Murder on the Orient Express | 2017 | Review & Discussion Extravaganza!

(image from here)

The Sum of It:
So after months of waiting, we finally went to see Gilderoy Lockhart (aka Kenneth Branagh #harrypotter #always)'s Murder on the Orient Express this past weekend!

We have so many thoughts and feelings, so we'll try to organize them as best we can:

*ALERT: LOTS AND LOTS OF SPOILERS AHEAD!*

THINGS WE LIKED:
Audrey: I know this film will get a mix of reactions, however, on the whole, I really enjoyed this adaptation. I can't decide if being an Agatha Superfan enhanced my experience or not, but I couldn't stop smiling seeing my favorite author getting some more big-screen time.

*I thought the casting was ON. POINT. Judi Dench? TOTAL PERFECTION per usual (although obvi not hideous like the book describes). Johnny Depp? Simply OOZING evil and luxury in that coat and pomade! Daisy Ridley and her adorable bob? YAS, YAS, YAS!

*Poirot: Though I took some issue with the added history to our favorite Belgian sleuth's background (see below), I was shocked at how much I enjoyed Branagh's interpretation of Poirot. While at times the highlighted eccentricities were inconsistent (I can't believe Poirot would eat cake off of another person's plate...nor appear in public in a suit jacket with a visible bullet hole), they were also very on-brand for Poirot. I enjoyed the bit about his eggs being the same size (one of my favorite book Poirot features), the tie straightening, YES, even the moustaches (upon a re-read, the book does describe them as "enormous"). Branagh also gave off the aura of the endearing Papa Poirot that I enjoy so much from many of his books, especially in his interactions with Mary Debenham.

Emily: Like many of you, we were prepared to hate Branagh's Poirot, but honestly, I thought he did really well with it! His accent was on point and I was less distracted by the moustaches than I expected to be. I agree with Audrey that much of the casting was really compelling, particularly Johnny Depp, who gave Ratchett a nice evil depth that other Ratchetts have lacked. Daisy Ridley was also charming and gave a very Agatha-esque portrayal of the clever young lady that held echoes of Tuppence and Emily Trefusis and other favorite plucky young woman characters from Agatha's tales. I also enjoy seeing Willem Defoe in any movie playing any part at any point in time, same with the #blessed Olivia Coleman, so their brief times on screen warmed my heart. I also super enjoyed the portrayal of Monsieur Bouc as a charming cad.

*Setting: I also thought the set and cinematography were straight up gorgeous. The sumptuous glamour and warmth of the train were just as I have always imagined, the austere cold of the mountains and snow surrounding it, the beauty of the opening scenes in Istanbul, all of it was a full realization of the world Agatha created with words. Aside from murder, I wanted to be in all those places.

THINGS WE DIDN'T LOVE:
Audrey: My main frustration with this adaptation was the muddying of the post-murder/stuck-in-the-snow actions of Ratchett's killers. The group's original plan was, of course, to exact their revenge on Cassetti/justice for the Armstrongs and then to cast blame for the crime on a mystery man (or maybe even a woman) who had been on the train, dressed as a conductor, stabbed Ratchett, and then exited the train. In the book, when the train becomes stuck in the snow, the group still rallies around the same idea of presenting evidence, albeit confusing evidence, to support this explanation of the crime. However, the film's characters didn't appear to stick with this solution. There is some of the book's mystery man "clues" (the button from the uniform and, eventually, the uniform itself, the kimono, etc.), but there is also a great deal of casting blame on other passengers, and additional fabrications to imply the killer is still on board (e.g., the addition of the Mrs. Hubbard backstab #eyeroll). This seems to be completely contrary to the motives behind the killers both in the book AND at the end of this film. As Poirot repeats over and over at the denouement of the film, this group is not a pack of killers, but people seeking the justice they never received through the normal legal channels. They are in this endeavor together, and it seems out of character for any of them to wish to see another be convicted alone of the crime.

Emily: There were a few things that just annoyed me and a couple things that I really didn't like. Poirot as action hero leaping around on a train trestle on the side of a mountain was just absurd, and not even close to something the character ever would have done, early or late in his career. The physicality of Branagh's Poirot, while dashing, was generally a bit incongruous with the character. I was also truly irritated by the bizarre and needless insertion of Poirot's long lost love Katherine, and his constant murmuring at her photograph. It was so unnecessary and again out of character. There are very few times when Poirot's love life plays a role in any stories, and it certainly doesn't play a role in Murder on the Orient Express. I am also annoyed that Olivia Coleman wasn't given more lines because she is a kween (and THE QUEEN #YasNetflix).

