![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
serynI finished watching the 2010 remake of Murder On The Orient Express, finally the one with David Suchet, who will always be Poirot to me. This was done under the auspices of Masterpiece Mystery and aired by PBS. (I believe you can still watch it online via PBS.org.)
It's possible that this is one of my least favorite Poirot stories. I have hated all 3 movie versions I have seen. The updated version (the one before this) where it's set in current times but "cell phones don't work in the mountains" was so outrageous as to be almost unwatchable. I have heard that the Alps have terrific cell reception, which meant I started questioning everything they said. I didn't like the iconic version with Albert Finney either (1974), but that seemed more like a vehicle for aging stars than anything else. Everyone makes out that Murder On The Orient Express is Christie's most beloved work, but the story is so bizarre and randomly Deus ex Autura... or however you'd say "god from the mind of the authoress".
There were 3 really bad aspects of this remake. 1) Poirot is suddenly Catholic. There has been zero prior evidence of this and if the Belgian head of national police had fled the German invasion as a Catholic, he would have gone elsewhere than England which was rather intolerant of Catholicism. It would not have been sensible to have remained in London with an international reputation that permitted settling anywhere. 2) The actors in this were not up to snuff. Everything was over-acted but under-powered by emotion. These are all people who are used to stage performances where projection is from the chest but not from the heart. 3) The emphasis in this film's direction was on making sure that the audience didn't miss the clues. Poirot does everything but waggle his eyebrows a-la Magnum PI whenever someone admits to their crucial piece of connection. So about halfway through it's dead obvious who has "dun it" Poirot continuing to mull this over makes him look stupid.
All in all, despite it having David Suchet, there is nothing to recommend this as the best visualization of a very popular mystery novel.
It's possible that this is one of my least favorite Poirot stories. I have hated all 3 movie versions I have seen. The updated version (the one before this) where it's set in current times but "cell phones don't work in the mountains" was so outrageous as to be almost unwatchable. I have heard that the Alps have terrific cell reception, which meant I started questioning everything they said. I didn't like the iconic version with Albert Finney either (1974), but that seemed more like a vehicle for aging stars than anything else. Everyone makes out that Murder On The Orient Express is Christie's most beloved work, but the story is so bizarre and randomly Deus ex Autura... or however you'd say "god from the mind of the authoress".
There were 3 really bad aspects of this remake. 1) Poirot is suddenly Catholic. There has been zero prior evidence of this and if the Belgian head of national police had fled the German invasion as a Catholic, he would have gone elsewhere than England which was rather intolerant of Catholicism. It would not have been sensible to have remained in London with an international reputation that permitted settling anywhere. 2) The actors in this were not up to snuff. Everything was over-acted but under-powered by emotion. These are all people who are used to stage performances where projection is from the chest but not from the heart. 3) The emphasis in this film's direction was on making sure that the audience didn't miss the clues. Poirot does everything but waggle his eyebrows a-la Magnum PI whenever someone admits to their crucial piece of connection. So about halfway through it's dead obvious who has "dun it" Poirot continuing to mull this over makes him look stupid.
All in all, despite it having David Suchet, there is nothing to recommend this as the best visualization of a very popular mystery novel.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-15 02:57 pm (UTC)During C16-18, perhaps, but during C20 it doesn't seem to have been such a striking problem.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-15 05:09 pm (UTC)I vaguely remember episodes where Poirot uses people's faiths as a lever... mildly and politely as these were not the actual criminals but suspects who appeared guilty by hiding behind their religion. And as naive as it makes me sound, truly heartfelt religious people do not do that.
Suchet's Poirot is never overt like Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes is in his disdain for church and faith, but there has never been a single mention of Poirot being Catholic. I could, perhaps, have accepted lapsed-Catholic who does not attend services or have true faith, but not a Poirot who makes his decision because he has prayed rote prayers over it.
There was a guest on The Daily Show last week who wrote some book decrying how we have an artificial division between people of faith and people of science. That a lot of science is taken on faith and a lot of faith still uses rational thinking and science. The author said, not in these words, it's a false dichotomy. I, however, do not believe that.
People who are as actively and primarily religious as Poirot was in this episode cannot act rationally in light of obscure evidence that is invisible to other people's attention. Catholics who pray by following rote prayers and listening to church leaders who stand between themselves and their deity are likely followers who do not want to be the lone voice. Being the sole voice of reason is the driving force behind Poirot's character in every episode I have ever seen. It doesn't jive with rote prayers. Poirot being an active Catholic was extremely out of character.