 |
| (photo from folio society) |
"'You do not understand, Monsieur. I have been very fortunate in my profession. I have made enough money to satisfy both my needs and my caprices. I take now only such cases as—interest me.'"
- Hercule Poirot, Murder on the Orient Express, p. 36
We have had such a wonderful time so far this week reading Murder on the Orient Express with so many of you! If you are still working on reading it, be sure to post a comment about it on this post or our previous post by midnight EST this Friday, May 20, to be entered to win our latest giveaway! We have loved reading the thoughts of those of you who've already posted. We will post the winner on Saturday the 21st!
The Sum of It:
For those of you who haven't read Orient Express, a quick recap! Poirot is on his way home from a little detective work in Syria via train and after a few connections, finds himself getting (literally) the last bunk on the Orient Express, thanks to meeting up with his convenient bff, M. Bouc, a director of the train company. The train is full of an eclectic mix of passengers, so much so that M. Bouc comments as their journey begins about the unique nature of a train to bring together such a mix of classes, countries, and ages: Russian countesses, Swedish missionaries, British officers, and a rich, unpleasant American man named Ratchett. Ratchett approaches Poirot about a vague job of figuring out who is threatening his life, but Poirot is like uh thanks, but no thanks, I am rich and famous enough to not take lame jobs and also I don't like your face (he literally says that #burn). But of course, who turns up #MURDERED? Old Mr. Ratchett. But is his name actually Ratchett? Or does he have a more sinister name (and past!) to discover? And who on the train would want him dead?
Poirot (sans Hastings again! Sad day!) teams up with M. Bouc and a Greek doctor named Constantine to investigate the case. But this is a confounding one. Everyone has an alibi (or do they!?), everyone has heard or seen something different (or have they!?), and who owns the red kimono dressing gown!?! And did we mention all this is happening while the train is stuck in a snowdrift in the middle of Yugoslavia?
The YOA Treatment:
This one is a classic for a reason. The first time you read (or watch) this tale, the complexity of the situation is truly baffling until finally at the end it starts to dawn on you what must almost certainly be the case. This tale is a showcase for Poirot's intuition, and the fact that it's a bit of a bottle episode requires him to lean all the more on his powers of deduction. The characters in this story are also so rich and interesting, so much so that one big reveal (amid several) at the end literally caused both of us to say "whaaaaat!" And we have both read and watched this tale before! The unique setting, a glamorous train trapped in the silent cold of an Eastern European snowbank, certainly enhances the tale.
Interestingly, the book comes across much lighter in tone (aside from the sad backstory) than the David Suchet movie portrayal and interpretation, which has always made us think of this as another super-somber Poirot tale. In the movie, Poirot's morality is much more of a distressing additional character than in the book, where he strikes a bit of a different tone at the end, which honestly feels more like Agatha's own sense of right and wrong than the heavy moralistic attitude we see in the film.
 |
| The adorable interpretation of Agatha's early thoughts on setting a mystery aboard the Orient Express from one of our new favorite things, Agatha: The Real Life of Agatha Christie (by Martinetti, Lebeau, and Franc) |
In February 1972, in reply to a Japanese fan, she listed, with brief comments, her favourite books. but she makes an important point when she writes that her list of favourites would 'vary from time to time, as every now and then I re-read an early book…and then I alter my opinion, sometimes thinking that it is much better than I thought it was - or nor as good as I had thought'. Although the choices are numbered it is not clear if they are in order of preference; she adds brief comments and reiterates her earlier point when she heads the list:
At the moment my own list would possibly be:
And Then There Were None- 'a difficult technique which was a challenge…'
The Murder of Roger Ackroyd- 'a general favourite…'
A Murder is Announced- 'all the characters interesting…'
Murder on the Orient Express- '…it was a new idea for a plot.'
The Thirteen Problems- 'a good series of short stories.'
Towards Zero- '…interesting idea of people from different places coming towards a murder instead of starting with the murder and working from that.'
Endless Night- 'my own favourite at present.'
Crooked House- '…a study of a certain family interesting to explore.'
Ordeal by Innocence- 'an idea I had for some time before starting to work upon it.'
The Moving Finger- 're-read lately and enjoyed reading it again, very much.'
It has been so wonderful this year to, like Agatha, go back through her books to remember old favorites and find new ones. We agree with her that Murder on the Orient Express deserves a place on our favorites list!
-A. & E.
PS: Here's a fun article about some interesting casting ideas for Kenneth Branagh's new film adaptation of Orient Express!
Love Orient Express. Great audiobook too, if you want to get a fab example of exactly how tremendous Suchet's range of voices and accents goes. The television adaptation is among my very least favorite of the episodes. It is bleak because it is an extensively (and incongruously) 21st-century postmodern adaptation and interpretation, not merely because Christie's work was dark. It is a dark story, but one finds oneself with infinitely more sympathy for the book characters than in the episode, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteSolid points, as always, Kelly. Totally agree. I found the book characters much more compelling, and the film adaptation is so heavy it's almost hard to watch.
DeleteYay, Kelly! You're our big giveaway winner! Thanks so much for participating! :)
DeleteI want to echo the point about the Suchet adaptation. I was surprised about the tone that the film version took with the inclusion of the (anachronistic and culturally inaccurate)stoning scene at the beginning and Poirot's moral dilemmas. I love the story and Suchet's interpretation of Poirot in general but I had mixed feelings about this particular adaptation (still recommend watching it though!) and don't know if it really added to an already excellent story. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteYes! Agree. You and Kelly are so smart to point out that honestly a lot of the dark stuff in the movie is truly anachronistic with the time. Agatha's book was quite powerful enough, and though we adore David Suchet, this adaptation is not a favorite.
DeleteI didn't know about the film adaptation! How amazing. Love that letter from Agatha too.
ReplyDeleteIsn't the letter so neat?? And we share many favorites with her, too! It's so cool to read her insights on her own work, whether in her autobiography or in works by other folks who have researched her personal writings extensively.
DeleteI love both the book and the film adaptations. And I kinda liked Suchet's anger and disgust at the end. Have you seen the 1974 version with Albert Finney as Poirot? I saw it a loooooooooong time ago. I remember liking it, but I can't remember how it ended.
ReplyDeleteWe think we may have seen it a long time ago as well? But Audrey just picked the 1974 version up from a used bookshop last weekend and so we have it on our definitely to-watch list :)
DeleteHow do you feel about Kenneth Branagh doing another adaptation? Rumor is he will play Poirot - could be interesting?