. This is an important distinction because for book Poirot, a repeated theme and a core belief of his is that one of the worst things that you can do is play God. To him, and to Miss Marple as well, murder because you decide that somebody DESERVES to die is worse than any other kind, because of the arrogance and hubris of thinking that you could have that right. The mitigating factor in MOE isn't the fact that the victim had it coming -- it is the fact that the victim was given a sort of due process, a trial by jury. No one person took it upon themselves to decide he deserved to die. None of them felt that they had that right. That is why Poirot can spare them. But also why he feels that he alone doesn't have the right to just let them go. He also must not play God. So while he could have just covered up their crime and told nobody the real solution, he presents two solutions to the other men. And he doesn't try to "convince" them, he lets them choose.
Thank you so much for making this video! When the Suchet version was first released, I was so appalled by what they did to my beloved character that I took the whole thing as a personal offense. However, mine wasn't a popular opinion at the time. I feel validated now. Also - kudos to your principles, the final conclusion must have been difficult, but based on the odds of me rewatching either of these films, I would have chosen differently. You know, with a beer and a pizza.
You are right in that many people sadly choose David Suchet's adaptations over any others, even though EVERY ONE of his adaptations was sadly delinquent in terms of Agatha Christie's source material.
@@kugelweg oh, I was only referring to The Orient Express. If you are talking about Suchet series as a whole, count me in with the fans. Sorry if it makes you sad, but you always have the source material to enjoy.
Fair as usual, Miles. I *really* appreciate how you approached this. 23:44 this one minute explanation encapsulates my feelings when these two films are compared against each other. We all know the Finney adaptation is excellent, and the Molina version barely constitutes as a blip on the radar in most fan discussions (I wasn't even aware there was a Japanese adaptation before today to be honest), so placing these two side by side was effective. I'm glad you opted for the ending you did instead of the humorous one, perhaps that's a video for itself? Or maybe a Miles Ledoux Let's Play?! 🙏 I'll admit it, I'd forgotten some of the stoic/callous moments Poirot displayed earlier in the Suchet adaptation with regards to the suicide and stoning. I still think the combination Parlour Scene, last chat with Mary, and walking away resolution in the Suchet version makes for a powerful character interpretation... but, upon hearing your argument, I can now be more sensitive to the detractors of this adaptation and recognize this is not merely protestations from book purists or simple religious intolerance. This is more than a bit of a departure, although I still think the context with regards to the assassination of Ratchett plays a part, but that's just opinion at this point. But dumb really is the right word for the Branagh version. It felt disrespectful to the characters and the audience in equal measures as if we're squirming children whose attention couldn't be held without action spectacle pieces and melodrama.
The 2010 version is about dealing with morality and shows Poirot developing as a character. His coldness towards the stoned woman could be because he felt guilty about the soldier killing himself and he didn’t want to be emotionally involved with someone else who died right in front of him. Which explains why he let the 12 killers go because he would have felt even more guilty had he not let them go.
Beg to pardon, but I think David Suchet’s Piorot is struggling with his history of serving the law and not, necessarily, serving justice. In the end of the Orient Express, he chooses justice, which heightens his religious needs further to forgive himself for doing so. I appreciate all the versions of this story...except the Alfred Molina portrayal...couldn’t even finish watching it!
หลายเดือนก่อน +2
In my opinion the 1974 version was far better than the 2010 and 2017 versions
To me, I just can't get on with Albert Finney as Poirot. I feel like he was reading the script to play Poirot and Gomez Addams at the same time, and he got confused and fused the two. Why is he hunched over so much and basically lurching around the screen? If you don't believe me, watch it again and count how many times you see his neck or his shoulders aren't up at his ears!!
lol 😂 you’re right he is hunched over 🫠 I thought he looked like he had constipation and when he was interrogating Mary he reminded me of Hitler 🥸 also why was Mary sat there smiling when he was doing that? To be honest I don’t think I could keep a straight face if that was me either 🤣😁😉
1974 was held together by a number of strands, including setting the benchmark after decades of generally flimsy adaptations, all characters played by stars in their own right, Richard Rodney Bennett's masterful score. Nevertheless, there are creaks where too much is obviously shovelled into too short a (single-sitting) period and there is the inevitable rush towards the denouement. I saw the 2017 once but won't again of my own volition. Silly is the word that comes to mind, despite again having a fair number of great actors in it. 2010 is where I could not disagree with you more. The angle taken here is the supremacy of Justice, Equality and Morality, which enshrine Liberty, where everything fails around them. The suicide of the soldier is there because it exemplifies the consequences of a collapse in Justice and Morality. The stoning of the adulterous woman draws, in fact, a very unexpected but Equality-driven response from Poirot, that is may not be our system but it is their system. This is at odds with the hypocrites among the protagonists, who are mortified at the apparent brutality of the act and the detective's response. These two events cleverly set the scene for the mirror-system, which is ours and not theirs. Western Society, the rule of law and morality at large, in 1934 as in 2024, are founded on the Christian ethic. As Poirot himself says, When Justice falls, you pick it up and hold it even higher. Equality before the Law is there to protect us from ourselves as much as each other. Your damning comment is, This isn't about Christianity, it's about humanity. And, right there, everything you say falls flat on its face. Humanity is subjective, abstract and permits a breakdown; whereas the Law is objective, precise with the framework of Justice, Equality and Morality, the sum of which is Liberty. In summary, Christianity is all about humanity, starting with God Himself. Far from being a weak link in the long chain of Suchet productions, this one delves deeper to put meat on the bones of the fussy little Belgian and helps us understand clearly not only his mannerisms and words, but his decisive actions.
Please do The Crooked House! It's such a unique mystery with some of the best written characters + it was Agatha's favourite! The adaptation is..decent, it has Glen Close 😊 It'd be great to see your thoughts on this underrated masterpiece ❤ pleeeeaaaaseeeee😊
"The protagonist's final action was not meant to be deeply personal or crushing moral dilemma". I read all the Poirot's in chronological order some years back. The ending to MOE is meant to be personal. It is alluded to in later novels, in other morally fraught situations. It doesn't "crush" Poirot, but it does seem to haunt him. For Poirot, the worst kind and most dangerous kind of murderers are those who think that the victim "deserved it" or "would be better off": The ones who think they have the right to play God. The culprits in MOE don't merit mercy because Ratchett had it coming. They merit mercy because they gave Ratchett a sort of due process, a "trial by jury". Not one of them believes that s/he alone has the right to kill. That is why Poirot feels it is safe to spare them. By this same token, Poirot does not feel he has the right to just let them go on his own. He also cannot "play God". That is why he shares both solutions with Bouc and Constantine, and lets them choose. It is not an easy decision and is supposed to have psychological consequences. Poirot's religion does play a significant role in his beliefs, and is relevant to his overall character arc. So it is understandable that the showrunners wanted to put a bit more emphasis on it in latter entries. Ironically, what ruined MOE and later entries is that the showrunners evidently hold the exact same views on Catholicism/Christianity as Miles does. Like Miles, they could not imagine a person possessing deep faith and also empathy and humanity. Even when Christie took the trouble to imagine such a character for them, their narrow little minds couldn't grasp it. That is why we got the Poirot we did.
UM....you totally didn't read the same novels that we all did. Poirot was NEVER deeply religious. Of course you know that since you have read all the novels and stories. Poirot's religious beliefs got barely any mention. The ending to MOTOE was NOT meant to be personal. Obviously you only say this because you like David Suchet's adaption and want to PRETEND that his adaptation was correct. As far as the decision to let the perps go in MOTOE, it is VERY CLEAR that Poirot is ambiguous in terms of right and wrong (again, you have read all the stories and know this). He feels, as he often did, that the perp deserved what he got, and he wanted to help the twelve out by giving them the best solution, just like he did in the Nemean Lion. Once again, you know this because you have actually READ the stories. OBVIOUSLY, Poirot's religious beliefs do NOT "play a significant role in his beliefs", nor are they "relevant to his overall character arc" in terms of how Christie wrote the character. Poirot's religious beliefs, as you know, are SCARCELY mentioned in only a few stories, and then only in passing. You would do well, and embarrass yourself LESS, if you actually READ Agatha Christie's Poirot stories instead of imposing your own ignorant and misinformed beliefs about Christie's Poirot. ANYONE who has read all the stories and books knows that Poirot was not overtly or significantly religious. Why do you feel that it is necessary to say that he WAS?!?
@@kugelweg Well, first of all, I don't like Suchet's adaptation. I loathe it. It is an abomination. It is a sickening betrayal of the story and the character. I was sick with horror and disgust when I first saw it, and I get a little sick just remembering it now. Pretending that it is "correct" (by which I'm guessing you mean "faithful") is the last thing that I want to do. It is not faithful to the books or to the character. At all. How anyone who actually read the books can claim Poirot was not religious, I really don't know. My guess is you are defining "religious" as meaning "religious in the way that Poirot in 2010 MotOE is religious". And in that sense, you are correct. Poirot in the books was not religious in the way that the Suchet MotOE Poirot is. They are pretty much opposites in a lot of ways.
@@kugelweg Also, my friend, I think you would do well, and embarrass yourself less, if you actually READ my post before responding to it. I mean, in the comment you responded to, I literally referred to 2010 MotOH as "ruined" due to the "narrow little minds" of the showrunners, and you're here telling me how much I love it?
the 2017 version completely lost me at the point when the nazi guy was being racist and then the girl mixes the drinks and says i like a good rosè and then it is revealed that the guy was faking being a racist nazi for no reason and that scene was some weird show for poirot obviously only included because they wanted a strong female to totally destroy racism with a reddit tier quip
To help you feel better about your final ruling, Brannagh's depiction of Poirot as having "Comidic OCD" was appalling for a film written in the post 2000 era.
I still don't understand some things, I've only just watched the 2010 version and I don't understand why did they leave the handkerchief for poirot to find? also why did the cook bring a photo book with her? and why didn't they find the kimono? I definitely think the clues were not explained very well in this adaptation, worse than all of the episodes I've watched, for the first time I should definitely read the book to find out.
I see your point, but what I see Suchet as Poirot in this adaptation at this point he is DONE. He is tired & absolutely fed up with humanity. In his career, he is seeing his cases get more & more violently insane & he is questioning that he gave up maybe having a different life for a career that maybe all his good works just didn't matter. That's why he is so rageful & moralistic because he is venting his absolute overall disgust. I want to know what you think about the series' last episode Curtain: Poirot's Final Case....because they totally flipped the script on Poirot
I admit, I remembered not liking the Suchet version at all, but apparently I blocked out WHY I hated it, but you've now reminded me, Miles. Thanks? But more seriously, for whatever reason Murder on the Orient Express has never been one of my favorite Christies, despite its towering reputation. I can't really say why, either. Just doesn't do it for me. Which is why, actually, I'd go with the dumber Branagh version winning; at least it's dumbness can provide some laughter. It cannot be taken seriously. The Suchet version is just kinda gross. The... almost betrayal of Poirot's characterization by some of the latter-day Suchets, the making him an intolerant prick, really just gets my ire up. Poirot is a character with a very strong morality, but not the scolding, judgmental prude some of the latter Suchets make him. He was always empathetic and decent.
Okay so a few things... You pointed out Poirot's explosion at the end of Three Act Tragedy, but I hold THAT is exceedingly well done. It actually makes sense for Poirot's character at that point and feels really powerful. His FRIEND just betrayed him, committing a truly heinous crime in the process, and that friend just blamed HIM for ruining his life. I actually really like that moment. Secondly, I appreciate the indirect shout-out mentioning the Computer Game, I keep saying the ending is dumber than anyone is thinking, and if I were to tell you you wouldn't believe me. I'll drop the ending at the end of this comment, but you ARE NOT READY my dude. Thirdly, for worst adaptation of the book? MAYBE 2017 wins out. For worst MOVIE? 2010 and it's not even close. You had basically everything right but there is one factor I feel you didn't take into account. Out of the two movies, which one would you rather watch again? 2017 Orient is an INCREDIBLY watchable movie. A Star Studded Cast, a fun Poirot, a generally Christie Esque atmosphere, 2010 is just a CHORE to get through. I'm giving the mantle to the one that makes me FEEL WORSE. And now for the grand reveal. *******SPOILER ALERT****** Daisy Armstrong... Is ALIVE.... And has been Hiding in the Luggage compartment the whole. Time. I told you you weren't ready.
