Praise4Media #62 - Murder on the Orient Express (Kenneth Branagh - Marathon 3/3)

We’re approaching the end of the line with the Murder on the Orient Express Marathon. It may be a week for you but it’s been much longer for me, tech issues, don’t ask.

Kenneth Branagh has made a successful career as both an actor and a director, often having a role in the films he directs. He’s been involved in a number of adaptation works, most notably that of several Shakespeare plays like Henry V, Much Ado about Nothing and Love Labours Lost. He’s also worked with superheroes, being the director of the first Thor movie. This made him a good choice to Direct an adaption of Murder on the Orient Express for the big screen.

Now, directors that put themselves in a starring role also whilst not uncommon, are generally reserved for lower budget flicks. I’m not sure why the decision was made for Branagh to play the detective, maybe him being a good choice was why he was brought on to direct, maybe he was already a director and was the ideal choice also, or maybe it was a cost-cutting measure to offset the significant amount of (probably expensive) talent in this. Either way, how does Branagh stack up as the famed sleuth? Let’s take a look.

We open in Jerusalem, 1934, where people are gathering at the Wailing Wall but never mind that, we’re following a small boy with some eggs, he hands them to the kitchen, who boil them for exactly 4 minutes to give to Poirot, he wants eggs of the same size so badly, he sends the boy back to get more, doesn’t work, he blames the chicken. It’s a semi-humorous introduction to the mannerisms of Poirot.

He decides to leave the eggs, so f*ck you kid, as he now needs to head down to the wailing wall. On his way down he steps in some sh*t with one foot by accident, and then the other deliberately. Some jewels were taken from the chapel, the suspects are 3 religious figures. They were meeting under the supervision of the chief of police to devise market share (I know, just go along, this won’t last long) and one hour later, the exceptionally conspicuous and unguarded jewel is stolen, leaving only a crack in the wall as a clue. Poirot is giving his answer in front of a massive crowd for no real reason. But yeah, it was the police chief who did it. Poirot noticed his boots which is interesting because Poirot usually tends to the focus on the psychological aspects, character flaws and the like.

Poirot had his office searched earlier and the jewel was found so the chief makes a break for it, resulting in what’s going to become a strangely common occurrence, added action. I really don’t think action fits with Poirot the way it blended fairly well with Sherlock Holmes. Poirot is not an action man, and he isn’t portrayed as one, more on this as it crops up.

The guy who approaches him asks how he knew everything from just a crack in the wall, did he not listen to the whole speech where Poirot explained exactly how? Poirot remarks that imperfections stand out to him, essentially, which is the crux of how this version of the character is portrayed.

“It’s as if you see into their hearts and divine their true nature, sir”

OK, I now address Michael Green, the writer of the film’s screenplay. I know you love Poirot but this is a bit much, we have not seen this demonstrated in this film. He made a logical deduction most detectives could’ve made, bear in mind there were only 4 people in the room, the police chief and 3 religious figures. Speaking of the Chief hiring Poirot was a really dumb move, the more you think about it.

“There is right, there is wrong, there is nothing in-between”

You can guess that’ll get challenged very soon. Anyway, Poirot heads on a boat to Stamboul, where we’re introduced to a Doctor (Leslie Odom, Jr.) who’s concerned about running late for a patient, as you do when you’re on a boat and Mary Debenham (Daisy Ridley) who’s first line is:

“I know your moustache”

It is massive, I’ll give her that but really? Not buying that one, no human being would ever say that, ever. She’s a governess coming from Baghdad, lovely place. On the boat, Mary and the Doctor have a loud and conspicuous conversation for Poirot to hear and bring up later.

Later, in Stamboul, Poirot eyes up some breads, getting closer to them than most but I’ll grant him his celebrity status may have helped there. And we’re quickly introduced to M Bouc (Tom Bateman) who appears to have a massive overhaul from his book counterpart. He’s not Belgian (although apparently Poirot bailed him out back when he was a policeman, don’t get how that works) he’s English and a bit of a ‘player’ by the looks of things. He comes in, looking for a place for him and his ‘friend’ to have sex.

Seeing Poirot, the two exchange small talk. M Bouc is heading away on the Orient Express soon, as he’s paid to travel by his Uncle so he’s as far away from them as possible, something he doesn’t seem to mind and is never brought up again… What do you mean he going to be in Death on the Nile? I kid, Tom Bateman’s friendly demeanour and outlandishness is actually fairly charming, I love the energy given from this performance.

Before things can get too intimate, a member of the British Console somehow finds Poirot at this random bakery and Poirot deduces there’s been a development on a case at home and he’s needed back in London. Do me a favour and remember this, I’ll get back to it later. Luckily M Bouc is the director of the line and can supposedly get him a bed on it.

In the crowds at the train station we get a quick glance at a few characters we’ll seeing later as well as our mysterious Mr Ratchet

Sorry, Ratchett. Count Andrenyi (Sergei Ulanov) beats up a photographer because heaven forbid we not have that in Murder on the Orient Express. Do they think the audience will walk out if there’s no action set-pieces? Poirot and M Bouc arrive to find the Callais Coach fully booked in both first and second class. However, as a passenger hasn’t arrived the mandatory 30 minutes before departure, his seat is forfeit and M Bouc gives it to Poirot.

Next up on our suspect list is Madame Hubbard (Michelle Pfeifer) she’s a bit talkative and we get the conversation as the camera pans on the outside of the train, the problem is the camera gives this conversation as it pans across the outside of the train. It certainly gives you a sense of the length of the carriage but is far from being visually interesting.

