Agatha Christie's novels are one of Britain's national treasures, and as the best-selling author of novels besides the Bible and Shakespeare, her works have been translated, published, and reprinted all over the world (this year, Nova Press has added its most classic "No One Survives" and "Murder on the Orient Express" in the "Midnight Little Red Shell Commemorative Edition").
"Midnight Little Red Shell Commemorative Edition" of "Murder on the Orient Express"
It's no surprise that her work will continue to be adapted by filmmakers, but Murder on the Orient Express is arguably her most famous work, with the 1974 version directed by Lumet, the 2010 David Suchette itv TV movie series, and the latest version directed by Kenneth Branagh, which was released in Chinese mainland last week.
In the 2010 version, Poirot, played by David Suchet
Guiding us into the world of the Orient Express is still one of Agatha's most popular detectives, Hercule Poirot, and the other is Ms. Marple, whom Agatha wrote based on her grandmother's image. Poirot appeared in 33 novels, 1 play, and more than 50 short stories published by Agatha between 1920 and 1975. I believe that the most common image of Poirot in the minds of contemporary audiences is probably dozens of Poirot detective series starring David Sucht, who has also become a symbol of Suchte's career, which can be described as playing a role to the extreme. And Lumet's version shot in 1974 has an incomparably gorgeous cast: Lauren Baicall, the goddess of Hollywood's golden age, Anthony Perkins starring Hitchcock's "Horror", Vanisha Redgrave, who is still active in the British drama bone, and of course, Ingrid Bergman, who won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress with this film, especially this film has a very classic translation in China, so it has naturally become a classic in the minds of many old fans. Branagh's latest version this time in the cast is actually not lost, Judy Dench, Michelle Pfeiffer, the latest Star Wars girl Ridley, etc., just by watching him let Depp play the victim, you can imagine the extent to which the big names in this film are gathered.
Ingrid Bergman in the 1974 version directed by Lumet
Let's talk about the core of Poirot's image, Lumet's version can be seen to be very much want to fit the original, from the accents of the actors, as well as the creation of the image can not be said to be without effort, and Albert Fanny played Poirot in a very comedic and witty way in the interpretation, from the accent to the body shape to the dress, almost can be said to be funny, some people may feel too dramatic, but it is rare that such a character maintains a harmonious tone in the whole film, even if it is seriously interrogated, Loud questioning and final choices do not make people feel jumpy or abrupt. Moreover, while creating the image of Poirot, Agatha herself allows him to play a kind of pompous and ridiculous character, in order to let the interlocutor let down his guard and get the clues that the detective wants. Therefore, lumet, who is experienced in the stage, chose to let the actors perform in this way in this version, which is a natural display of his theatrical skills and is also very in line with the tone of the original work. Sucht's version of Poirot is very different from it, he has created a rich personality of Poirot in different periods in the years-long shooting, and in this version, Poirot is completely detached from the image of comedy and comics, closer to the real characters, is a more gloomy and depressed image, with fatigue, often quietly observing and looking, and finding flaws in conversation and interrogation is also quiet observation.
Branagh is known as the "Master of Shakespeare", his directing and acting plays have reached dazzling heights, the career workplace is widely involved, experienced, his interpretation level skills are of course beyond reproach, but the biggest problem of Poirot is not the departure from the core of the original characters (since there are so many adaptations, each has its own different understanding and interpretation, the development on the basis of the original characters is of course inevitable), but even if we only look at this version, Nor can we build a complete and coherent image of Poirot. He seems to swing in the previous two versions of the comedy witty and cold gloom, can not be well integrated, the opening of the case-solving Poirot, always secretly observe the crowd of Poirot, the heart of the old love, tired and want to retire Poirot in Istanbul to see the food of Poirot in Istanbul, in bed to read Dickens exaggerated laughter Ofo's funny image can not be combined at all, these comedy segments become a functional entertainment audience bridge, causing harm to the characters.
In fact, this version is full of such harmful deviations from the original and characters, and even incompatible with the film itself, as if a piece of antique silk with a high number had to be embroidered with low-grade needlework and inexplicable lace.
Stills from the latest version of Murder on the Orient Express directed by Kenneth Branagh
One of the highlights of the film's publicity is the full 65mm film shooting, the original intention is of course to bring visual and technical innovation to this text, we also saw a lot of landscapes that have not been seen in the previous adaptation of Agatha's works, the magnificent scenery along the steamship, the snow country scenery of the train entering, the big scene of the avalanche, and of course, the long shot, the God perspective of the big overhead shot, the fight scene, the chase scene outside the train and even the gunfight, but, Agatha ... Christie's text is most famous for creating great suspense and tension in the closed environment, calling itself the "country house school" reasoning, and these visual spectacles, as if feeding candy to the eyes of the audience, are actually a huge interference with the text, opening and closing to destroy the tension of the ghost fetus in the closed environment, developing the rhythm of the case on the basis of human feelings and psychology, destroying the small and profound pattern of the original work, and the "externalization" of this psychological motivation and emotion is undoubtedly superficial and perfunctory.
