Murdering the Orient Express

10 Comments

Some twenty-ish years ago, the BBC (and by extension on this side of the pond, PBS) began running a TV series based on Agatha Christie’s Hercule Poirot, starring David Suchet as the quirky little detective.

And it was brilliant. David Suchet perfectly captured the strange mixture of warm, insightful playfulness and cold calculation that made Poirot so formidable a detective, not to mention nicely embodying Poirot’s long list of idiosyncrasies without becoming quite the grotesque that other actors had tended to turn him into in the past. Hardcore Christie purists might grumble about the way Col. Hastings, Inspector Japp, and Miss Lemon were crammed into every story with a crowbar because they were “part of the regular cast,” and there may have been moments when the series veered a bit towards being a situation comedy that just happened to have detective stories in it. But on the whole, it was brilliant. And many people, myself included, said of this series, “Man, I wish they’d do Murder On the Orient Express!”

But that was twenty years ago. Poirot had a great run in the U.K. and over here, but eventually was cancelled as all good shows must someday be. Like so many other great TV detectives, David Suchet’s Poirot moved on to the occasional “movie special” instead of the regular weekly offering, allowing them to take on Christie’s longer works without abridging the heck out of them. Unfortunately, something changed along the way. Hercule Poirot, the quirky and offbeat Belgian detective who winked and chuckled at English society, became POIROT, ZEALOUS DEFENDER OF LAW AND ORDER! And his cases went from being charming parlour games, to GRIM CRIME DRAMA.

And thus, twenty years later, we are finally presented with David Suchet as Poirot in Murder On the Orient Express … and the series that used to portray Poirot so perfectly, instead gets it all wrong.

We start on a sour note with Poirot solving a case which results in a young and promising military officer blowing his brains out, spattering gore all over Poirot’s face. This scene, while unpleasant, at least has a hint of a precedent in the actual book; the scene that follows, in which Col. Arbuthnot and Mary Debenham happen upon a woman being viciously stoned to death for adultery, not only didn’t appear in the book but is completely contradictory to the deliberately-pedestrian way in which the the book starts. Things keep going from grim to grimmer as Poirot boards the train, meets Ratchett and turns down his job offer, and various characters begin throwing religion at each other and praying all over the place. (Do what now?) And Poirot finds himself telling Mary Debenham that the woman who was stoned to death “knew the rules of her culture” and that by breaking them she invited being brutally stoned to death in the street.

Wait, what?

The train may stay on the rails, but this script sure didn’t. 0.o The screenwriter (or director, or whoever it was making these decisions) was so intent on making a Big Damn Point about “justice” vs. “law” — whatever that point was, I never could quite figure it out — that they were perfectly happy to twist Poirot from a likable ex-cop who did amateur sleuthing as a mental diversion into a cold zealot who cares only about The Law (in capital letters) and believes that the slightest slip leads instantly to anarchy and barbarism. On top of this, all of the charm, all of the pleasant “conversationality” of Christie’s writing is thrown completely away, leaving only a bleak landscape where what little humor there is seems like a bitter jab instead of a friendly nudge. This Murder On the Orient Express has Poirot scowling and barely able to stomach the presence of Ratchett during the job offer and essentially refusing even to speak to him, instead of the book’s lighthearted exchange of, “At the risk of being personal, I don’t like your face.” By the end, both Poirot and the suspects are all nearly frozen to death, croaking at each other in grim darkness, and the presentation of the “right” solution to the Yugoslavian police is an angsty dark night of the soul for Poirot, instead of gently handing the decision to M. Bouc, the director of the line, and “retiring from the case.”

SPOILER ALERT: In one of the most egregious twists of character, even if it is a supporting character, Col. Arbuthnot, the steadfast British officer who was so upset that Ratchett was murdered instead of being sentenced to death by a jury of twelve, “the civilized way,” pulls out a gun with the intent to murder Poirot in order to prevent him from telling the police what actually happened — thus not only perverting the character, but also the whole damn point of the story. This, to me, falls under the heading of the screenwriter (or director, or whomever), putting themselves and their own desires above the work, which is something I always resent in any adaptation.

I don’t know the motivation behind turning Poirot from light whodunnit into bleak melodrama, and honestly I don’t care. But one idea that occurred to me was that they may have done it deliberately to distance themselves from the 1970s Albert Finney version of Murder On the Orient Express. That version is a grand symphony, a tribute not only to Agatha Christie but to the glories of old Hollywood and pre-war Europe, with the Orient Express itself all but waltzing across the screen in its own exuberance. What better way to be different from its exalted elegance than to be harsh and grim, right?

