Murder on the Orient Express (1974)Every lie is a performance, and every performance is a lie. But within that performance, truth can be unveiled. Murder on the Orient Express (1974) is an adaptation of the mystery novel of the same name by Agatha Christie. It follows one of her most iconic detectives, Hercule Poirot (Albert Finney), as he travels on the eponymous Orient Express from Istanbul, only to find himself embroiled in a murder mystery. The victim is an unlikable "businessman" called Mr. Ratchett (Richard Widmark), who initially intended to hire Poirot as his bodyguard, fearing his life was in danger. It turns out that he was right.
|
|
As one of the most popular and beloved writers of all time, Agatha Christie's body of work has often found a home in being adapted for the silver screen, with varying degrees of success. Directed by Sidney Lumet, this adaptation leverages star power to help define the admittedly large cast of characters while maintaining a patient and focused eye on their performances to add subtext to each scene. From the start, there is a preamble explaining through flashbacks, shadows, and newspaper clippings about the tragic kidnapping and death of a child named Daisy Armstrong. The whole scenario is clearly modeled after the kidnapping of Charles Lindbergh, Jr., right down to his father being an aviator. Astute viewers will realize that this introduction is far from incidental, and it should cast a shadow over the rest of the events of the film, even if it isn't clear how just yet. This sense of suspense infuses Murder on the Orient Express with another layer of meaning, which makes it more than your typical "whodunit". By "star power", I mean that this film is packed to the gills with recognizable actors of the era in which it was made. Their acting personae informs viewers about aspects of their characters, which the film finds helpful in avoiding unnecessary (and boring) exposition. For example, a British couple who Poirot sees while boarding the ferry to the European side of Istanbul includes hard-nosed Colonel Arbuthnott (Sean Connery) and his lover, Mary Debenham (Vanessa Redgrave). During Poirot's interrogation of Arbuthnott and Debenham, both actors convey aspects of their prior roles that add an intentional dimension to the scene. Obviously, Connery's fame was uplifted to iconic heights with his turn as James Bond, so seeing him as a rough-and-ready action hero is no stretch. As Poirot vigorously questions Debenham, there is a luminescent allure cast on Redgrave that makes it easy to see why Arbuthnott was drawn to her, perhaps a slight call back to her role in Blowup or other films. And these two are far from the exceptions in Murder on the Orient Express. Other standout examples include Anthony Perkins as Ratchett's secretary, Hector McQueen. Perkins is best known to most audiences for his role as Norman Bates in Psycho, and his near-manic anxiety and nervous ticks, suggesting that he's desperately struggling to conceal a lie makes his casting absolutely perfect here. Interestingly, Perkins worked with Martin Balsam in Psycho, although Balsam is barely recognizable here as the Italian owner of the railroad--and close friend of Poirot, who implores him to help solve the murder--named Bianchi. Eager to play against type it would seem, Ingrid Bergman plays Greta Ohlsson, a devout woman who has an inconsistent command over the English language. But, I would argue, among greats, the most glimmering performance must belong to Lauren Bacall, who from her first major role in The Big Sleep always conveyed a sense of wit and wry cynicism that made many of her later performances echo (and stand alongside) greats like Bette Davis. As the obnoxiously verbose Mrs. Hubbard, Bacall manages to steal virtually every scene she's in--sometimes literally as she, on more than one occasion, produces evidence that has somehow found its way into her handbag. With all of these assorted characters turned suspects, these stars shine brightly as one the most significant highlights of the film.