Psychology and human feelings are the most enduring charms in Agatha's work, and when Agatha wrote speculative fiction, she was undoubtedly influenced by Sherlock Holmes by Conan Doyle, but she created a completely different reasoning method and detective image. Unlike Holmes, who used much of the trace science and forensic knowledge that had just been born at that time to find clues and investigate criminals, Agatha was most famous for placing reasoning in what seemed like a daily conversation. Poirot is often reluctant to search the scene himself in the book, thinking that finding fingerprints, hair, soot, etc. is just the work of the police (he even jokingly refers to them as "police dogs"). He prefers to sit in the easy chair to "move the gray brain cells", through the analysis of the psychology of criminals to find evidence, so one of the great pleasures of reading this series is to piece together the contradictory points in those words, but this also makes it difficult for such works to get a good visual adaptation, in Hollywood logic, a bunch of people sitting in a carriage, without too much action, chatting and talking, will definitely be a box office disaster. Therefore, this play-in-the-play where everyone has a ghost fetus should have been an excellent model for the big coffee to play, through the eye gesture tone to shape the characters, I believe that it is not difficult for the actors of this lineup, but the director does not have the confidence to let them play this task well, but use a lot of externalized fresh stimulation, gunfight chase scenes to externalize the character psychology.
There is probably a big problem with this film is that Branagh, who is both director and star, can't suppress his addiction to drama, playing tall and shiny roles such as Prince Hamlet and King Lear, even if he labels himself with the most bizarre beard in history, he can't hide his ambition to portray Poirot as a big American hero commonplace in hollywood halo. In this film, Poirot even gets out of the car himself to chase a fleeing suspect, not to mention a meaningless gun-grabbing battle.
There is rarely such heroism in Agatha's writing, the famous Lady Marple seems to be nothing more than a humane old lady, and Poirot is a funny-speaking, diminutive foreigner, and Marple has even said that he has had enough of Poirot and thinks he is a nasty and selfish freak, but he is still one of her most creative characters and wrote his last case for him before his death. After the publication of the last case, The New York Times even issued an obituary for Poirot. All this shows how this character is infinitely close to real life, with his inevitable flaws, but always feel real.
A new version of the "Murder on the Orient Express" horizontal version of the poster
The last scene of the film is the so-called "Last Supper Composition" scene, of course, so the director contributed a gorgeous still to the promotion of the film, but what is the significance, the Last Supper is the dinner of Jesus and the twelve apostles, and if the twelve correspond to the number of disciples, is it to correspond Polo to God? There is no betrayal between the thirteen people here, and there is no relationship between the Lord and the Faithful. Here is nothing more than to highlight the confrontation between Poirot and the twelve people opposite, as if it is the favorite "one person vs the whole world" used in Hollywood heroism, and even stage a big drama such as "If you want to live, you will step on my corpse", which is too sensational.
Originally, "Murder on the Orient Express" explored the lynching to seek revenge under the imperfect rule of law, the contradiction between the justice of human feelings and the controversy of jurisprudence, and the director of this film seems to have no intention of discussing this topic in depth. After the original has been around for so long, there is no contemporary processing to copy it, even diluting its emotional impact and shifting the focus to the shaping of Poirot's personal heroism. In the end, Poirot's choice change seems to be a long preparation and fierce struggle, but in fact it is also in vain, and the whole change is not convincing at all. In the original book, Poirot left the choice to the conductor, and in the TV version, after the final revelation of the truth, there is also a criminal who stands up and wants to kill him, and it is one of the twelve people who comes out to stop the injury, pointing out that "killing Kasetti is to repay justice, and if you kill one more person, it will be no different from Kasetti." We can all see that in the end, Poirot is in a passive state, leaving the space for interpretation to other tasks, so that they can convey the moral truth in it, which is more convincing, rather than Poirot's awe-inspiring speech, staging a heroism willing to die to defend justice, and then being moved by the bitter love drama of Linde Arden's depression and suicide, willing to let people go.
For the continuous remake of classic texts, if you only stay in the use of new technologies to make it more and more beautiful, asking the current big coffee to repeat the interpretation is undoubtedly the most superficial and rigid adaptation method, and such a movie can be put into filming, please go to a dry big coffee to stage a tepid mediocre routine, which is also the embodiment of the most rigid part of the Hollywood system.