I am so glad that you mentioned that in the book, it is up to the Doctor and Bouc to decide which theory to accept. Poirot does not make that decision himself and that is essential to his character. I am not a fan of many of the later Suchet Poirot movies. Thanks for mentioning the version with Alfred Molina, I will check it out.
Branagh is a classically trained Shakespearean actor and Shakespeare thrives on melodrama, especially for the performers. It’s not a bad thing, it’s the manner of storytelling it requires. You can feel his affinity for melodrama in his adaptation, much to its detriment. I still very much enjoy the movie, but it’s still pale by comparison of the Finney version.
Mind you, aside from the lynching in Istanbul and the heavy religious overt . . . fuck it! I'd rather watch the 2017 adaptation. Hell, I'd watch any version of "Murder on the Orient Express" over the 2010 movie.
The first adaptation is the better one even if they change a little but it is still better than the others 😂😂😂💔it was nonsense specifically the new adaptation of 2017 I remember when I saw it I was surprised why this novel took all of this fuss the movie was too boring but then when I read the novel it was completely a different experience I like it it is my favourite novel now I don’t know why they spoil the novels in the adaptation you have incredible transcript written by Agatha why they change it
Hi Miles. I notice that you dislike the later Suchet portrayal of catholic faith. I beg you to imagine the age that this character was born and raised. Hercule was always a devout catholic, and in his older years, he would have taken comfort from that more.
Branagh's version is SO terrible that it's unwatchable. The Suchet version had to be different b/c the Finney version mirrored the book. The religious aspect worked as Christie herself admired G.K.Chesterston's character Fr. Brown and murder mysteries are fundamentally morality tales.
Character development or crisis of faith--or not--this is the only Suchet Poirot episode I can't stand to rewatch. Once was too much. His religiousness doesn't bother me--his angry, judgmental rigidity bothers me a lot. In his reaction to the "adulterous woman", he seems to have forgotten Jesus and his "adulterous woman" . Anyway, it's not in the spirit of Agatha Christie's novel--and though screenwriters are free to do what they like (and can get away with), I can also just reject and ignore their un-Christie take on it.
THANK YOU. This will be my favorite video of yours. David Suchet is so WEIRD and my only thoughts are they were afraid they would be unfairly compared to the Albert Finney version and wanted to differ. In David Suchet's book he says he is proud of this version and believes it is an accurate retelling of the book. As for KB's movie, out of his 3 ones, I like the Orient Express the best. And while his spectacle does get on my nerves, the thing that annoys me the most is the point you made where modern storytelling only knows to showcase detectives rattling off observations like Sherlock Holmes.
I love David Suchet's portrayal of Poirot and think he's hands down the best incarnation of the detective, but you're right - this adaptation of Murder ... does not do the novel justice, and Poirot's behavior in it is just weirdly emotional, considering this is the same detective who SPOILERS!!!! (basically suggests to "the murderer" in The Murder of Roger Ackroyd to just unalive-himself)
The Suchet one feels like a Poirot from a parrallel universe. My guess is that the director or screenwriter wanted something to make this feel personal or character driven for Poirot, but it really missed the mark.
Here's the thing. I love the Suchet version. Love it. However, it is a direct criticism of the book. For me that's not an issue because I don't really like Christie's novel. It's a brilliant *solution*, but an oddly dull *story*, and I don't think she really gets to grips with the morals on show. I'm going to try and avoid direct spoilers although it's hard. I was rather bothered, reading the book, at the idea of a self-appointed jury and how easily Poirot went along with this. Your own take, that it's about people finding a way to dispense justice, is probably the right one as far as the author's intentions go - but I found it fundamentally unconvincing. This version openly and angrily dismisses that idea - it's a "kangaroo court and kangaroo justice." Personally I found it an interesting conversation to have, although as I don't love the book I'm probably an ideal audience. But let's ask ourselves - is the Suchet Poirot on MotOE consistent with Christie's other work? I would say yes. The main question on Poirot's mind is one of justice. Does this bother him elsewhere? It does. The events of Curtain make it very, very clear that he believes self-appointed jurors to be fundamentally dangerous. It's true that he sometimes allows killers another escape by letting them kill themselves, which is a perversion of justice in a sense - but that's neatly explained by the film's line "then you let God dispense [justice], not you!" Murderers who take their own lives will immediately face God's justice, so for Poirot it's pretty consistent. On the question of religion. I don't think this film is *about* religion in any real way, although religion is used to refract the difference between Poirot and Ratchett in the scene where their prayers are intercut. But we know that Poirot is a Catholic, and this is just what Catholics in the 1930s did. The solutions leads to an argument about God's justice that sounds weighty to our ears but again, I think this is simply the sort of discussion people would have had in this situation. It's unthinkable that a few people in the 30s could debate the meaning of justice *without* someone mentioning god. Of course, the motif that recurs over and over again in Christie's work as to why Poirot is so opposed to murder isn't justice, it's that once somebody has killed once, they find it easier to kill again and again; that once someone crosses that line, they aren't a safe person any longer. And that's fundamental here; it's why Poirot changes his mind. He is going to give the robbers up but then sees Mary Debenham convince Arbuthnot not to take action, because "we don't do what is wrong." Then he talks to her and she tells him she hasn't found peace from her actions. So he sees he is wrong here, that these people won't kill again. At that point he abandons his certainties. Is anything inconsistent? Well Poirot's in a proper grump in this generally (that scene where he measures the eggs is brusque, when in another story it's played out for laughs). And yes, he gets very angry with the soldier at the start... although while his rage is a bit overdone, we know he doesn't like being lied to (he says this in The Hollow, and think of his "punishment" of Brian Martin in Lord Edgware Dies). The only scene I struggle with is the stoning and Poirot's description of it as "justice" - I get the gesture at cultural relativism, but there are limits. But this notwithstanding, my feeling is that *this* Poirot feels like Christie's Poirot because he is at least struggling with his decision, and is a lot less jarring than the version we get in her books - the one who blithely lets a murder go unpunished, and then allows this to become an open secret (he shows Rhoda the knife in Cards On The Table and blabs the real solution, and in Appointment With Death it's referred to by another character). That doesn't square with the Poirot I see in Christie's other books at all.
Orient Express was the only episode of the David Suchet version that I simply did not like. Poirot had let too many miscreants go unpunished before to think that the wholly justifiable killing of a creature like Ratchett would drive him to such vindictiveness and self-doubt. He was not at all the Poirot we had come to know through the rest of the series. And when you think how Curtain ended for him, his inability to grasp he morality of what these people had actually done is inexplicable.
I think he did understand what they did and why, he just didn’t agree with them taking the law into their own hands and the reason why he behaved the way he did was because of all the death and everything he’s witnessed, both recently and over the years. It’s just character development and ties in nicely with curtain because Poirot himself kills someone before he dies and although he still doesn’t agree with what he himself did, he reluctantly did it for the greater good.
I have only actually seen the 1974 version and love it. David Suchet does a great job as Poirot in the stories I seen him. Branagh seems to stray from the story some but the character more than anything. He just isn't Poirot.
kenneth branah's daptation is by faaaaaar the worst. horrible. not trusting the audience to love a whodunnit, making it an action film and poirot anh action hero - totally ridiculous! not to mention bad acting.
Nicely done.... 🎉🎉 i saw both movies... the earlier episodes of David sachets poirot were wonderful b/c of their lightheartedness... the longer more serious ver. were less fun but sachets performance is nevertheless stirring as always.. yes murder on the orient was/is grim.. but i argue/attribute that more to Suchets characters arc change over the decades, from humorous to serious.. as which always comes in the passage of time.. As far as Kenneth Brenna, I saw it in the theater.. his adaptation was entertaining, however the mustache was distracting 😅... Suchet's Poirot is and always will be tops... the wardrobe, hats, cane, overall mannerisms are 2nd to none.. Albert fenny was good but only one portrayal can't stand against the familiarity I have for Suchet... source material notwithstanding....🎉 subscribed ❤
Yes, yes, yes! I was so excited when I saw the first commercial for the Suchet version. I literally gasped and was excitedly saying to my partner "Suchet in Murder in Orient Express!" while he looked on amused. Then I saw it and was so bitterly disappointed. I've never rewatched it. Personally, I would rewatch the 2017 version before it, though I agree with your reasons for why it's the worst. If you can get ahold of the Japanese version, I actually quite like that one, and would say that it my favourite. Sure they make Poirot kinda goofy, I recall it being said at the time that that was the fashion, to make the lead detective a kooky character, but I really liked it overall, and what they added. Certainly preferable to the dour Poirot.
Absolutely cackling at your (very legitimate) anger with the Suchet film I do like it (not as an adaptation) because I find the conflict of Poirot's religious conviction and bourgeois attitude murder vs the 13's sense of natural justice fascinating. But Poirot defending the stoning as 'justice' and his ruthless attitude to the suicide drive me spare. And I really dislike making the doctor one of the killers. However, Branagh turning Poirot into an action-hero who walks along a snowy train roof for no damned reason and turning Arbuthnot, who's most obsessed with the jury parallel in the book, into someone who tries to murder Poirot is so much dumber.
I agree with your thoughts on both versions, but I will say that I think Suchet's Poirot was not describing the stoning as justice but as law. Another culture's law specifically, but I feel like the point he was making is that law is created as a form of societal consensus. That's why it's used as a counterexample to test Poirot's convictions against the murder of Ratchett.
Poirot being Catholic in England & among mostly upper class English, is another example of his otherness. I see your point that they went too far with it in this particular episode, but I like it's inclusion. I like the idea of a charachter whose faith is grounding influence in a life where he is up close to so much evil. They could have gone the other way, of making him athiest because of all the evil he's seen. That has been used to great effect before & since, but it wouldn't emphasize his "foreigness" in the same way. Even if they had, it would have been a "religious" form of Athiesm, & I don't see that as an improvement.
I'm pretty sure Poirot's apparent sanctimony in the Suchet version was actually him trying to justify the theatrics that led to the soldier's suicide in the prologue. He's trying to convince himself that he was not at fault for what happened. His entire arc in that adaptation is about how far he can go in the pursuit of justice before it ceases to be justice.
he's been very contradictory in his justifications before. That usually happens when a showrunner is more concerned with being outlandish & modern; the continuity tends to suffer. And that's what the second wave of Poirot producers were doing by their own account.
Me before even watching the video: *THE BRANAGH ONE! HANDS DOWN THE WORSE!*
The Molina one is ridiculous
Ditto
Yes, it is the worst by a long way.
I was the screenwriter of the 2010 Suchet version, and I really enjoyed your thoughtful and passionate video on the various adaptations. I've adapted many novels that have been adapted numerous times (Dracula, Treasure Island) and the previous adaptations weigh heavily on the decisions you make. Sidney Lumet's wonderful 1974 film is frequently shown on TV in the UK (and is the model for the TV series),and we felt that there was no point in trying to replicate it, but to bring something new to it. Also, as many commentators on this thread have observed, we were coming to the end of the TV series and were laying the ground for Poirot's death in Curtain. ... What I loved about Orient Express was that for once Poirot is the main character, he isn't merely the deus ex machina who solves the puzzle, but the story actually happens to him. So how does he react, how does it change him? I thought it would be interesting to see this man, who has spent his life administering justice, have to question who he is and what he has done with his life. The effect of the suicide of the British army officer, and the brutal community justice of the stoning in Istanbul (and evidence exists of this happening in Turkey at that time) have a shake him profoundly, and then on the train he is confronted by a murder perpetrated by good civilised people because the justice system has let them down. Poirot's concept of civilisation breaks down in our film (literally, from him having to share a bedroom with a stranger to the train breaking down, and the electricity failing) and he comes face to face with a case that challenges all he has done in his life. all he is. Has it been worth it? Has it been right? ... Think of our film as Poirot's Hamlet, where he is questioning his very existence.