Unfortunately, for all of Albert Finney’s chewing the scenery in the 1970s film, he is at least chewing the scenery in ways compatible with what Agatha Christie actually wrote. The 1970s Murder On the Orient Express is an extremely faithful adaptation; one that even Dame Agatha herself was pleased with, after a lifetime of seeing her works hacked up and generally mucked around with. (And crying all the way to the bank, it’s true.) Admittedly, that leaves the makers of the Suchet version in a tough spot: how do you make a faithful adaptation of such a famous work, without simply doing again the extremely faithful adaptation that’s already been made? The key there I would think would be in letting it ride on David Suchet, with his subtle, nuanced, warm and humorous Poirot taking the stage instead of the eccentric, french-horn-laughing, wild-eyed Poirot of Albert Finney. Twenty years ago, when I was wishing for the David Suchet Murder On the Orient Express, that was what I was wishing for. The 1970s version had everything right except Poirot himself — the new version seems to get everything wrong including Poirot himself.

C’est la vie!

-The Gneech

CORRECTION: I should mention here that Agatha Christie’s Poirot is made by ITV, not the BBC; my apologies. It’s all “British television” to me. 🙂

Categories: Reviews

Tags: , ,

10 Replies to “Murdering the Orient Express”

  1. Yes!!! I sat through the whole thing thinking, “WHAT???”. Why was Poirot so cold and unlikeable, and why on earth was he on his knees, praying?? (I’m sure he respects religion, but being someone who holds reason and logic so dear, it’s just out of character for him to be clutching a rosary).
    Thanks for saying everything I was thinking… I was beginning to think I was going mad, since other reviews have been glowing.

    1. Glad to bring you some comfort! 😀

      FWIW, Poirot is established as a Catholic in the books and does have the occasional theological discussion, but it’s never so in-your-face as it was here.

      -The Gneech

  2. Yeah!!!
    I have looked forward to this and what a disaster!!!!

    I am so glad i am not the only one! What were they thinking!!!

  3. There was only one real performance in this version of “MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS” that I truly enjoyed and it belonged to Denis Menochet, who portrayed the French car attendant, Pierre Michel. He was just as subtle and poignant as Jean-Pierre Cassel back in 1974.

    As for everything else . . . I don’t know. I think I’m too disgusted for words. Am I being too harsh?

  4. What they did to Poirot’s character was horrifying. You’re right, he’s usually clever and cheery…here he was angry, bitter, and cranky the whole bloody time. Not to mention the other ridiculous character changes. Getting rid of Hardman? Substituting the Greek Doctor so that they could have a twelfth? Making Masterson *not* Colonel Armstrong’s valet? Making the chauffeur an intimidating creature, who was in love with the French maid? Monsieur Bouc is supposed to be a friend of Poirot’s, and instead he is some obnoxious admirer? And for heaven’s sake, how could they have had a repentant Ratchett?? Not to mention some of the dreadful accents.

    Actually, what bothered me just as much as the random thing with Colonel Arbothnot was the weird way they killed him. Making sure he was awake and aware? Lecturing him?? That’s sadistic and cruel and not at all what they would have done.

    Incidentally, there are more and more instances of religion popping up in the more recent Poirots. I suspect this may be due to David Suchet himself, who has become rather outspoken about how, in an effort to not offend non-Christians, British Christianity is becoming extinct (I think that was his word).

  5. Absolutely brilliant and well-written critique! My husband and I have acquired all of the released DVDs to date and love watching them over and over. However, we are seriously debating whether we want to bring our collection up to date w/this most-recent release. What a disappointment! Suchet is a wonderful actor and his former representation of Poirot was so “spot-on,” it was easy to imagine Agatha clapping in the wings. I don’t know if they are setting the stage for Poirot’s declining condition in “Curtain,” but this irritable and cranky character is difficult to watch. I suppose that what it all boils down to is that I prefer to be entertained (a la the earlier productions) rather than being handed a subtle(?!), in-my-face lecture on morality. I think I am able to draw my own conclusions and lessons, thank you very much.

  6. Just thougfht i’d mention that your facts are wrong, the BBC having nothing to do with these adaptations, from 2002 (when things went religioius) they have been part funded by UK tv network ITV.

Comments are closed.