I *understand* why this adaptation is contentious. It’s not simply that it deviates from details in the book, this is a VERY different interpretation of Poirot. His avuncular quality, his calm under pressure, his compassion; these are all trademark characteristics that define the little Belgian detective. Picture an adaptation of Batman where he uses a gun. Some fans would see this transgression from the established canon as just as equivalently egregious. Having read the book, I understand when people say, “this is not Poirot.” The liberties taken with the character are dramatic even within the context of the larger Suchet series. That being said, it disappoints me that the book devotees cannot look past this film as an adaptation and simply appreciate it for its artistic merit. This is a story of a man whose convictions are put to the most extreme of tests, and that is a fascinating story that anyone should find interesting to see. The tale this movie weaves of reconciling justice with righteousness, forgiveness with revenge… it’s fascinating, complex, and moving. As a Catholic, I’d say it especially rings true (though it could apply to anyone with strong beliefs) to the struggle one feels trying to maintain faith when you see examples of so many things around you that strike at your convictions. Contrasting the murder with the stoning, it invites the viewer to take a deeper look than the venerated 1974 film adaptation (indeed, a deeper look than Agatha Christie with her source novel) did at the limits revenge can have in brining someone peace. The 1974 movie is one of my favorite films of all time, and indeed, the definitive adaptation of Christie’s book. At the conclusion, there’s a moment after Poirot has washed his hands of the case and the camera lingers on Mrs. Hubbard (Lauren Bacall): she looks weary, the shock that the ordeal is over only just barely starting to sink in. Her daughter the Countess (Jacqueline Bisset) kisses her, they share a look, and embrace. It’s a very brief moment to reflect on the weight this long trauma has had on their family. But then champagne is brought out and all the conspirators toast each other. In a cinematic sense, it’s a perfect moment to let each actor have a bow before the curtain closes (and as professionals, it was a chance for each of them to salute each other on the completion of the film). But in a psychological sense, I’ve felt it felt wrong in the moment. Just like in this movie, just like in this scene, they would realistically be lingering on the fact they killed someone (even a vile louse like Cassetti) and that should give them pause while they process this. I still love the book and the 1974 movie, it’s a creative and gripping mystery. But I truly value this adaptation and the questions it asks you to ponder: when a wrong has been done to you, will revenge truly bring the resolution you’re seeking?
In this cinematic adaptation, he made the choice that went against his own idea of truth, religion and law. He gave up and didn't pursue punishment and lied. Something very unlike him. At the end his soul broke and it showed, looking for solace in praying (what I don't know if it was because he felt at loss or needed forgiveness for covering a murder with a lie or because he didn't know what to believe in anymore). For him, truth was everything (regardless his motives - reason to be, faith or intellectual vanity - That's why he acted so violent. The "criminals" were putting to the test his very core, risking to face a scenario that didn't match with his own idea of what was correct). In this case, truth, wasn't enough. It was a matter of justice which was stronger. So many lives affected by just one rotten soul. David Suchet's Poirot, for me, is the best of all of them. The 70's movie is great and the 2017 not so much.
I love this version of MOTOE because it deals with morality and the question of what is justice. The ending is so powerful and the music is amazing. In the end he makes the right choice and lets them go. This whole situation makes him realise that justice isn’t as black and white as he thought and it sets up the stage for what will happen in Curtain because he himself has to kill someone for the greater good just like they had to.
I like this version of Agatha Christie's 'Murder on the Orient Express' with David Suchet as Poirot. It's Poirot's personal journey on the Orient Express where the man of justice discovers compassion and mercy. I was watching this again being the week Trump was charged for a crime involving his hush money payment and falsifying his records. If he is found guilty, the Governor of New York (a Democrat), if not President Biden, should pardon him. This case is like Bill Clinton's perjury case or Hillary's case in which Comey let her go. We have more serious cases to hang him on.
I cannot empathise with this Poirot, he is barely human with this moral absolutism and complete lack of compassion. My only idea of redeeming him somehow is assigning him with some sort of disorder, pairing it with his devoted catholicism would be a crime to both ppl with disorders and religion. Poirot is basically showed as evil genius throughout the movie and i never got this from the book
“Barely human” 🙄 If you want to claim he doesn’t act the way he does in the books, then fine. Anyone who’s read the books can see that plainly. But don’t proclaim your inability to understand his position as if it were a virtue. And don’t diminish the seriousness of mental illnesses by describing his convictions as a disorder; that’s extremely insensitive.