Thank you for commenting! I certainly didn't expect this. Even having lived in Los Angeles, I've rarely had the opportunity to meet (in person or otherwise) screenwriters and to hear how they set about creating a script. I can appreciate the challenge of adapting a story that's so well known and has already been adapted multiple times. I think the approach you took makes sense. What upset me the most about the end result was that, for me, Poirot has always been a moral compass, and it was a shock to see him behave in a way that felt so contrary to that. But I appreciate the perspective you've shared, and I'll keep it in mind.
@stewartharcourt5645 I just watched the 2010 Suchet version the other day for the first time with my sister and it was GREAT! I especially love the line “then you let God administer it!” In reference to judgment being delt out. Everyone WANTS to do the right thing but when tragedy occurs (ex: murder of a loved one) we start to question what that is, especially if we feel like we have been forsaken either by God or people
Never thought I would get the opportunity to thank the screenwriter for their adaptation of Orient Express. For those of us who have watched David Suchet as Poirot and grown older with him, the portrayal of this man by Kenneth Branagh was jarring. Completely wiped out the character that I had loved. For those who weren't familiar with Christie's concept of the man through all her books, they enjoyed Kenneth's movie. In the Suchet version , to support the script, the high level of production and the ensemble of actors they pull together in British productions,is the best there is. I get pulled into the characters and the story because if it. The overuse of modern technology leaves me cold. I do not see the world like a high definition green screen. Its phony. It's like Kenneth had all this freedom of character and modern technology and he was going to use everything available and cram it into one movie.
I appreciate how the screenwriters and Suchet acknowledge that when we get older, we look back and question our decisions and actions. All his life he held man made law to a very high perfect obssesive standard. Could he uphold that same standard with Gods law which is based on forgiveness, empathy and understanding. Brilliant. The conflict on Suchets face as he is walking away from that train is a masterclass of acting. Can't tell you how many times I have rewatched this version over the years.
Again, a big thank you for your work. Very much admired and appreciated.
I really enjoyed your interpretation the Most out of any adaptation. I felt that it was very faithful to the book and I came away with the most profound thoughts about justice and crime. Thank you for your adaptation!
@@MysteryMiles Hi Miles. I really like your channel, it's thoughtful and fun. I did six or seven Christie films back in the day, if you ever have a question on why decisions were made about the films, or how the end film came about, then just DM me on Twitter @StewartHarcourt. Best wishes
Suchett version is superior in every way. Beautifully portrayed, acted and expressed. Beautiful work in general.
Because I am a fan of David Suchet’s Poirot, I have rationalized Suchet’s Poirot becoming more religious and beliefs of right and wrong to the fact that he is aging and changing attitude toward life. I dislike Branagh’s interpretation and find his Poirot movies overdone and ridiculous.
I think that's a really valid interpretation. Lots of people do become more religious as they age. I also think the context of this particular case (a whole 12 people orchestrating a calculated plot to kill someone) also plays a part in Poirot's reaction.
I agree with you 100%. Moreover, Poirot hates being made a fool, and as a very perciptive person, he knows it from the begining. Throughout the whole investigation everybody tries to feed him some trumped up theory, he did not encounter any sincere statement, which simply infuriates him. So I found his outrage very beliavable and suitable in the context of this story. And Suchet acted it very powerfully.
I think because I enjoyed Finney's version so much I felt Suchet came off as too self righteous but then again, I hadn't watched the rest of the series yet!!
I think you missed the fact that Suchet's Poirot is clearly going through a crisis of faith, not so much faith in God but faith in justice. That's why he acts so callous toward the friend of the soldier who committed suicide and toward the stoned woman. Internally he is in turmoil but he is trying to convince himself that ultimately justice is always righteous.
Later during the reveal he breaks down saying that if 'justice falls then you pick it back up and hold it even higher'. That otherwise we become 'savages'. This encapsulates his moral conflict. He feels like he has become part of a system of justice that is divorced from humanity, from God, but as he has always lived his life according to a perfect order and now his heart is in conflict with itself.
After his ultimate decision to show mercy, he walks away crying unsure of his choice. His faith has been shaken but it has not broken him.
Finally!!
Great analysis and you’re right 👍🏻
Who gives a fuck about Suchet? Every time I hear how Suchet is the best and most authentic Poirot, when in reality he puts his own religious-inspired twist on the character that couldn't be further removed from Agatha Christie's original. Superficially he might be a blueprint of the original Poirot, but essentially he is a corruption of everything Poirot stood for.
@@karlkarlos3545That’s your opinion but you’re entitled to be wrong.
@@suzie_lovescatsWell, I have read the books and think I can make an objective comparison that is more than "but he looks like Poirot."
I love to see the 1970's Albert Finney version getting the love it deserves
It has a lot of love from me too. the casting was superb as well, everyone was so good.
The Suchet version is IMHO by far, beyond any doubt at all, the BEST adaptation so far of this novel.
01:34 Oh come on! That version is an utterly ridiculous adaptation!
04:10 Well, yes. Because they seem human. It would be different if Poirot went around hitting people, but he sometimes loses his tempter under some circumstances. Not a necessary choice, but an absolutely valid one.
04:34 Unperterbed? I do not agree. He seems to me a man who is trying to deal with parts of life he does not like. He is a bit twitchy, somewhat nonplussed even in subtle ways. I would go so far as to say brittle. For that matter, I would also point out Poirot has a somewhat ruthless streak, at times almost a little cruel.
05:00 YOu see, I think Suchet's Poirot changes over time. Which is hardly surprising. It makes him more human.
11:18 Making the Calais coach as physically uncomfortable as it was emotionally and intellectually was one of my favorite aspects of this version.
18:43 And he sees that. One of the favorite aspects of this version is that the murderers seem themselves traumatized by what they have done. And THAT is what cracks Poirot's shell.
19:05 This is a bete noir of your own. This extreme rejection of characters being religious, specifically Christian. Poirot of the books IS religious. Sorry, but he is. And he is a dynamic character, changing with age. Trying to pretend people in the 1930s were not quite a bit more overtly Christian than now, is simply being inaccurate. This is your personal issue. YOu have plenty of valid points about religion, especially organized religion, but this reflex reaction that it is always forever BAD and including it in a story is always forever BAD is flat out formulaic and even reactionary.
20:41 Making a story more dramatic, more compelling, more disturbing is rarely a bad thing. This version is an IMPROVEMENT on the novel in that regards. Although I think it is left up more to the reader precisely how each individual is responding to events. Something you can do in the literary media far more easily than a dramatic one. (and may I say the earlier version's ending of everyone cheerfully toasting each other always made my blood crawl...these people committed MURDER, the murder of a vicious human being, but a human being none the less, and that is NOTHING to celebrate).
21:25 I will also note Branaugh is not playing a human being but a collection of quirks. I see no heart in his Poirot, no passion. I am not rooting for him or much care what happens.
I agree 👍🏻
I loved the Suchet version and felt that as the series went on and Poirot aged, he clung more to his religion as he bent under the weight of being alone in life and involved in so many brutal murders.
@@nancyhogue7317That’s a reasonable way of looking at it 🤔
WRONG. The 2010 version is by far the Worst. The 1974 version is the best. with 2017 coming in second.
@@TheEarth1874Then you have low standards and I can’t believe you like the 2017 version. That’s utter madness! KB is beyond wrong for the part and he butchered the character of Poirot. KB is a narcissistic me me me and it’s all about him in the whole thing!
Agatha Christie great grandson James Prichard said that he wanted to take her books in a new direction. Which at time I find a little disheartening.
I think that pretty much means 'I want to make as much money with them as possible and I don't care for the original material.'
I appreciate this discussion. I think the Suchet version is in keeping with the character of Poirot, in spite of the injection of religiosity. I think you have missed some key characteristics of Poirot. There are hints through all the books of his moral absolutism, underpinned by orthodox Catholicism, actually often harsh, but also tempered with compassion. (He often says "Nom d'un Nom" which means "name of God".) I think the producers emphasized that internal conflict, which seems incongruous, because of the character arc of Poirot and also because they realized that modern viewers would/should have had the dilemma of: what is justice? The book glosses over that dilemma, which seems typical of Christie's style. So the adapters added it back in. It would have sufficed to have Poirot agonizing/cogitating/stressing -- he's being the jury, considering each perpetrator and their motives and whether judicial action would be just to each individual. The religious aspect is Not Out of character, but it is so buried throughout the books that it feels awkward to modern viewers. It was also excessive in the movie. One last point: David Suchet so carefully embodied the personality of Poirot that I don't think he would have agreed to the prayer scene if it had been out of character. Unlike Branagh's action-hero idiocy.
With the TV show, I feel like in the later part of series they were putting Poirot through a character progression where all the evil and deception he had experienced over the years was making his mind darker and causing him pain, and he was holding on tighter to his religion to get him through it. I don't mind them wanting to give him development rather than always being the same but I think they took it too far. It was also affected by the fact that murder mysteries in the early 2000s had become darker and more dramatic in general. Miss Marple got the same treatment, adding in new elements just for sensationalism.
I thought Poirot became darker and sadder in the novels as well. But agree that it was nothing like the nonsense in the later film versions.
@@kugelweg Do you have a source for that about Suchet? I looked and I found some other people saying it but couldn't find a source. Poirot in the books is said to be Catholic several times, though it's more of a character detail, not a defining trait. I don't think it's bad for the adaptation to take a detail from the book and explore it further, I'm more put out by the changes to his morality (often contradictory between episodes) and the extent of the darkness they added to his character. What got me most was how mean he was to Hastings at times in Curtain, while at other times calling him 'cher ami', with no apology or anything in between. I think overall the mid seasons were the best.
@@phoenixfriend Yeah, I couldn't find anything either. Other than that Suchet had converted to Anglicanism in the 80's and was confirmed in the early 2000's. Nothing about him putting his own beliefs in the show. To my mind, the later shows -- particularly MotOE -- come across more as more motivated by anti-religious bigotry than as anything else?
@@phoenixfriendIn the Curtain episode/film he’s on his death bed and a shadow of his former self which is very sad but I think he didn’t mean to be mean. I think all old people who are about to die have mood swings which is understandable.
@@phoenixfriend I will dig around and find where I saw that. I do recall reading things that referenced the fact that Suchet was Anglican and when he became a producer of the show, religious aspects appeared. Let me look around.
One other thing I'd like to bring up that you only addressed briefly with these two adaptations: the setting. The Finney version is masterful at presenting the tension *OF* the space. The Orient Express is luxurious, but it's cramped. As anyone who has travelled by train or airplane knows, this is always the case. There's a claustrophobia as passengers push past each other in the narrow corridors, as the camera pushes in tightly on them during interrogations, even this shot at 9:51 in the more spacious dining car shows the characters practically huddled in on each other.
11:08 This aspect is maintained in the Suchet adaptation but the addition of the utilities failing ups the stakes. When the train gets halted by the snow drift, there's a lingering shot right after in the dining car: the plates and glasses (neatly made up for tomorrow's breakfast) are turned over and smashed. It's the first instance of the "breaking" of the comfort and glamour of the Orient Express. Throughout the rest of the movie as the lights go dark, the heat dissipates, and the faucets freeze, the opulent train becomes a frozen hell a la the deepest pit of Dante's Inferno. This is an *incredibly* impactful piece of visual storytelling as it adds to the episode's religious theming and its figurative cold tone.
