Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Murder on the Orient Express--Hollywood at what it does best


I just finished a film version of Agatha Cristie's Murder on the Orient Express--the 1974 version.  I'm not going to do a summary or analysis of the plot or even a comparison of the film to the book.  Others have done that, numerous times, so I'm just going to do a very short commentary here on some trifles.

What I enjoyed most about the film was the cast--the cast--the cast.  In an interview, somebody--the producer?  the director?--said that they weren't going to do a tight little black-and-white British mystery.  They were going to do a real glamour job on it--an Hollywood big picture, expensive, marvelous costumes and sets, star-studded cast, and all the trimmings.  They did it and then some.

The film score is excellent and provides an excellent example of what they tried to do and succeeded in doing.  In an early scene, we see the train pulling out of the station at night. The steam from the engine provides a foggy atmosphere.  And the music and sound effects?  It isn't the expected sound of the driving wheels, and the music doesn't provide that sense of imminent danger ahead--something bad is going to happen.  NO!  What we get is a waltz! The train pulls out of the station and chugs through the countryside to a Viennese Waltz, perhaps even a variation on a Strauss waltz.  The feeling is that of a vacation, a fairyland trip, almost a musical.


Well, that's all I'm going to say about the film itself--now here's a list of the cast.



Albert Finney as Hercule Poirot

Lauren Bacall

Martin Balsam

Ingrid Bergman

Jacqueline Bisset

Sean Connery

Sir John Gielgud

Wendy Hiller

Anthony Perkins

Vanessa Redgrave

Richard Widmark

Michael York



I couldn't recognize Albert Finney because of his makeup.  And Ingrid Bergman?  One of the actors in an interview talked about sitting in the makeup room next to Ingrid Bergman who was being "deglamorized." --his term and very appropriate.

Sir John Gielgud--the consummate professional--does more with a look and syllable than most with a long monologue.  At one point, Gielgud, who plays a butler in the film, has just been questioned by Poirot, and as he leaves, one of the others present says very seriously, "The butler did it."  Gielgud, as he leaves the room,  turns his head and with a sneer utters one syllable of a contemptuous sound.  Gielgud's butler is superior to everyone there, and he lets everyone know it.

Great film--lots of fun--go see it, perhaps with a glass of champagne.  That's what I'm going to do the next time I watch it.

19 comments:

  1. You offer a very good analysis and assessment, Fred. However, I remain partial to the David Suchet TV version of the story. Poirot's struggle with the ethics of his decision at the end is -- pardon the crass metaphor -- the icing on the cake.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RT.

      I just finished watching the BBC version with Suchet. It is certainly quite different. I don't remember reading the novel, perhaps that's what I should do next, but Suchet's version does have Poirot going through much more of a moral/ethical/professional struggle at the end than does Finney, or so it struck me.

      I've only watched a few of the Suchet versions, and it struck me that this was the darkest interpretation of Poirot that I had seen in the past, and right from the beginning. The two incidents prior to boarding the train certainly affected him very strongly and probably played a significant role in his decision at the end.

      Delete
  2. RT,

    For a more serious treatment, I would probably agree the Suchet's treatment would be better. Finney's Poirot did consider briefly the issues and his shrug at the end suggested that he wasn't overly happy, but "that's life--you do what you think is right, or mostly right. Perfect right doesn't exist too often."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Fred, I will search through Netflix and see if the Finney and all-star cast version is available. It sounds like I need to have another look at it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Postscript: I think Christie's novels are always much better as screenplays. In other words, viewing is better than reading. Of course, I could be wrong. That is just one cranky curmudgeon's POV.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RT,

      Well, they do work well as screenplays, but I feel that the novels have a depth to them that the films can't provide.

      Delete
  5. RT,

    I got the DVD version from Netflix. I don't know about streaming.

    ReplyDelete
  6. RT,

    Got me curious now. I think I will check out the Suchet BBC version and see what that one looks like.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He may have done two versions, but I could be wrong about that fact. In any case, the later one -- the one produced near the end of his Poirot portrayals -- is the one to watch.

      Delete
  7. RT,

    The BBC production with Suchet is 89 minutes long.

    The 1974 version with Albert Finney is 127 minutes long.

    Interesting. Wonder what the BBC version cut?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would have no idea. I leave it to you to compare it to the novel. However, even as I say that, I have to admit that MOOE is one of the better, more readable Christie efforts.

      Delete
    2. RT,

      Chuckle. I think I will leave that for someone else. I have too many projects hanging fire already.

      Delete
  8. RT,

    The Netflix DVD has a date of 2010 on it. That would probably be the one near the end.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It's been years since I saw that movie, but I still remember how much fun it was. I'll have to watch for it to pop up again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. madamevauquer,

      As I think I mentioned above, I got the DVD from Netflix. The film was almost three hours long, but I never noticed that. I'm going to watch the Suchet BBC version, which is about 1 1/2 hours long. I wonder what they cut out?

      Delete
  10. Fred I thought I'd commented on this post but turns out I didn't. Big sigh. So I'm playing catch-up here. This is one of my favorite films even if Finney is not the perfect Poirot. Let's face it, besides David Suchet, who could be? But this film works its magic anyway. I'm not a big fan of Lauren Bacall, but I thought she was wonderful in this. Lots of nice touches and the costumes, of course, are to die for. I would have liked a bit more lively score, but that's a minor thing.

    By the way, David Suchet does a splendid job of narrating the book version. I own it and love listening to it when I'm in the mood.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yvette,

    The Poirot mysteries are not my favorites, but of the film versions I have seen, Suchet is definitely the best interpreter.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Fred, apropos of nothing, contact me via email for an important message regarding my blogging activities.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I can't find your email address as your blog has been removed, or so the message says when I try to log on. You will have to contact me through my email address.

    ReplyDelete