I *understand* why this adaptation is contentious. It’s not simply that it deviates from details in the book, this is a VERY different interpretation of Poirot. His avuncular quality, his calm under pressure, his compassion; these are all trademark characteristics that define the little Belgian detective. Picture an adaptation of Batman where he uses a gun. Some fans would see this transgression from the established canon as just as equivalently egregious. Having read the book, I understand when people say, “this is not Poirot.” The liberties taken with the character are dramatic even within the context of the larger Suchet series.
That being said, it disappoints me that the book devotees cannot look past this film as an adaptation and simply appreciate it for its artistic merit. This is a story of a man whose convictions are put to the most extreme of tests, and that is a fascinating story that anyone should find interesting to see. The tale this movie weaves of reconciling justice with righteousness, forgiveness with revenge… it’s fascinating, complex, and moving. As a Catholic, I’d say it especially rings true (though it could apply to anyone with strong beliefs) to the struggle one feels trying to maintain faith when you see examples of so many things around you that strike at your convictions.
Contrasting the murder with the stoning, it invites the viewer to take a deeper look than the venerated 1974 film adaptation (indeed, a deeper look than Agatha Christie with her source novel) did at the limits revenge can have in brining someone peace.
The 1974 movie is one of my favorite films of all time, and indeed, the definitive adaptation of Christie’s book. At the conclusion, there’s a moment after Poirot has washed his hands of the case and the camera lingers on Mrs. Hubbard (Lauren Bacall): she looks weary, the shock that the ordeal is over only just barely starting to sink in. Her daughter the Countess (Jacqueline Bisset) kisses her, they share a look, and embrace. It’s a very brief moment to reflect on the weight this long trauma has had on their family. But then champagne is brought out and all the conspirators toast each other. In a cinematic sense, it’s a perfect moment to let each actor have a bow before the curtain closes (and as professionals, it was a chance for each of them to salute each other on the completion of the film). But in a psychological sense, I’ve felt it felt wrong in the moment.
Just like in this movie, just like in this scene, they would realistically be lingering on the fact they killed someone (even a vile louse like Cassetti) and that should give them pause while they process this.
I still love the book and the 1974 movie, it’s a creative and gripping mystery. But I truly value this adaptation and the questions it asks you to ponder: when a wrong has been done to you, will revenge truly bring the resolution you’re seeking?
In this cinematic adaptation, he made the choice that went against his own idea of truth, religion and law. He gave up and didn't pursue punishment and lied. Something very unlike him. At the end his soul broke and it showed, looking for solace in praying (what I don't know if it was because he felt at loss or needed forgiveness for covering a murder with a lie or because he didn't know what to believe in anymore). For him, truth was everything (regardless his motives - reason to be, faith or intellectual vanity - That's why he acted so violent. The "criminals" were putting to the test his very core, risking to face a scenario that didn't match with his own idea of what was correct).
In this case, truth, wasn't enough. It was a matter of justice which was stronger. So many lives affected by just one rotten soul.
David Suchet's Poirot, for me, is the best of all of them. The 70's movie is great and the 2017 not so much.
You should read Shakespeare's 'Measure For Measure' because the same themes come up. How does The Bard handle it?
I love this version of MOTOE because it deals with morality and the question of what is justice. The ending is so powerful and the music is amazing. In the end he makes the right choice and lets them go. This whole situation makes him realise that justice isn’t as black and white as he thought and it sets up the stage for what will happen in Curtain because he himself has to kill someone for the greater good just like they had to.
I like this version of Agatha Christie's 'Murder on the Orient Express' with David Suchet as Poirot. It's Poirot's personal journey on the Orient Express where the man of justice discovers compassion and mercy.
I was watching this again being the week Trump was charged for a crime involving his hush money payment and falsifying his records. If he is found guilty, the Governor of New York (a Democrat), if not President Biden, should pardon him. This case is like Bill Clinton's perjury case or Hillary's case in which Comey let her go. We have more serious cases to hang him on.
I cannot empathise with this Poirot, he is barely human with this moral absolutism and complete lack of compassion. My only idea of redeeming him somehow is assigning him with some sort of disorder, pairing it with his devoted catholicism would be a crime to both ppl with disorders and religion. Poirot is basically showed as evil genius throughout the movie and i never got this from the book
“Barely human” 🙄
If you want to claim he doesn’t act the way he does in the books, then fine. Anyone who’s read the books can see that plainly.
But don’t proclaim your inability to understand his position as if it were a virtue. And don’t diminish the seriousness of mental illnesses by describing his convictions as a disorder; that’s extremely insensitive.