But the Branagh version... just look at this shot at 21:21. The passageways seem wider on this train set (11:51 & 15:50), the framing during interrogations is rarely tight enough to create a sense of foreboding, and they just can't wait to get off the train, huh? Ignoring the stupid scene of Poirot on top of the train or all the overblown action shots around the trellis, the camera keeps showing or moving to the outside (12:24, 12:50, 13:02, 13:37). These make for a more airy, open feel to the film directly overruling any attempts at creating a sense of claustrophobic tension or paranoia of being in close proximity to the killer.
Lastly, there's Poirot's denouement with the suspects which takes place OUTSIDE THE TRAIN in front of a tunnel. It comes complete with a pointless and hackneyed reference to The Last Supper with the 12 laid out like Jesus and the apostles. If the Suchet version makes masterful use of the elements, the Branagh one is the most flaccid in its use. They're surrounded by snow and ice, but I get no sense that its cold. Poirot's words are harsh, but the environment isn't and these people may as well just be waiting for a bus. This is a set. And that's a consistent problem throughout the Branagh version: the train is pristine, the furniture is freshly lacquered, the glass is spotless. You'd expect the first class accommodations to be tidy, sure, but the kitchen car, the baggage car, the train exterior as well?! This isn't Titanic, we're not on the Express' maiden voyage. And yet everything is immaculate; of course it is, it's freshly arrived from the Props Department. This is such a film set, that it takes you out of the mystery.
And that is my overly long rant in praise of Suchet adaptation's use of set dressing.
Nice...yet, the Suchet version took TREMENDOUS liberties with story and characters, as all of Suchet's adaptations did.
I appreciate your acknowledgement of Branagh's set dressings, but let's acknowledge that poor set dressing of Suchet's adaptation--the set dressings had LITTLE to do with what Agatha Christie actually WROTE!
I LOVE Suchet's MOTOE, but I also acknowledge that my love of his adaptation stems from it NOT adhering to what AC wrote.
@@kugelweg And I acknowledge fully that my appreciation of these forms of media comes from a film-centric background as opposed to a purely literary one. Rather than focus on whether the elements I described are loyal or inaccurate to the written word, I think it's more important to consider how they support or hinder the message or theme the filmmaker is trying to convey with their unique adaptation; yet, the themes that jump out at me from the Branagh version's set dressing are "artificiality" and "theatricality" and I find them at odds with the serious mystery that forms the core of the story.
Tangentially related, but I take umbrage with *some* people who comment here (not naming names or pointing to anyone specifically) that act like literary purists and behave as if a movie should *always* follow strictly according to how the book was written. Never mind the fact that books and films are entirely different forms of media and operate under VERY different constraints and demands; never mind that Agatha Christie wrote these stories without film adaptations in mind; never mind the fact that some of her works from this time period contain some frankly repellant commentary about people from other cultures. "Keep it all the same," they seem to cry, "the written word is law!" It's a pedantic, precious, and frankly pretentious argument to take, in my opinion.
From my point of view, the key is whether or not a good story gets told well. Even if it deviates away from the source material, the film can still be enjoyed if it has its own merits.
Good points 👍🏻
I cannot stand the Branagh version! The fact that he sits outside the train wearing only a lounge suit, though surrounded by ice and snow, drinking coffee that doesn't have steam coming from it - great Heavens, with a world of CGI to play with he makes one of the worst films I've ever seen.
@@alidabaxter5849Exactly 😉
For me, this is pretty simple, actually. 1974's Murder on the Orient Express is undoubtedly the best and the garbage fire made my Kenneth Brannagh in 2017 is the worst (and also one of the worst Poirot adaptations of all time). It's a perfect demonstration of why you don't mess with the classic when you don't know what you're doing 🤷♀️
While the David Suchet version is far from perfect, I disagree on one point. I don't perceive his Poirot as harsh and judgemental, but rather someone who is struggling very hard with existential crisis and grappling with the questions of morality, justice and revenge, and ultimately losing a war against himself. It's a divergence from the source material, no doubt, but you can see the intent of filmmakers beyond just making a quick buck off the back of the original while relying heavily on the new generation of movie goers ignorant of the 1974's masterpiece.
I loved the Suchet version and felt that as the series went on and Poirot aged, he clung more to his religion as he bent under the weight of being alone in life and involved in so many brutal murders.
@@nancyhogue7317 I love your logic, it makes perfect sense!
I think the main problem is chronological Murder on the Orient Express happens after Death on the Nile and his tour in the Middle East and you cannot reconcile the portrays as he is far too different in Murder on the Orient Express.
Suchet Murder on the Orient Express was 2010 as Death on the Nile was 2004, I think they should had just made the Middle East Tour in the same series much earlier that of Murder in Mesopotamia in Season 8, Death on the Nile in Season 9, Appointment with Death Season 11 and Murder on the Orient Express season 12 that even if its 5 years its still 5 years and something is certainly off with him in Orient Express.
Gods will not give you justice as they do not exist, they are a human invention made so we can fantasize that they do. Poirot needed a good hard lesson in this, as do so many "faithful".
Oh gosh, the 2010 version is one of my favorite Poirot episodes. I think delving into the moral dilemma, though it was not in the book, added richness to Poirot’s character. Suchet’s acting at the end where he is unsure but is clinging to his rosary and praying in his mind, was amazing and very moving.
The Suchet 'Murder on the Orient Express' is my favorite. I have enjoyed the short stories but confess I haven't read many of the novels. I love the Albert Finney version, but it was definitely of its time. The Branagh movies can all die in a fire. I made it three minutes into the video and knew this was not for me. Suchet's MOE begins an arc toward the final season's adaptation of Curtain: Poirot's Last Case. [Short story] Poirot on numerous occasions has come across as rigid and self-righteous. He rarely operated in morally gray spaces. This version of MOE, at least for me, is the fracturing of the Poirot's morally rigidity. If anything, the more he protests of the higher judgment of God, Suchet deftly portrays Poirot's doubts and fears. Ultimately, Curtain decimates Poirot's crumbling belief in a final and just punishment for evil doing. IYKYK.
OK, but these stories/adaptations have LITTLE to nothing to do with Agatha Christie's Poirot and the stories she wrote.
You are welcome to enjoy whatever you wish, but don't do so with the vapid idea that your beliefs are what Agatha Christie intended, because clearly they aren't! Suchet's MOTOE was a distasteful mistelling of Agatha Christie's fine novel.
As any Christie fan knows, Poirot did not "come across as rigid and self-righteous" in Agatha Christie's stories, only in the silly adaptations that you love so much.
Agatha Christie NEVER wrote MOTOE as a segue into Curtain or any other novel. MOTOE was written LONG before Curtain, so clearly AC wasn't trying to begin an arc toward the final story. David Suchet's team made up a bunch of silly stories that you enjoy. THOSE stories "lead" into Curtain, but in the worst way. They don't follow Agatha Christie's original intentions for her stories or character.
The fact that you feel that the adulterated Suchet version of Motoe is creating an ARC toward the final season shows how desperately ignorant of Christie's stories you actually are. Do NOT defend a poor representation of Christie's work by referencing the fact that it is leading to OTHER poor representations of Christie's works.
You sound absurd and uneducated, defending a terrible representation of a Christie novel by pretending that Suchet's adaptation of MOTOE was correct.
@@kugelwegDon't you think using terms such as vapid, absurd, and uneducated are a bit harsh and unnecessary when entering into a friendly exchange of opinions about (of all things) "which movie was the worst." And, just for the record, telling someone they are sounding uneducated because they express a subjective opinion that you disagree with doesn't make you sound more educated than them. It just makes you sound a little mean. Was someone mean to you? Anyway, what Agatha Christie intended...well no one can really know that unless they read a specific quote by her or spoke to her in person, right? So, relax. There is no correct or incorrect way to adapt a book to film. It's all subjective artistic expression. There is only all our different opinions about what we would prefer and about a million reasons why we might prefer one version over another. So, take a deep breath and try not to take yourself so seriously next time. You might have more fun that way. Of course this is only my opinion.
I'm a huge Christie fan by the way. I've read every Poirot novel and short story as well as many many others. Which is your favorite? Mine is The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. (Oh, and also And Then There Were None...crazy how they had to keep changing the name of that one.)
I have to admit I agree 😁
@@nancyhogue7317 I disagree in that Agatha Christie made Poirot's character, and the stories, very clear. He DID operate in morally gray spaces, so the OP is incorrect.
I can't say whether or not someone being mean to me is what caused my reaction. It's more complicated than that.
My favorite Poirot stories are Mrs. McGinty's Dead and The Big Four (shocker, I know!).
I also LOVE And Then There Were None.
Yes, the story had many names as racist statements became less normalized. I'm not saying the book was racist, but the title is a bit insensitive for modern folk, with good reason.
By the way, you seem awfully nice! Thank you for that!
@@kugelweg triggered much?
Ooof. Poor Suchet adaptation.
I love it personally XD
Poirot IS Catholic in the books though. It's mentioned in more than one story. The Chocolate Box is one that comes to mind
The Chocolate Box, Lord Edgeware Dies, Mystery of the Blue Train, Curtain. Any story where he refers to "le bon Dieu" which is . . . all of them?
Giles' comments are really strange coming from someone who claims to be a well read Christie fan. Yes, Poirot's religious beliefs in the movie and the way they inform his character are completely wrong and unfaithful to the books. But Giles doesn't say that. He says that no Christian would historically possess Poirot's character traits. Which -- even if Poirot hadn't been a Catholic in the books -- would be completely ridiculous. Since Poirot *was* a Catholic in the books, this position becomes bizarre and incomprehensible.
@@valgardener7656 Why are you calling him "Giles?" That's not his name, you can see it clearly below the video. I personally like how the Suchet series depicts Poirot's religious beliefs throughout most of the series (they seem realistic for the time period of the 1930s and yet tinged with a compassionate tolerance), but I can appreciate Mile's objections in this particular episode. Poirot is a multifaceted character and a fan can understandably be upset when one aspect (in this case, his religion) is played up over another aspect (his joviality and empathy).
You can disagree with him without being insulting.
@@Unownshipper Okay, except that is not what happened on a couple of fronts.
1) The filmmakers didn't "play up" Poirot's Catholic beliefs, they changed them completely, to the point where Poirot is now a completely different character (Javert) rather than just a less multifaceted one.
2) Miles-not-Giles didn't object to Poirot religious beliefs being distorted. He objected to the fact that Poirot was portrayed as devout at all. He's "disappointed" that they made Christianity " a cornerstone of Poirot's character" -- even though it WAS -- because "historically in many forms [Christianity] tends to be pervasive and harmful".
That is as if I said that I didn't like that they cast Poirot as a man, because historically men do horrific things to women. Or if I hated that they made him Belgian, because Belgium "historically" committed x or y atrocity. Those arguments are appeals to bigotry and nothing else. And they make no sense as film criticism, because book Poirot was able to be a man and a Belgian without being a genocidal pervert. So by making those arguments, I would be basically lying; denying the reality of who the character is.
But when Miles-not-Giles makes this "Christianity is pervasively harmful" argument, which is just as bad, you are fine with it. It is only my *objection* to bigotry that you find insulting, not the bigotry. Well, sorry, but at least I insulted the person who was a bigot for being a bigot, as an individual. I didn't judge him by the "pervasive historical failings" of his race, nation, or religion.
@@valgardener7656 I can personally and fundamentally disagree with Miles' take on religion, but I can recognize his right to that kind of opinion without resulting to calling him names. Lots of people share that stance because it's a certifiable fact that some people with power have historically used religion as a justification of their abuse/scapegoating of minority groups. This can naturally lead to a skeptical outlook towards organized religion, and you're simply not going to change that.
For you however, I don't know where to start with this kind of response you gave. Instead I'll ask why you watch this channel? I mean, Miles has brought up his objection with the Suchet series' focus on Poirot's religion before in episodes where he covered Cards on The Table and Appointment With Death, so you must have expected something akin to that with how much the Suchet MOE leans into that part of Poirot's life. This can't be good for your health.
@@Unownshipper You make a good number of points, none of which are actually good points.