Full disclosure: I watched Kenneth Branagh's 2017 adaptation of Murder on the Orient Express before seeing this one, and found that both films have notable similarities and differences. As mentioned, star power is a major facet of both movies, a means to convey aspects of the characters that might otherwise prompt a greater amount of exposition to explore than desired. Although the characters have notable differences between the films, these differences are made, I think, to better take advantage of the actor's talents, rather than the other way around. In this, both films share the idea that Christie's mystery is mutable enough to allow for the performers to leave their own individual marks, akin to the works of William Shakespeare. As there have been myriad interpretations of Hamlet over the years, so there have been many takes on the eccentric Belgian detective with a steel trap for a mind, Hercule Poirot. The most noteworthy difference between both films has to be in the way that the movies are directed. Branagh has always appeared to favor a "Hollywood" style of action and fluid motion, with quick cuts and grand visuals, even from the early days of Henry V. Lumet's background in American theater, however, truly informs his staging and direction. There are long takes, tracking shots, with a particular favorite being when Mrs. Hubbard is first presented to the audience, emerging from the crowded Istanbul station, the camera following her path toward the train. The way that the camera watches her in her finery alludes to much, especially for audiences already familiar with the story's ending. Lumet takes his time with his actors, allowing them the opportunity to truly interact and explore their characters in scene after scene, while Branagh paints his grand canvas with an overwhelming palette of talented actors, creating scenes that are bursting with more impassioned drama. Is one better than the other? Well, that is largely subjective, as each director applies their own interpretation of the story, albeit through similar means. Is it better that Poirot reacts the way that he does at the end of Branagh's, in lieu of a lengthy monologue of his findings as Lumet's Poirot does at the end of this movie? Is it better that Lumet's film is laced with more humor and warmth, with Bianchi comically concluding that each suspect is the killer after each and every interview? There are many ways to enjoy a story, and as Johnny Cash once put it about his interest in covering songs from various artists, "When I record somebody else’s song, I have to make it my own or it doesn’t feel right." A good story--like a good song--is both a chance to show how good it is by putting a new spin on it, while serving as a form of self-expression at the same time.
Recommended for: Fans of a classic Agatha Christie murder mystery put to film, loaded with stars and a held together by a great story. This adaptation of Murder on the Orient Express may not be the most recent take on the source material, but it is an excellent way to experience what has made these stories so accessible as film adaptations, seeing recognizable actors play to their strengths (or against type), while enjoying the story for the first time (or even on repeat viewings), affording the audience the opportunity to get something new out of it with each iteration.
Full disclosure: I watched Kenneth Branagh's 2017 adaptation of Murder on the Orient Express before seeing this one, and found that both films have notable similarities and differences. As mentioned, star power is a major facet of both movies, a means to convey aspects of the characters that might otherwise prompt a greater amount of exposition to explore than desired. Although the characters have notable differences between the films, these differences are made, I think, to better take advantage of the actor's talents, rather than the other way around. In this, both films share the idea that Christie's mystery is mutable enough to allow for the performers to leave their own individual marks, akin to the works of William Shakespeare. As there have been myriad interpretations of Hamlet over the years, so there have been many takes on the eccentric Belgian detective with a steel trap for a mind, Hercule Poirot. The most noteworthy difference between both films has to be in the way that the movies are directed. Branagh has always appeared to favor a "Hollywood" style of action and fluid motion, with quick cuts and grand visuals, even from the early days of Henry V. Lumet's background in American theater, however, truly informs his staging and direction. There are long takes, tracking shots, with a particular favorite being when Mrs. Hubbard is first presented to the audience, emerging from the crowded Istanbul station, the camera following her path toward the train. The way that the camera watches her in her finery alludes to much, especially for audiences already familiar with the story's ending. Lumet takes his time with his actors, allowing them the opportunity to truly interact and explore their characters in scene after scene, while Branagh paints his grand canvas with an overwhelming palette of talented actors, creating scenes that are bursting with more impassioned drama. Is one better than the other? Well, that is largely subjective, as each director applies their own interpretation of the story, albeit through similar means. Is it better that Poirot reacts the way that he does at the end of Branagh's, in lieu of a lengthy monologue of his findings as Lumet's Poirot does at the end of this movie? Is it better that Lumet's film is laced with more humor and warmth, with Bianchi comically concluding that each suspect is the killer after each and every interview? There are many ways to enjoy a story, and as Johnny Cash once put it about his interest in covering songs from various artists, "When I record somebody else’s song, I have to make it my own or it doesn’t feel right." A good story--like a good song--is both a chance to show how good it is by putting a new spin on it, while serving as a form of self-expression at the same time.
Recommended for: Fans of a classic Agatha Christie murder mystery put to film, loaded with stars and a held together by a great story. This adaptation of Murder on the Orient Express may not be the most recent take on the source material, but it is an excellent way to experience what has made these stories so accessible as film adaptations, seeing recognizable actors play to their strengths (or against type), while enjoying the story for the first time (or even on repeat viewings), affording the audience the opportunity to get something new out of it with each iteration.