I also felt that the reveal of the connections to the Armstrong family and the true identity of Ratchett was handled extremely clumsily, and took away much of the mystery and suspense of the story. I also totally agree with Audrey that the final scenes, and the dialogue in the final scenes, were very much out of line with the crux of the story and Poirot's actions and decisions in it, as well as the group's motivations. The symbolism of the number of people participating matching that of a jury, and their actions as such, are a key point of the tale and of the actions Poirot takes at the end of the story, and that was all exchanged for some uncharacteristically dramatic and emotional speechifying and I-am-Spartacus-ing that was far less impactful and needlessly silly. Also, Michelle Pfieffer's performance, which I otherwise enjoyed, was marred by the overwrought monologue in the final scenes (and the random additional stabbing of her character in the back for basically no reason).

We will say, though, that after spending so much time in Agatha's world ourselves (with all of you!) it has been really fun to see the excitement and attention about her work that has come along with the new film and television adaptations. We can't WAIT to see the new Ordeal by Innocence and Crooked House adaptations!

There are obviously many other details regarding Orient Express that I'm sure we'll have opinions on upon rewatching, HOWEVER, at the moment we want to hear from all of you! What did YOU think? We're looking forward to a hearty discussion in the comments below!

-A. & E.

Bonus Read: Ruth Ware's The Woman in Cabin 10 | 2016

(image from here)

"It was the noise of the veranda door in the next cabin sliding gentle open. I held my breath, straining to hear. And then there was a splash. Not a small splash. No, this was a big splash. The kind of splash made by a body hitting water." -The Woman in Cabin 10, p. 85

The Sum of It:
Mystery-loving friends: do yourselves a favor and find yourself a copy of Ruth Ware's The Woman in Cabin 10 just as soon as you possible can. I found this book on a list of the top-selling books of 2016, and my interest was further piqued when I saw the dust jacket touting its reminiscence of Dame Agatha's works. #sold! I ordered the book, thinking I would tuck it away for some future air travel, but then, of course, when it arrived I decided to just read the first chapter to see if I liked it. To say I couldn't put it down was an understatement! This is the kind of book you have to just devour because you just HAVE TO KNOW WHAT ON EARTH IS GOING ON!

So, brief summary: The Woman in Cabin 10 follows travel journalist Lo Blacklock (great name #AMurderisAnnounced) as she is invited on the maiden voyage of a super swank cruise ship to write travel updates on how awesomely luxurious it is. Sounds great, right? Alas, Lo is having a hard time enjoying her fancy surroundings because just days before she leaves she a) is pretty traumatically burgled in the middle of the night, and b) maybe breaks up with her boyfriend??? She's having a hard time sleeping because of burglar flashbacks and so is further terrified when she hears what sounds like a body being thrown into the sea from her neighbor's cabin (#CABIN10) and sees smears of blood on cabin 10's veranda. HOWEVER, after reporting the mysterious occupant of cabin 10 #MURDERED, she is shocked to find out no such woman was ever on board the ship. It's up to Lo's weary wits (I swear, this poor, frightened woman gets like 12 hours of sleep in a two week period) to find out which of her illustrious fellow passengers knows the story of the woman in cabin 10.

The YOA Treatment:
What I enjoyed so much about this book is its so classically Agatha Christie-esque setup. I was reminded of Murder on the Orient Express, Evil Under the Sun, Death on the Nile, and Murder in Mesopotamia as I read about a group of travelers with all the stereotypical characters you expect from a good whodunnit: the handsome aristocrat, the playboy photographer, the much younger model wife of a rich guy named Lars. There are evening gowns and attentive Scandinavian stewards and cocktails on cocktails. You basically expect Poirot himself to show up halfway through to help Lo put all the clues together. I will admit, as I neared the conclusion, I did have a little suspicion of how the story would work itself out (thanks for all the practice, Dame Agatha! #littlegraycells) and it does, in my opinion, get a smidge caper-y near the end for a bit longer than it should (#sorryRuth). HOWEVER, overall, I heartily recommend this book to anyone who wants a read that will keep them up all night, dying to get to the last page.

-A.

Planes, Trains, and Poirot: Murder on the Orient Express #YOAReadalong | 1934

(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)

One thing that has been interesting to discover as we read through all of Agatha's books this year is which ones she actually liked to read herself. Luckily, such a list exists! Agatha Christie author and expert (#goals) John Curran writes about this in his book Agatha Christie: Murder in the Making:

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!

#YOAreadalong Discussion 2: Murder on the Orient Express

Hello dear readers!

We wanted to give you some details about our second #YOAreadalong of the year: Murder on the Orient Express!