I, also, dislike the religiosity of the later Poirot films. Immensely! It is intrinsically unpleasant, unfaithful to the character, and distorts some of Christie's central themes. Do you see how easy it was to say that, without resorting to weird, off-topic, sweeping, bigoted attacks upon giant swathes of the world population?
That is where you and your friend fail, and fail hard. It does not matter what "some people in power" do. Poirot is not one of them. He is a Belgian WWI refugee settled in England, who like many such refugees, is a devout Catholic. Attacking him and his faith and his countrymen and a whole lot of other people besides on the basis of what "some powerful people" do is not the behavior of a good person.
Like most people without a leg to stand on, you first argue that he has a right to his opinion, but that you are shocked, SHOCKED, that I dare to express my opinion on his opinion. Then you want to know why I'm even here, if I'm not going to mindlessly agree with everything he says.
No, haven't seen his "Cards on the Table" video. But like I said, if he objected to the way Poirot's religiosity was portrayed in the later films, then I would 100% agree with that. That is not what he did here. It is what he should have done.
For me, and maybe as an Orient Express history buff, I am biased. But neither the 2010 or 2017 version were able to capture the Grandeur of the opulent train. I get there were logistical issues like the 74 film being able to actually get cars from the train, plus a working engine. But the interiors were still recreated on sound stages in the Uk with marvelous attention to detail. The latter versions just feel like an impression of the train, just doing generic art deco motifs you'd find at pier 1 imports. Plus the score by Sir Richard Rodney Bennett was so great they actually cut out the sound of the steam train just to let it set the mood of the glamor of Europe's most celebrated train.
So, the Albert Finley version is disqualified from judgement because it is ‘Cinematic Gold’; the Molina version is silly but still disqualified and you haven’t seen the Japanese one so is also disqualified. Then there were two ( see what I did then?). You don’t like either but will reluctantly settle on the 2017 version as being the worst of 2! Reminds me of a friend who didn’t drink coffee but insisted she liked it. Her explanation was that she just hadn’t found one she liked.
Thing about coffee is, it smells as if it should be nice but is actually horrid.
Poirot was in shock when the soldier killed himself. He never saw that coming. He hardens his heart to keep himself safe from his self and is nonchalant about the stoning, trying to justify himself. He is so messed up because he feels guilt about the suicide he believes he caused. So as he goes along in the movie he continues to become angrier that he feels guilt and it shows. After all, he does not want to doubt himself because if he does then everything he has always believed comes into question. He is shaken to the core because he now doesn't know if he has been wrong all along and his faith comes into question also. No he is not more religious. He feels more and more guilty and he knows he has a God to answer to. He begins to feel he is not infalable and could be wrong so he is stressed to the limit, which shows up regularly in his actions. In the end he felt he had to make a choice and break his code of justice. It's a hard pill to swallow, but if he had went the other way there were others who would die and he doesn't think he can take any more guilt. -- ok that is my take on it. I tried to watch the Brannagh version but it was too stupid for words and had to give up. David Suchet will always be Poirot. So far no one else has even came close. #DavidSuchetisPoroitforever Goodnight all! -your friend, Mindy
You seem to know a little about human psychology. That would explain his behaviour and his coldness towards others in this. I love how David Suchet really plays his character grappling with his conscience and morality in this.
1. In the Suchet version, I actually can understand Poirot focusing harder and harder on his religion and the idea of a "higher justice" as the years go by.
It gets across that the years of solving murders and catching absolutely *despicable* people was starting to get to him and making him wonder what it was all for when the amount of evil in the world just doesn't seem to decrease.
Crescendoing in Poirot in the finale, holding on desperately, despite knowing deep that he is in the wrong.
I do agree that they went too far in making Poirot too absolute and sure of his own moral code.
2. While the Branagh version generally looks good, the Suchet version's cinematography and direction is just so much better.
The cramped, uncomftorable corridors of the train making the entire episode feel claustrophobic, the luxury of said train "broken" by the encroaching cold and darkness. Almost like they've wandered into the final layer of Hell
@@filipvadas7602 But Poirot being so absolute is what creates his personality, what makes him different. He prides himself on always being righteous. He is so sure of that...that therefore he cannot fail. But he did and he was so damaged by it that he was determined the killers were WRONG and he was not going to let them escape their punishment. When he decides to break the law it was almost more than he could take, because the law was always, always right. Again if Poroit didn't think the way he did, he wouldn't be Poroit. Then, what would be the point. Ok, just my opinion. I loved some of y'alls thoughts on this and enjoyed very much reading them.
Hi Miles, I liked your video.
David Suchet once said that in Orient Express Poirot is tiered of all the deaths and is chronologically his last major case. Because he could not see white and black anymore he was losing his sens of justice hence the shouting.
I have many opinions about both movies, but , 2017 Why is he asked to go to Egypt for a case when death on the Nile was pure happenstance for him being on that boat.
Because Poirot solved a lot of cases all over the world, including in Egypt. DOTN wasn't the only one.
@@kugelwegNo it was Donald Duck he went to investigate at the river Nile before the actual murder on the Nile actually happened 🤪
If this makes no sense that’s because Kenneth Bragahn’s stupid adaptations make no sense and I think I spelt his surname wrong but I don’t care 🫠
I think the thing with the 2010 version that I appreciate most, is that it has the most accurate depiction of the Simplon Orient Express' operation during that period. It is something that the 1974 gets kind of wrong (understandably so from a budgetary concern) and something that that the 2017 version throws completely out the window. If you watch the 2010 version carefully, you can clearly see coaches added or subtracted as it makes its journey westward, a practice that Christie even mentions in the original novel.
I would be curious to know which of the films in the Poirot series Suchet liked the best: the first years that were light and humorous with Miss Lemon and Captain Hastings, or the later years which were much darker, edgier, added unnecessary sexual elements, and tampered much more with the source material. (I know which ones I liked best.)
I feel like the darker, later stuff works beautifully sometimes, but not at all all of the time. I feel like it was a deliberate choice to show both Poirot's aging and the coming of WWII. Still wasn't always necessary.
2017 - I love the melodramatic ending of 2017 version and the overall feel of the film. But am influenced by the fact that this was the 1'st adaptation I watched, and as I have not read the book yet by that time the reveal was real reveal for me.
2010 - I do like this version (because of David Suchet 🤣) . I like that the passengers were told Poirot decision after he spoke to the police - it did add to the tension. I agree that that they made Poirot unlikable in this movie, and too much of serious religious berk that does contradicts his overall cheerful and slightly humorous portrayal that I know from books and other parts of TV series. I do love the scene were Casetti and Poirot pray in the evening - the contrast of what we know about them and what their prayer is about is startling.
Japanese version - well, it has a specific acting style known from their dramas. Most people will not like it but I found it humorous and a little charming. Fact to note is that this version has a second part that shows whole action from planning of the crime to what was happening in background after Casetti was murdered by guilty party. Overall it is not a bad adaptation. I'd like you to watch it and give your opinion.
I have not watched other adaptations, I'd be correcting it asap.
My verdict is - I actually like all versions the same, because none is actually truly following the book but I found sth to like in each of them. I read the book after watching 2017 version and although I enjoyed it, I think that more dramatic reveal from movies is more suitable. I actually found it rather abrupt and lacklustre how book Poirot delivered the resolution of the case and agreed to deliver assassin version to the police.
I think you make all great points here, Suchet’s Poirot becoming increasingly religious and irrationally angry made him more and more unlikeable but Branagh’s filmmaking from start to finish is overblown and not suitable to the subtleties of the novel, or of any Christie novels. They are all train wrecks in my opinion.
Please PLEASE do a video on the mysterious Affair at Styles 🙏
The BBC Radio adaptation is great, probably the closest to the book.
actually the Suchet version is the best of all of them.. He´s the only one to truly show the inner turmoil that such a case would spark and force one´s mind to delve into.. the solemn ending was precisely what made it believable. I´ve all versions and 2010 version is the only one worth..
The Suchet one -- oh, my God, I forgot about the stoning and the suicide.
I loathe Kenneth Branagh's versions of Murder on the Orient Express and Death on the Nile, mainly because of Branagh himself. In general, I like Branagh as an actor, but the character he is portraying has nothing in common with Poirot but the name.
I didn't particularly care for David Suchet's version, but I still like it better.
Branagh’s Poirot is a brooding idiot, making wild accusations and stumbling upon the solution (rather than feigning ignorance to lure the culprit into a false sense of security)
I just got finished rewatching the 2010 film before watching this, sorry but i still love it and yes i think its better than the 70s film. Please do not drug my tea and stab me in my cabin!
The video was very persuasive, & I agree with a lot of your points about the Suchet version, BUT I like the set-up it makes for the adaptation of Curtain. That moral absolutism that he compramised, but also relied on through the years, having to be sacrificed to stop a killer. Come on! That's so good.
Hardly surprising that we agree, but I like Suchet's version A LOT more than you did. Having not seen Branagh's version, my worst would've been the Alfred Molina version, but obviously not covered here. But anyway, I hope you're doing well and have a Merry Christmas. By the way, any thought to doing a video on the new Christie books written by someone authorized by her estate? I seem to remember there's 3 or 4 novels out right now.
Merry Christmas to you as well! I remember trying The Monogram Murders some years ago, and it might have been the fact that it just didn't feel like Christie to me, but I couldn't get past the first few pages. I /might/ give it another try someday....
@@MysteryMiles I guess it would be difficult to read something that isn't "pure" Christie. I have a handful of her books somewhere. I haven't read them in a long time... Maybe i should treat myself this year and buy one. for the holidays.
Personally I've always interpreted the reveal scene in the 2010 version less as Poirot being morally absolute than him being outraged at the vigilanteeism of it all, and being worried about how it can spiral, how many times he's seen it spiral. The key line to me is "you can't take the law into your own hands." He needs that to sink in with all of them. And the guy threatening to shoot him and the manager proves his point all the more. I don't know when he makes the decision to let them all go, but its certainly before the scene with the cup of tea, in my mind, possibly starting right from the point when Mary prevents the shooting. But to have a scene where he verbalizes that decision would take the wind out of the immensely powerful ending.
This is one of my favorite films in the entire Poirot canon. It's dark, claustrophobic, extremely well acted, and the music is perfect. It really shreds Poirot down to his core and makes him have to truly, physically and emotionally, confront the endgame of the case, instead of being able to leave it aside once it is finished
I love your style of analysis. I have seen some of the movies, some over a decade ago and some of the stories mangled into American TV shows that have nothing to do with Christie. Having the novels and different adaptation at the same table is - don't want so sound over the top, but can't find better words - kind of enlightening and eyeopening. Getting to see all the strengths and flaws taught me a lot about storytelling and working with a specific medium (screen vs. book). So thank you for sharing your knowledge, analysis and opinion and helping me to be a better writer!
After watching Sidney Lumet's version yesterday, that's undoubtedly the best adaptation, from the wonderful cast, including Albert Finney, Ingrid Bergman, Lauren Bacall, and other greats of the acting world, and also a mention for the beautiful music by Richard Rodney Bennett too. xx
I've read every Poirot novel and short story. I have to say, I'm not at all bothered by the television show's sometimes far afield versions of Christie's stories, as often happens when adapting book to film. I feel Suchet was the best at faithfully capturing the spirit of the Poirot character and loved watching him do so. Furthermore, I loved the Suchet version of MotOE and always felt that as the series went on and Poirot aged, he became sadder and clung more to his religion as he bent under the weight of being alone in life and that intimately involved in so many brutal murders. It made him more human to me. Poirot has always been one of my favorite fictional characters and I'm very grateful to Agatha Christie for creating this wonderful little man and to David Suchet for bringing him to life so accurately (at least to me and, by the way, millions of others). No other actor has come close. Of course, that's only my opinion.
I agree ❤❤❤
I'm not sure what you mean by "to me and, by the way, millions of others", as if having "millions of others" agree with you makes you more right than others. Suchet did NOT bring him to life accurately. If you had actually READ the books and stories (and understood them) you would know that. Poirot did NOT become sadder, nor did he cling more to his religion as he bent under the weight of being alone in life. That's not the Poirot that Agatha Christie wrote. How can you say Suchet and his adaptations accurately depicted Christie's character in the same paragraph in which you also admit that he veered from what Christie wrote?!
