I saw this film about a week and a half ago, and wasn't going to write about it initially. I haven't read the book it's based on- in fact I've never read any of Agatha Christie's work, although I'm very excited to after seeing this film- and I haven't seen any other adaptations. Because of this, I questioned whether I had the authority to comment on this film, having a comparative lack of knowledge of the source material and context. However, I couldn't stop thinking about this film, and came to the conclusion that perhaps my unfamiliarity makes me competent to review it in a different way- it means I can judge the film as a standalone, and not in comparison to the many other incarnations Murder on the Orient Express and Poirot himself have been through over the years. As usual, spoilers will be below the 'Read More' line, so you're safe for now if you haven't seen it and are unfamiliar with the plot. I really enjoyed the film. I've seen some mixed reviews, and honestly I don't think most have valid complaints at the heart of them. A lot of them condemn Branagh's 'French' accent- Poirot is Belgian, and in any case that's hardly the most important thing- and complain that the film largely consists of Poirot talking to people. He's a detective conducting an investigation and they're stuck on a stationary train; I'm not really sure what these people were expecting! I thought the film managed to be very engaging despite this, and I never felt it was lacking anything in terms of action. The main thing I loved about this film was the atmosphere. The snow-surrounded train and its interior, as well as the costumes of its inhabitants and the settings of the opening sequence, worked to create an aesthetically pleasing, immersive 1930s world that was wonderful to escape into. Branagh's Poirot was a character I found very easy to like- his moustache is positively magnificent, and his amusement at reading Dickens was infectious. More thoughts (with spoilers) below the 'Read More' line: The reason I couldn't get this film out of my head was because of how unexpectedly profound its theme was once it emerged after Poirot solved the case. This is a film primarily about grief and the power it has, and the fact that this was revealed so late in the film made it hit incredibly hard emotionally. In retrospect, however, it was there the whole time, in the picture of 'Katherine' that Poirot carries around and talks to from time to time. These were touching moments in themselves, hinting at a pain in Poirot that is somehow more poignant because we have no context, so it belongs only to him. But when these moments are placed in the context of this particular mystery, the ending is made more emotional, as we have a sense of Poirot's empathy with the murderers and why he chooses to let them go free.
In my research into the original and previous adaptations, I found that black Dr Arbuthnot was white Colonel Arbuthnot in the novel, meaning the commentary regarding the possibility of a romantic relationship between himself and (white) governess Mary Debenham which occurs in the film was not there originally. Simran Hans in her review for the Guardian says: '[the film] does update [Christie] slightly, keeping the opulent colonial trappings but having characters call out the film's racism.' In a world where race and prejudice are as relevant as ever, addressing rather than ignoring the issue in a period narrative that isn't primarily about race is refreshing, and attempts to combat the history of whitewashing in Hollywood. I'll be happy if the producers follow this film up with a sequel, as they seem to want to with the reference to Agatha Christie's Death on the Nile at the end. If you have any more thoughts or counter-arguments to mine, let me know!
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
"After nourishment, shelter, and companionship, stories are the thing we need most in the world."- Philip Pullman Archives
January 2018
Categories
All
Follow the blog on Twitter to catch new posts every Thursday |