As with our first readalong, we are also having a little giveaway (we love spreading the Agatha love!)

THE PRIZE!
For this giveaway we will be sending our lucky winner a copy of And Then There Were None as well as a print of the amazing Agatha Christie bookshelf by artist Jane Mount (see below!)

RULES:
Okay so how do you win this cool stuff?

1.) Leave a comment on this blog post before 11:59pm EST on Friday, May 19th 20th! OOPS!
2.) We will randomly select a winner on Saturday, May 20th 21st
3.) This giveaway is open internationally (yay!), but only to our readers age 13+ (cause we'll need your address to send you your prize and stuff like that!)

Readalong Deets:
Okay so you're reading Murder on the Orient Express. What do you think? We have a few general questions below to guide our thoughts and feelings, but of course welcome ALL your thoughts and feelings!

Characters:
>there are a lot of characters in this one! anyone stand out as particularly shady?
>no Hastings to be found in Orient Express! is Poirot the same for you without him?
>what would Hastings add to the mix if he was in the story?
>what about the Hastings-stand-ins? Aka M. Bouc and Dr. Constantine?

#MURDER:
>who is your initial suspect for the murder?
>stabbing vs. poisoning? Which does Agatha do best?

Story:
>thoughts on the inclusion of the backstory (#cassetti #armstrongs)?
>what about the train setting? is Orient Express train life better than The Mystery of the Blue Train?

As with last time, be advised: everyone is reading at their own pace so spoilers may be inevitable! Post and read at your own risk! :)

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

-A. & E.

Ghosts of Painters Past: Five Little Pigs | 1942

(image from here)

"It's psychology that interests you, isn't it? Well, that doesn't change with time. The tangible things are gone—the cigarette end and the footprints and the bent blades of grass. You can't look for those any more. But you can go over all the facts of the case, and perhaps talk to the people who were there at the time—they're all alive still—and then—and then, as you said just now, you can lie back in your chair and think. And you'll know what really happened..." - Carla Lemarchant, Five Little Pigs, p. 8

The Sum of It:
I was in for a real treat this week. Five Little Pigs is, in my opinion, one of Dame Agatha's finest Poirot novels in that a) the premise is very clever, and, b) this case highlights perfectly Poirot's preferred method of crime solving: thinking on the facts.

A Murder in Retrospect
As an alternative title of this novel suggests, this crime is solved sixteen years after the fact. Poirot is approached by a young woman named Carla Lemarchant with the request that he find out who killed her father, artist Amyas Crale. Here's the twist: Carla's mother, Caroline Crale, was at the time of the crime convicted of her husband's murder and hanged died in prison! Okay, so…then what is there to solve? asks Poirot. Carla says her mother wrote her a letter to be read when Carla turned 21 (which just happened, #happybdayCarla) and it claims she (Caroline) was totally innocent! So who actually dun it?!, says Carla. She needs to find out pronto because she wants to marry her cute fiancee, but this whole "my mom maybe poisoned my dad" thing is kind of casting a shadow over their impending marriage and she needs #closure. So Poirot agrees to take on the challenge of finding out the truth, solely based on the recollections of the key players (i.e. lawyers and witnesses).

The Five Little Pigs
Poirot starts off his investigations by talking to Caroline Crale's defense counsel, Sir Montague Depleach and one of her prosecutors, Quentin Fogg, K.C. (THESE NAMES!!!) These men give Poirot a good picture of Caroline's trial, and, most interestingly, that she made no effort to disprove her guilt, and in fact, seemed very resigned to her fate of a guilty verdict. This seems to vastly contradict Caroline's profession of innocence in her letter to Carla #hmmmmm

Poirot then moves on to those he refers to as the Five Little Pigs, namely, Elsa Greer (Amyas's latest painting subject/much younger mistress), Philip and Meredith Blake (two of Amyas's besties since childhood), Angela Warren (Caroline's disfigured younger sister), and Miss Warren (Angela's governess.) These five were on hand for Amyas's death by poison and Poirot conducts very thorough interviews of each, and gleefully (in his head) gives them each a little pig character from the nursery rhyme (Poirot is, for some reason, really into nursery rhymes). I won't tell you much about the actual events surrounding Amyas's death because they're fairly basic, and much more interesting to read in the book. Suffice it to say, the book's intrigue comes (brilliantly!) from the re-hashing of fairly straightforward facts, which Poirot then aptly interprets based on his knowledge of psychology.