Not only does he not LOOK like the character, but his mannerisms, feelings, responses, and behaviors are vastly different from what she wrote!
I suggest you READ the stories and books (preferably in your native language this time) and then check back, with textual references to the things you claim Suchet got right.
You look foolish as of now.
@@kugelwegYou look incredibly foolish by what you just said. Everyone’s opinions are valid and although I don’t agree with yours I don’t think you’re foolish for having different opinions and calling someone foolish just because that person has a different perspective of the character of Poirot than you do doesn’t make that person’s opinion any less valid than yours and certainly doesn’t make her look foolish. You look foolish for saying that.
@@suzie_lovescats Except my perspective is LITERALLY based on the book character. There is no debate. Poirot was NOT religious in the books. How did DS bring the character to life so accurately, when he is LITERALLY doing things that weren't written by Agatha Christie? It is foolish to claim to have read the books, then turn around and claim the man who doesn't look like, or act like, the character played the character accurately.
Everyone knows Poirot didn't cook 5 star meals for his friends. Everyone knows Poirot didn't go giddy over the countess or the gal in Belgium. Everyone knows Poirot had a full head of hair and enormous mustaches. Everyone knows Poirot wasn't overtly religious or preachy.
No one who has actually read the books would think this was a matter of a "different perspective". The character's mannerisms and looks are not open to debate.
Your comment is rather said, and didn't make the point you wished it to make.
@@kugelwegThat’s just your opinion though. And speaking of accuracy why do you like a haunting in Venice better than the Halloween party with David Suchet in if you like accuracy so much? Because Halloween party is far more accurate to the book than haunting in Venice.
very well said. the Sidney Lumet version is one of my all time favorite movies. you did justice to all versions
Sorry for grammar issues here. Norwegian guy writing on a phone. I enjoy your videos a lot. You are truly an Agatha Christie fan to the core. But I am most admit that I actually loved the Suchet version of The Orient Express. I am not religious in any way, but have never had any issue with Poirot being portrayed as a catholic. For me it makes sense. The year is 1936, and you have grown up in an home that shapes your value and believes. I also enjoy that you can directly make a comparrison between Poirot and Ratchet. Both being religious for two very different reasons. It also portrays a traumatized victim, finding some relief in her faith, and motivation to seek revenge. Showing religious belives in many different forms. For me it is a debate of our morality. From our believes to our laws. Where Poirot stands on the hill of anarchy being worse, and we have to sacrifice for maintaing a sociaty. Infact the stoning scene fits perfectly in with what is gonna happend to Ratchet soon, and ironicaly one of the murderers finding that wrong, but feels justified to take on Ratchet later. Poirot making the comparrison to the death penalty in England, seems rather tolerant to me actually. We are doing a lot of the same thing at this time, based on our believes and laws. We are against homesexuality at this time, and not that far away from stoning them. Once more showing he is the outsider that sees the cultures from their perspectives, and being honest that the concept of "justice" it not pretty. You want to see this episode as being a seperate version to the show. But I honestly think that is a mistake. For it is by comparrison that we see a Poirot that is visible shaken by the suicide of the man in the begining. His words and actions are to very different things. He had passion in the first scene, and now he looks empty. Justice didn't happend, and he is now directly responsebal for a tragedy. He listens to the people around him, but look how David plays him now, versus is usually stick. He is absent minded, can't recollect where has seen the trainline director before. He can't even say no to come on the train. The fight is out of him. For me it is a broken man we see, who feels reponsebal. Infact it almost makes him not want to take the case of Ratchet. He argues the local goverment should do it instead. He doesn't wanna be there, and is drawn into the case against his will. Everytime someone calls him a genius, he feels enoyed. insteand of proud. He mocks his own name once, feeling he didn't really got to express himself the way he wanted to the upset woman on the train. Dealing with his personal issues, which is gonna tie in excellent with Poirot's lase case. This story seems to tie in with moralty, and death aswell. Everyone on that train, including Poirot is a broken person. Hoping that they can continue to go on, if justice can happend. They don't get that ending. Justice becomes artifcial. The individual becomes more important. A Poirot that has believed equally in god and law, is now torn. This man makes now sense for me to comit his final act in Curtain. Now only hoping for mercy, for what he still believes is a horrid act. But feels now justified to do, in order to protect others. I like it, and could go on and on how much I love Suchet as Poirot. The small touches, and the sadness and emptiness they have made that train feel. The usually arrogant, and egosentric Poirot, wouldn't have worked if u didn't take him down a notch in the begining. I have seens so many different versions of the Orient Express before, and it was nice to see a more raw and bare version of it. I also love that it points a mirror to us in western civilization. We find that stoning disturbing, but we are gonna feel these 12 people did the right thing, in murdering that scared criminal in his bed. A man so scared that he seeks redemption, hoping that giving the money back, and making him not profiting from his crimes, is gonna spare him. When is killing right, and when is it wrong? Are we justified ever to kill. "You shall not kill", is one of the ten commands, that probably is a very basic thing for Poirot. Yet me and you both now he is gonna break that soon. This episodes answers for me, why he can.
The books also indicated that Poirot is Catholic. It's not something invented for the movie. I'm with you, I very much enjoy the 2010 Murder on the Orient Express.
I also have no problem with Poirot being Catholic, because he was. But his character and his faith and the way his faith informed his character are completely different in the books as opposed to this movie. Yes, it was Christie's intent to take him down a notch. But when she did, the person she took down a notch was Hercule Poirot, not some caricatured religious-zealot strawman.
I get that you love Suchet, but his portrayal of Poirot as being so deeply religious that it affected his behaviors is off book and un Christie-like. You can try to justify your love of Suchet and his odd and incorrect portrayal of Poirot in this film, but your ideas are still wrong! Poirot, in Agatha Christie's books, was Catholique but not overtly so. Clearly his religion NEVER took precedence over his sense of moral goodness.
It is silly to believe that Poirot didn't take the case of Ratchet because Poirot has had all the fight taken out of him. OBVIOUSLY you have never read Agatha Christie's books. And you clearly are a vapid fan of David Suchet, even though he raped and murdered AC's stories in so many ways!
Your comment is very interesting and makes me think 🤔
This is a minor point: I actually liked it when Poirot/Suchet lost his temper at the end of “Three Act Tragedy.” The killer in that one is so devoid of all empathy that he plays the victim and tries to place Poirot himself in the villain’s seat. “What have you done?” “What have I done? It is YOU who have deceived ME!” Granted, Poirot’s lines could’ve had more impact on the killer if they had been delivered more calmly and calculated. But his anger shows he’s human and is affected by something that is truly revolting to witness: A murderer who cannot conceive that they’ve done anything wrong in the slightest.
Yes that’s right but I think he was so emotional when he said that because that’s his friend who betrayed him and it must really hurt him. It looked like he was going to cry at the end. This is why it’s annoying that Miles thinks him losing emotional control is somehow wrong but in some situations it’s justified and proves his only human.
I wish the Suchet version was made earlier in the series when the tone wasn’t so grim. As much as I cherish that series, I rarely revisit this version, there’s just something very off-putting about it.
David Suchet is MY Poirot but the Albert Finney movie was great, a gem, a classic. And I can enjoy all adaptations because I just don’t count them as the real Poirot, just a similar story.
Im really surprised to hear you dislike the david suchet adaptation so much, i absolutely love it. Probably wont be able to change your mind kn it but I'll at least advocate for the changes they made.
The fact that this story comes so close to the end of the series ( penultimate season if i remember correctly) means that poirot's character has deceloped since the beginning, and i see this episode as the start of his arc that leads to him commiting the murder in curtain. Without his outlook on life becoming so much more extreme, it would feel like a complete 180 on his character to have him commit murder at the end of his life.
Up to this episode he's spent countless investigations seeing the evil that humans can do to eachother, to me it makes sense that he clings so hard to religion because without it he'd have to accept that the world is just an evil place. And from religion he knows that no matter what the rules are, if you break them then you need to be punished.
At the end of the story when he gives the police the fake murder story thats the start of him accepting that sometimes it's the right thing to do wrong. It takes the ending of murder on the orient express and uses it as a means to develop his character for the final season.
That’s how I see it. I like that his character developed like it did because it wouldn’t be interesting otherwise. That’s one of the reasons why the 2010 version is my favourite.
*RESEARCH and PROPER PRESENTATION please!* NO piece of paper says Daisy Armstrong in full. Last few letters of 1st name & vice versa, with space between. Poirot deduces the rest.
Oh man! I knew nothing of the Albert Finney version. It looks amazing. Thanks for making me aware.
It is an excellent film and incidentally the only version of MOE which Dame Agatha actually saw. Apparently she really liked it, her only criticism being that she thought that Albert Finney's moustache was wrong and should have been bigger. I wonder what she would have thought of the Suchet and Branagh versions (although I think I have an idea.)
Totally agree. Although Albert Finney is not my pure idea of Poirot, that version has everything the others do not. It is pure class with an amazing cast.
Great synopsis. I remember watching the David Suchet TV episide. Couldn't believe the end. So ridiculous and depressing.
Your comment is depressing 🤯
Great points, but the Branagh mustache is so ludicrous that I can’t take his Poirot films seriously…..
Branagh's moustache makes me feel physically sick.
David Suchet is a born again Christian (so am I) and I believe that's why there is more religion in the series.
Poirot is Catholic in the novels.
I thought Suchet was Anglican?
@@shigemorif1066He is but the character of Poirot is Catholic.
In the books Poirot is always going on about how he disapproves of murder so I can see why they interpret it as rage. But I will not forgive Agatha Christie for then making him one in her final book. As much as I enjoyed it.
A great and powerful video as usual. I hope you watched the Albert Finney version as a palette cleanser afterwards. That film imho is still the best Poirot adaptation ever and maybe even the best adaptation of an Agatha Christie novel, though I have still not watched A Haunting in Venice, which maybe a masterpiece but I'm not holding my breath.
I wouldn’t call A Haunting in Venice an adaptation exactly, but as a movie I found it rather enjoyable. It plays well with paranormal elements which are just about explainable if you squint a little and has a Christiean feel despite having changed the setting and much of the plot.
I hated Branagh's Murder on the Orient Express, but I found A Haunting in Venice to be very fun.
I loathe both David Suchet’s and Kenneth Branagh’s versions of Murder on the Orient Express. As far as I’m concerned the 1974 version starring Albert Finney is super…..!!! And I’ve watched it over a dozen times…!
As a Christian and a fan of the series, I know that Suchet the actor is also a Christian, and perhaps that the reason for the religion.
Poirot is Catholic in the novels.
I was born in 1988 but honestly eveything my generation filmmakers touch is turned to shit… or even a bit older filmmakers. It’s all about Marvel or Fast and Furious-ation of cinema today, you cannot just tell a story, you need turn the characters up to 11… you need Poirot on the roof of a train, you need kung fu and choreographed knife fights etc.
Miles, I have never felt such kinship with you as your passion about the Suchet Murder on the Orient Express (MOE). I LOVE David Suchet but that MOE is oppressive and sanctimonious in such an odd way for the series, Suchet's legacy, et al. I remember thinking, did one of the powers that be have a tragedy they felt penance for or something dramatic that oozed into the production? It was odd and unwatchable.
PS: REALLY like your note on both Suchet and Branagh MOE that it is NOT about convincing Poirot---he already knows. In the book it is clear. He is empathetic to the "jury" and as you expertly said, he is convincing Bouc et al.
Merci for another awesome video! Starts my day of technical editing with inspiration. 🌹
I'd argue that it isn't about Poirot "convincing" Bouc et al. He does not try to convince them. If I remember, he simply presents the two possible solutions. And they choose.
This is an important distinction because for book Poirot, a repeated theme and a core belief of his is that one of the worst things that you can do is play God. To him, and to Miss Marple as well, murder because you decide that somebody DESERVES to die is worse than any other kind, because of the arrogance and hubris of thinking that you could have that right. The mitigating factor in MOE isn't the fact that the victim had it coming -- it is the fact that the victim was given a sort of due process, a trial by jury. No one person took it upon themselves to decide he deserved to die. None of them felt that they had that right.
That is why Poirot can spare them. But also why he feels that he alone doesn't have the right to just let them go. He also must not play God. So while he could have just covered up their crime and told nobody the real solution, he presents two solutions to the other men. And he doesn't try to "convince" them, he lets them choose.
Thank you so much for making this video! When the Suchet version was first released, I was so appalled by what they did to my beloved character that I took the whole thing as a personal offense. However, mine wasn't a popular opinion at the time. I feel validated now. Also - kudos to your principles, the final conclusion must have been difficult, but based on the odds of me rewatching either of these films, I would have chosen differently. You know, with a beer and a pizza.
Wasn't it a popular opinion? I seem to recall everyone absolutely hating it.
@@valgardener7656 we must remember different "everyones")))) my friends and colleagues really enjoyed it
@@MaryanaMaskar That must have been very painful for you. :(
You are right in that many people sadly choose David Suchet's adaptations over any others, even though EVERY ONE of his adaptations was sadly delinquent in terms of Agatha Christie's source material.
@@kugelweg oh, I was only referring to The Orient Express. If you are talking about Suchet series as a whole, count me in with the fans. Sorry if it makes you sad, but you always have the source material to enjoy.
Fair as usual, Miles. I *really* appreciate how you approached this. 23:44 this one minute explanation encapsulates my feelings when these two films are compared against each other. We all know the Finney adaptation is excellent, and the Molina version barely constitutes as a blip on the radar in most fan discussions (I wasn't even aware there was a Japanese adaptation before today to be honest), so placing these two side by side was effective. I'm glad you opted for the ending you did instead of the humorous one, perhaps that's a video for itself? Or maybe a Miles Ledoux Let's Play?! 🙏
I'll admit it, I'd forgotten some of the stoic/callous moments Poirot displayed earlier in the Suchet adaptation with regards to the suicide and stoning. I still think the combination Parlour Scene, last chat with Mary, and walking away resolution in the Suchet version makes for a powerful character interpretation... but, upon hearing your argument, I can now be more sensitive to the detractors of this adaptation and recognize this is not merely protestations from book purists or simple religious intolerance. This is more than a bit of a departure, although I still think the context with regards to the assassination of Ratchett plays a part, but that's just opinion at this point.
But dumb really is the right word for the Branagh version. It felt disrespectful to the characters and the audience in equal measures as if we're squirming children whose attention couldn't be held without action spectacle pieces and melodrama.
The 2010 version is about dealing with morality and shows Poirot developing as a character. His coldness towards the stoned woman could be because he felt guilty about the soldier killing himself and he didn’t want to be emotionally involved with someone else who died right in front of him. Which explains why he let the 12 killers go because he would have felt even more guilty had he not let them go.
Beg to pardon, but I think David Suchet’s Piorot is struggling with his history of serving the law and not, necessarily, serving justice. In the end of the Orient Express, he chooses justice, which heightens his religious needs further to forgive himself for doing so.
I appreciate all the versions of this story...except the Alfred Molina portrayal...couldn’t even finish watching it!
In my opinion the 1974 version was far better than the 2010 and 2017 versions
To me, I just can't get on with Albert Finney as Poirot. I feel like he was reading the script to play Poirot and Gomez Addams at the same time, and he got confused and fused the two. Why is he hunched over so much and basically lurching around the screen? If you don't believe me, watch it again and count how many times you see his neck or his shoulders aren't up at his ears!!
lol 😂 you’re right he is hunched over 🫠 I thought he looked like he had constipation and when he was interrogating Mary he reminded me of Hitler 🥸 also why was Mary sat there smiling when he was doing that? To be honest I don’t think I could keep a straight face if that was me either 🤣😁😉
1974 was held together by a number of strands, including setting the benchmark after decades of generally flimsy adaptations, all characters played by stars in their own right, Richard Rodney Bennett's masterful score. Nevertheless, there are creaks where too much is obviously shovelled into too short a (single-sitting) period and there is the inevitable rush towards the denouement.
I saw the 2017 once but won't again of my own volition. Silly is the word that comes to mind, despite again having a fair number of great actors in it.
2010 is where I could not disagree with you more. The angle taken here is the supremacy of Justice, Equality and Morality, which enshrine Liberty, where everything fails around them. The suicide of the soldier is there because it exemplifies the consequences of a collapse in Justice and Morality. The stoning of the adulterous woman draws, in fact, a very unexpected but Equality-driven response from Poirot, that is may not be our system but it is their system. This is at odds with the hypocrites among the protagonists, who are mortified at the apparent brutality of the act and the detective's response.
These two events cleverly set the scene for the mirror-system, which is ours and not theirs. Western Society, the rule of law and morality at large, in 1934 as in 2024, are founded on the Christian ethic. As Poirot himself says, When Justice falls, you pick it up and hold it even higher. Equality before the Law is there to protect us from ourselves as much as each other.
Your damning comment is, This isn't about Christianity, it's about humanity. And, right there, everything you say falls flat on its face. Humanity is subjective, abstract and permits a breakdown; whereas the Law is objective, precise with the framework of Justice, Equality and Morality, the sum of which is Liberty. In summary, Christianity is all about humanity, starting with God Himself.
Far from being a weak link in the long chain of Suchet productions, this one delves deeper to put meat on the bones of the fussy little Belgian and helps us understand clearly not only his mannerisms and words, but his decisive actions.
Please do The Crooked House! It's such a unique mystery with some of the best written characters + it was Agatha's favourite! The adaptation is..decent, it has Glen Close 😊
It'd be great to see your thoughts on this underrated masterpiece ❤ pleeeeaaaaseeeee😊
"The protagonist's final action was not meant to be deeply personal or crushing moral dilemma".
I read all the Poirot's in chronological order some years back. The ending to MOE is meant to be personal. It is alluded to in later novels, in other morally fraught situations. It doesn't "crush" Poirot, but it does seem to haunt him.
For Poirot, the worst kind and most dangerous kind of murderers are those who think that the victim "deserved it" or "would be better off": The ones who think they have the right to play God. The culprits in MOE don't merit mercy because Ratchett had it coming. They merit mercy because they gave Ratchett a sort of due process, a "trial by jury". Not one of them believes that s/he alone has the right to kill. That is why Poirot feels it is safe to spare them.
By this same token, Poirot does not feel he has the right to just let them go on his own. He also cannot "play God". That is why he shares both solutions with Bouc and Constantine, and lets them choose. It is not an easy decision and is supposed to have psychological consequences.
Poirot's religion does play a significant role in his beliefs, and is relevant to his overall character arc. So it is understandable that the showrunners wanted to put a bit more emphasis on it in latter entries.
Ironically, what ruined MOE and later entries is that the showrunners evidently hold the exact same views on Catholicism/Christianity as Miles does. Like Miles, they could not imagine a person possessing deep faith and also empathy and humanity. Even when Christie took the trouble to imagine such a character for them, their narrow little minds couldn't grasp it. That is why we got the Poirot we did.
UM....you totally didn't read the same novels that we all did.
Poirot was NEVER deeply religious. Of course you know that since you have read all the novels and stories. Poirot's religious beliefs got barely any mention.
The ending to MOTOE was NOT meant to be personal. Obviously you only say this because you like David Suchet's adaption and want to PRETEND that his adaptation was correct.
As far as the decision to let the perps go in MOTOE, it is VERY CLEAR that Poirot is ambiguous in terms of right and wrong (again, you have read all the stories and know this). He feels, as he often did, that the perp deserved what he got, and he wanted to help the twelve out by giving them the best solution, just like he did in the Nemean Lion. Once again, you know this because you have actually READ the stories.
OBVIOUSLY, Poirot's religious beliefs do NOT "play a significant role in his beliefs", nor are they "relevant to his overall character arc" in terms of how Christie wrote the character. Poirot's religious beliefs, as you know, are SCARCELY mentioned in only a few stories, and then only in passing.
You would do well, and embarrass yourself LESS, if you actually READ Agatha Christie's Poirot stories instead of imposing your own ignorant and misinformed beliefs about Christie's Poirot. ANYONE who has read all the stories and books knows that Poirot was not overtly or significantly religious. Why do you feel that it is necessary to say that he WAS?!?
@@kugelweg Well, first of all, I don't like Suchet's adaptation. I loathe it. It is an abomination. It is a sickening betrayal of the story and the character. I was sick with horror and disgust when I first saw it, and I get a little sick just remembering it now. Pretending that it is "correct" (by which I'm guessing you mean "faithful") is the last thing that I want to do. It is not faithful to the books or to the character. At all.
How anyone who actually read the books can claim Poirot was not religious, I really don't know. My guess is you are defining "religious" as meaning "religious in the way that Poirot in 2010 MotOE is religious". And in that sense, you are correct. Poirot in the books was not religious in the way that the Suchet MotOE Poirot is. They are pretty much opposites in a lot of ways.
@@kugelweg Also, my friend, I think you would do well, and embarrass yourself less, if you actually READ my post before responding to it. I mean, in the comment you responded to, I literally referred to 2010 MotOH as "ruined" due to the "narrow little minds" of the showrunners, and you're here telling me how much I love it?
All I had to do was see Kenneth Branaugh’s mustache to know that it wasn’t going to be any good
the 2017 version completely lost me at the point when the nazi guy was being racist and then the girl mixes the drinks and says i like a good rosè and then it is revealed that the guy was faking being a racist nazi for no reason and that scene was some weird show for poirot obviously only included because they wanted a strong female to totally destroy racism with a reddit tier quip
Yes, it’s a woke money grab that’s all the 2017 version is. Same with the other two Branagh movies.
David Suchet is everything.
To help you feel better about your final ruling, Brannagh's depiction of Poirot as having "Comidic OCD" was appalling for a film written in the post 2000 era.
I still don't understand some things, I've only just watched the 2010 version and I don't understand why did they leave the handkerchief for poirot to find? also why did the cook bring a photo book with her? and why didn't they find the kimono? I definitely think the clues were not explained very well in this adaptation, worse than all of the episodes I've watched, for the first time I should definitely read the book to find out.
I see your point, but what I see Suchet as Poirot in this adaptation at this point he is DONE. He is tired & absolutely fed up with humanity. In his career, he is seeing his cases get more & more violently insane & he is questioning that he gave up maybe having a different life for a career that maybe all his good works just didn't matter. That's why he is so rageful & moralistic because he is venting his absolute overall disgust. I want to know what you think about the series' last episode Curtain: Poirot's Final Case....because they totally flipped the script on Poirot
The later Suchet Poirot episode lose a great deal of the elegant British himour.of the earlier ones, with both Mis Lemon and the Colonel much missed.
I admit, I remembered not liking the Suchet version at all, but apparently I blocked out WHY I hated it, but you've now reminded me, Miles. Thanks?
But more seriously, for whatever reason Murder on the Orient Express has never been one of my favorite Christies, despite its towering reputation. I can't really say why, either. Just doesn't do it for me. Which is why, actually, I'd go with the dumber Branagh version winning; at least it's dumbness can provide some laughter. It cannot be taken seriously. The Suchet version is just kinda gross. The... almost betrayal of Poirot's characterization by some of the latter-day Suchets, the making him an intolerant prick, really just gets my ire up. Poirot is a character with a very strong morality, but not the scolding, judgmental prude some of the latter Suchets make him. He was always empathetic and decent.
Okay so a few things...
You pointed out Poirot's explosion at the end of Three Act Tragedy, but I hold THAT is exceedingly well done. It actually makes sense for Poirot's character at that point and feels really powerful. His FRIEND just betrayed him, committing a truly heinous crime in the process, and that friend just blamed HIM for ruining his life. I actually really like that moment.