The YOA Treatment:
While I generally adore the Poirot TV adaptations, I must admit I often avoid this particular episode because it is SO SAD! This is a fairly accurate representation of the book, because Five Little Pigs does have a somber tone which is kind of unusual for Poirot. He doesn't have Hastings by his side for (mostly unintentional) comic relief, and right from the get go the reader is left with a bit of a lose-lose situation because Caroline Crale is dead so even if she IS innocent, Carla is still left without her parents. That being said, this book has a very compelling ending because you are left both satisfied and unsatisfied, but not necessarily for the reason you think. I shall reveal no more because a) NO SPOILERS! and b) I want you to be so intrigued that you run and pick up a copy of this book right away!

One other interesting note: in Five Little Pigs, Poirot mentions Hawley Harvey Crippen as a real-life example of a murder case involving psychology. I did a little research into this case AND LET ME TELL YOU - this is some truth-is-stranger-than-fiction sort of stuff involving a body under floor boards and a dude fleeing to Canada with his mistress dressed as a little boy and undercover police work, etc. You can read all the fascinating details here.

-A.

But WAIT, there's more! #READALONG 2.0:
Guess what! It's about to be #READALONG time again! We are coming up on one of Agatha's most beloved novels, Murder on the Orient Express, and heartily invite you all to join us as we read it! We will be reading Orient Express starting May 9th, so head out to your local bookstore and nab a copy ASAP so you'll be ready to read along with us (and finish the last page by May 14)! Oh, and there just might be another #giveaway on the horizon as well…stay tuned for details!

Cruella de Boynton: Appointment with Death | 1938

(image from here)

"You do see, don't you, that she's got to be killed?" 

- Unknown Whisperer (until the end of the book...), Appointment with Death, p. 1

The Sum of It:
We turn, dear readers, once again to the Middle East for our second book of this week: Appointment with Death. Set first in Jerusalem, this story focuses on the most depressing family of all time: The Boyntons. The Boyntons are a rag-tag group of emotionally abused, American step and half brothers and sisters who are (basically, literally) under the thumb of their disgusting (the exact words used to describe her are "the grotesque, Buddha-like figure" with fat hands, among other things) and super, duper psycho mother. #Yikes. These grown adults are constantly at their mother's beck and call, are not allowed to leave their home (uh...except on this random vacay), are not allowed to get jobs, and can only talk to people their mother says they can. Her list of Okay People most definitely does not include young hot shot doctor, Sarah King, who has developed a bit of a crush on Raymond Boynton. We see most of the first half of the book through the eyes of Dr. King, or Dr. Gerard, a French doctor who is also having a Middle East tour. These two are fascinated by the prisoner-like Boynton children and their crazy mom and the psychology behind the hold she has on them.

After several chapters of Truly Awful Things Happening to all the Boynton Kids, the group moves their vacation to a more remote location in Petra, along with another American woman (who has married a fancy Lord Downton-Abbey style), Lady Westholme, and old-maidy-type named Miss Pierce. The group is gelling as well as can be expected when, of course, one afternoon the horrid Mrs. Boynton is found #DEAD alone in her lawn chair! As you can imagine, none of her kids are terribly torn up and everyone seems cool with saying "oh yeah she def just died of regular heart stuff"...except for Hercule Poirot. With basically everyone having a motive for knocking old sourface Boynton off, Poirot needs to know if they are dealing with just #DEATH or #MURDER. Commissioned by a Colonel Carbury to solve the crime in just 24 hours, Poirot sits down for some long chats with each person involved and, of course, in true Poirot fashion, finds the truth with time to spare.

The YOA Treatment:
I must admit (without giving any spoilers), that the end of the book was slightly disappointing. And by the end I mean the solution. But while the ending might not be 100% satisfying, the ride truly is. Appointment with Death features a lot of the Poirot order and method we have come to know and love. For example, at one point he writes out a list of nine items that are just simply interesting about the case, and then goes back through to see if he can reconcile all of them together or if there are any that conflict (you guessed it, there are!) But Poirot also spends a great deal of time thinking through the psychology of this #MURDER. He considers each suspect and decides to prove each of them innocent if he can, and if he cannot...well they most certainly must be the guilty party. Appointment with Death shows the maturity #DameAgatha was reaching as a writer, not necessarily (in this case) with stunning plot development, but in a very logical and convincing understanding of psychology.

Another interesting tidbit - Appointment with Death mentions not one, but two of Poirot's previous cases! The work he did on the A.B.C. Murders and, most notably, his success with that little affair on the Orient Express. Now, I shall not reveal the context in which this case was brought up, for it shall spoil the end of that book which is considered one of Agatha's finest! But for those of you who are familiar with the ending of Orient Express, you will no doubt be able to sniff out the connection made between the two cases...

-A.