Secondly, I appreciate the indirect shout-out mentioning the Computer Game, I keep saying the ending is dumber than anyone is thinking, and if I were to tell you you wouldn't believe me. I'll drop the ending at the end of this comment, but you ARE NOT READY my dude.
Thirdly, for worst adaptation of the book? MAYBE 2017 wins out. For worst MOVIE? 2010 and it's not even close. You had basically everything right but there is one factor I feel you didn't take into account. Out of the two movies, which one would you rather watch again?
2017 Orient is an INCREDIBLY watchable movie. A Star Studded Cast, a fun Poirot, a generally Christie Esque atmosphere, 2010 is just a CHORE to get through. I'm giving the mantle to the one that makes me FEEL WORSE.
And now for the grand reveal.
*******SPOILER ALERT******
Daisy Armstrong... Is ALIVE.... And has been Hiding in the Luggage compartment the whole. Time.
I told you you weren't ready.
I agree on the anger in 3 Act Tragedy. Also that one was just a good adaptation all around
@@MadameChristie I agree. I'd love to see Miles review that one.
Totally agree on Three Act Tragedy.
@@gregdeandrea1450 It's scripted. :)
@@MysteryMiles Michael Palin: And there was much rejoicing.
I am so glad that you mentioned that in the book, it is up to the Doctor and Bouc to decide which theory to accept. Poirot does not make that decision himself and that is essential to his character. I am not a fan of many of the later Suchet Poirot movies. Thanks for mentioning the version with Alfred Molina, I will check it out.
Branagh is a classically trained Shakespearean actor and Shakespeare thrives on melodrama, especially for the performers. It’s not a bad thing, it’s the manner of storytelling it requires. You can feel his affinity for melodrama in his adaptation, much to its detriment. I still very much enjoy the movie, but it’s still pale by comparison of the Finney version.
Mind you, aside from the lynching in Istanbul and the heavy religious overt . . . fuck it! I'd rather watch the 2017 adaptation. Hell, I'd watch any version of "Murder on the Orient Express" over the 2010 movie.
Well made! I totally agree with your decision.
The first adaptation is the better one even if they change a little but it is still better than the others 😂😂😂💔it was nonsense specifically the new adaptation of 2017 I remember when I saw it I was surprised why this novel took all of this fuss the movie was too boring but then when I read the novel it was completely a different experience I like it it is my favourite novel now I don’t know why they spoil the novels in the adaptation you have incredible transcript written by Agatha why they change it
Hi Miles. I notice that you dislike the later Suchet portrayal of catholic faith. I beg you to imagine the age that this character was born and raised. Hercule was always a devout catholic, and in his older years, he would have taken comfort from that more.
Branagh's version is SO terrible that it's unwatchable.
The Suchet version had to be different b/c the Finney version mirrored the book.
The religious aspect worked as Christie herself admired G.K.Chesterston's character Fr. Brown and murder mysteries are fundamentally morality tales.
Seen BOTH numerous times ... The Kenneth Branagh one is WORSE. NO Question, mon ami!
Oh, Miles, so sorry your marriage didn’t work out!
Character development or crisis of faith--or not--this is the only Suchet Poirot episode I can't stand to rewatch. Once was too much. His religiousness doesn't bother me--his angry, judgmental rigidity bothers me a lot. In his reaction to the "adulterous woman", he seems to have forgotten Jesus and his "adulterous woman" .
Anyway, it's not in the spirit of Agatha Christie's novel--and though screenwriters are free to do what they like (and can get away with), I can also just reject and ignore their un-Christie take on it.
THANK YOU. This will be my favorite video of yours. David Suchet is so WEIRD and my only thoughts are they were afraid they would be unfairly compared to the Albert Finney version and wanted to differ. In David Suchet's book he says he is proud of this version and believes it is an accurate retelling of the book. As for KB's movie, out of his 3 ones, I like the Orient Express the best. And while his spectacle does get on my nerves, the thing that annoys me the most is the point you made where modern storytelling only knows to showcase detectives rattling off observations like Sherlock Holmes.
I love David Suchet's portrayal of Poirot and think he's hands down the best incarnation of the detective, but you're right - this adaptation of Murder ... does not do the novel justice, and Poirot's behavior in it is just weirdly emotional, considering this is the same detective who
SPOILERS!!!!
(basically suggests to "the murderer" in The Murder of Roger Ackroyd to just unalive-himself)
You should do a review of Endless Night and the adaptation from 1972 with George Sanders, Britannique Eckland & Hayley Mills
I really like that one. I touched on it when I reviewed the Miss Marple version of Endless Night, but someday I might go back and do 1972.
@@MysteryMiles I watch that immédiatly
Great review Miles, I really agree with all you said here!
The Suchet one feels like a Poirot from a parrallel universe. My guess is that the director or screenwriter wanted something to make this feel personal or character driven for Poirot, but it really missed the mark.
No it didn’t, it shows him developing as a character and sets him up for curtain.
Your videos are so good!
Here's the thing.
I love the Suchet version. Love it. However, it is a direct criticism of the book. For me that's not an issue because I don't really like Christie's novel. It's a brilliant *solution*, but an oddly dull *story*, and I don't think she really gets to grips with the morals on show. I'm going to try and avoid direct spoilers although it's hard.
I was rather bothered, reading the book, at the idea of a self-appointed jury and how easily Poirot went along with this. Your own take, that it's about people finding a way to dispense justice, is probably the right one as far as the author's intentions go - but I found it fundamentally unconvincing. This version openly and angrily dismisses that idea - it's a "kangaroo court and kangaroo justice." Personally I found it an interesting conversation to have, although as I don't love the book I'm probably an ideal audience.
But let's ask ourselves - is the Suchet Poirot on MotOE consistent with Christie's other work?
I would say yes. The main question on Poirot's mind is one of justice. Does this bother him elsewhere? It does. The events of Curtain make it very, very clear that he believes self-appointed jurors to be fundamentally dangerous. It's true that he sometimes allows killers another escape by letting them kill themselves, which is a perversion of justice in a sense - but that's neatly explained by the film's line "then you let God dispense [justice], not you!" Murderers who take their own lives will immediately face God's justice, so for Poirot it's pretty consistent.
On the question of religion. I don't think this film is *about* religion in any real way, although religion is used to refract the difference between Poirot and Ratchett in the scene where their prayers are intercut. But we know that Poirot is a Catholic, and this is just what Catholics in the 1930s did. The solutions leads to an argument about God's justice that sounds weighty to our ears but again, I think this is simply the sort of discussion people would have had in this situation. It's unthinkable that a few people in the 30s could debate the meaning of justice *without* someone mentioning god.
Of course, the motif that recurs over and over again in Christie's work as to why Poirot is so opposed to murder isn't justice, it's that once somebody has killed once, they find it easier to kill again and again; that once someone crosses that line, they aren't a safe person any longer. And that's fundamental here; it's why Poirot changes his mind. He is going to give the robbers up but then sees Mary Debenham convince Arbuthnot not to take action, because "we don't do what is wrong." Then he talks to her and she tells him she hasn't found peace from her actions. So he sees he is wrong here, that these people won't kill again. At that point he abandons his certainties.
Is anything inconsistent? Well Poirot's in a proper grump in this generally (that scene where he measures the eggs is brusque, when in another story it's played out for laughs). And yes, he gets very angry with the soldier at the start... although while his rage is a bit overdone, we know he doesn't like being lied to (he says this in The Hollow, and think of his "punishment" of Brian Martin in Lord Edgware Dies). The only scene I struggle with is the stoning and Poirot's description of it as "justice" - I get the gesture at cultural relativism, but there are limits.
But this notwithstanding, my feeling is that *this* Poirot feels like Christie's Poirot because he is at least struggling with his decision, and is a lot less jarring than the version we get in her books - the one who blithely lets a murder go unpunished, and then allows this to become an open secret (he shows Rhoda the knife in Cards On The Table and blabs the real solution, and in Appointment With Death it's referred to by another character). That doesn't square with the Poirot I see in Christie's other books at all.
Orient Express was the only episode of the David Suchet version that I simply did not like. Poirot had let too many miscreants go unpunished before to think that the wholly justifiable killing of a creature like Ratchett would drive him to such vindictiveness and self-doubt. He was not at all the Poirot we had come to know through the rest of the series. And when you think how Curtain ended for him, his inability to grasp he morality of what these people had actually done is inexplicable.
I think he did understand what they did and why, he just didn’t agree with them taking the law into their own hands and the reason why he behaved the way he did was because of all the death and everything he’s witnessed, both recently and over the years. It’s just character development and ties in nicely with curtain because Poirot himself kills someone before he dies and although he still doesn’t agree with what he himself did, he reluctantly did it for the greater good.
No
I totally agree with your list. You’ve done a great job
I have only actually seen the 1974 version and love it. David Suchet does a great job as Poirot in the stories I seen him. Branagh seems to stray from the story some but the character more than anything. He just isn't Poirot.
kenneth branah's daptation is by faaaaaar the worst. horrible. not trusting the audience to love a whodunnit, making it an action film and poirot anh action hero - totally ridiculous! not to mention bad acting.
Nicely done.... 🎉🎉 i saw both movies... the earlier episodes of David sachets poirot were wonderful b/c of their lightheartedness... the longer more serious ver. were less fun but sachets performance is nevertheless stirring as always.. yes murder on the orient was/is grim.. but i argue/attribute that more to Suchets characters arc change over the decades, from humorous to serious.. as which always comes in the passage of time..
As far as Kenneth Brenna, I saw it in the theater.. his adaptation was entertaining, however the mustache was distracting 😅...
Suchet's Poirot is and always will be tops... the wardrobe, hats, cane, overall mannerisms are 2nd to none.. Albert fenny was good but only one portrayal can't stand against the familiarity I have for Suchet... source material notwithstanding....🎉 subscribed ❤
I really hated both. The Branagh is just bad, but the Suchet one stayed with me because it's ugly.
Yes, yes, yes! I was so excited when I saw the first commercial for the Suchet version. I literally gasped and was excitedly saying to my partner "Suchet in Murder in Orient Express!" while he looked on amused. Then I saw it and was so bitterly disappointed. I've never rewatched it. Personally, I would rewatch the 2017 version before it, though I agree with your reasons for why it's the worst. If you can get ahold of the Japanese version, I actually quite like that one, and would say that it my favourite. Sure they make Poirot kinda goofy, I recall it being said at the time that that was the fashion, to make the lead detective a kooky character, but I really liked it overall, and what they added. Certainly preferable to the dour Poirot.
Absolutely cackling at your (very legitimate) anger with the Suchet film
I do like it (not as an adaptation) because I find the conflict of Poirot's religious conviction and bourgeois attitude murder vs the 13's sense of natural justice fascinating.
But Poirot defending the stoning as 'justice' and his ruthless attitude to the suicide drive me spare. And I really dislike making the doctor one of the killers.
However, Branagh turning Poirot into an action-hero who walks along a snowy train roof for no damned reason and turning Arbuthnot, who's most obsessed with the jury parallel in the book, into someone who tries to murder Poirot is so much dumber.
I agree with your thoughts on both versions, but I will say that I think Suchet's Poirot was not describing the stoning as justice but as law. Another culture's law specifically, but I feel like the point he was making is that law is created as a form of societal consensus. That's why it's used as a counterexample to test Poirot's convictions against the murder of Ratchett.
Poirot being Catholic in England & among mostly upper class English, is another example of his otherness. I see your point that they went too far with it in this particular episode, but I like it's inclusion. I like the idea of a charachter whose faith is grounding influence in a life where he is up close to so much evil. They could have gone the other way, of making him athiest because of all the evil he's seen. That has been used to great effect before & since, but it wouldn't emphasize his "foreigness" in the same way. Even if they had, it would have been a "religious" form of Athiesm, & I don't see that as an improvement.
Branagh is the worst ever!