Poirot is cabin-mates with Mr MacQueen (Josh Gad), our next likely suspect. He seems a bit bummed out Poirot being there. A few more suspects arrive including one played by Judy Dench. We also get a bit more of an insight to Mr Ratchett (Johnny Depp) we see him here acting like a bit of a jerk and stashing a pistol in his jacket pocket

The train departs and people are waving it off from nearby rooftops (was the Orient Express departing a special occasion or something?) Ratchett has received a threatening message whilst on the train made up of clippings from newspapers or the like. Ratchet’s Butler, Mr Masterman (Derek Jacobi) is asked who did this but he seems not to know.

Ratchett then tries to flirt with Mrs Hubbard, who seems as if she ain’t having any of it. Poirot happens to have been watching and the two converse briefly before they both retire for the night. The next morning the train guard Pierre Michel (Marwen Kenzari) brings Poirot, who has a night mask for his moustache, something which should surprise no-one, his breakfast, including 2 identically sized eggs. He tells Poirot that Mr McQueen will be moved in with M Bouc come supper time.

The train continues into colder territory as M Bouc offers champagne to the guests, one notably doesn’t drink for religious reasons. Poirot sits with M Bouc, rebuffing an offer to sit with Mr Ratchett. Poirot apparently has been reading Dickens, as you should, and the topic goes briefly to romance, we will regrettably have to get back to that.

Gerhard Hartman (Willem Dafoe) tells the guard he doesn’t want to sit with Dr Arbuthnot, owing to his race, Mary Debenham speaks to his defence and why is this here? I don’t get it. Miss Debenham storms off for some reason, I think she actually won the argument. Later down the line, Poirot is busy laughing at his Dickens as Ratchett finally catches up with him.

“Avenger of the innocent” blimey, the papers build him up. It feels a little too super-heroy for the 1930's. Anyway, cut to the chase, Ratchett wants to hire Poirot to protect him from whoever’s been sending these threatening messages. He admits he’s hardly the moral pariah, but offers a substantial sum of money for Poirot’s protection. Poirot ultimately refuses, he’s being targeted by gangsters for illegal dealings with them but moreover he does not like his face. I feel this is the one aspect that is best explained in the book. In the book, just looking at Ratchett made Poirot feel uncomfortable, as if he could sense something was wrong. I mean it could also be something to do with the fact that he keeps calling him Hercules. Usually it’s the last name they mispronounce.

The train stops at the next station of Vinkovci. Moving on Poirot is looking at a woman he calls ‘his sweet Katherine’ oh for the love of… This is the one aspect which I don’t feel works for their portrayal of Poirot. I don’t feel that giving Poirot a serious love interest adds anything to him, especially if she was killed/murdered. David Suchet’s Poirot justified his lack of interest in settling down perfectly. I haven’t got the clip but to put it bluntly he’s seen so many domestic murders in his time, it’s completely put him off. Orient express is late in Poirot’s career, he already had a reputation by this point. Giving him a dead love interest adds nothing.

Hearing something, Poirot heads to the door. The guard is checking in on Mr Ratchett, he hears a response, though not in English. Mrs Hubbard’s bell rings, then Poirot notices a woman in a red kimono running away from him. Lightning strikes a nearby mountain creating an avalanche blocks the track and forces the train to stop. The sudden break smashes the frame of the photo of Poirot’s Katherine.

With the train not having arrived at the next station, M Bouc informs the passengers a team will be dispatched to excavate them out. Most of the passengers are grumpy and we get a random religious reference in for trailer fodder. Mr Masterman brings the breakfast to Mr Ratchett to his cabin but finds he can’t get in. Feeling that the window is open, Poirot asks for M Bouc and Dr Arbuthnot to be brought immediately. He uses his cane to force his way into the cabin because the lock is that poor apparently.

Poirot has correctly deduced that Ratchett is dead, stabbed multiple times according to the Doctor. They give us an overhead shot of the corridor as this is taking place, it adds to the closeness of everything but at the same creates a bit of a disconnect, we have to be told bits of information we might’ve otherwise been shown. The blade wounds have varied depth and some seem to be done with the left hand and some with the right.

M Bouc asks Poirot to investigate the murders and Poirot is reluctant but ultimately agrees to, in part to save his friend from having to make a statement to the Yugoslavian police, and avoid any trial by race. In the next scene he’s on the roof of the train for no reason whatsoever. But he basically confirms that the only suspects would be those in the Callais coach, so we don’t need to introduce a million more characters, thankfully.

Next scene and he’s back inside, making him being on the roof doubly pointless, and our first suspect is Poirot’s former room-mate Mr MacQueen. I note that they haven’t examined the crime scene yet, that’s the first thing they do in every other adaptation but not this one. Mr MacQueen took care of Ratchett’s business affairs, he was barely able to speak any other language. He left America because he loved booze too much to stay but found himself in debt, Mr Ratchett gave him work and saved him from his creditors. All that said, he was never exactly fond of Mr Ratchett.

He’d been talking with Mr Abuthmaut since the train was at the station until just after 2, the murder was said to have happened between 12 and 2.  Poirot gets a look at the threatening letters, MacQueen then points a finger at Mr Marquez, a character we know very little about so far, so we’ll have to get to him.

Poirot suspects something is off about his story but decides now to do what he should’ve done first and check the crime scene for evidence. Once again, we get an overhead shot of the room, which whilst giving us a claustrophobic feel as they intended, has the side effect that it’s difficult to see the details, relying instead on Poirot telling us. Show don’t tell is more a suggestion than a hard and fast rule but it’s essential in a mystery story that we’re supposed to be trying to follow.

Poirot realises that Ratchett had his gun on hand to defend himself, so he must’ve been drugged, he finds his coffee was dosed with barbital. A luxury handkerchief is found, with the initial H on it, there’s also a pipe cleaner on the ground. Poirot suspects most of these clues were deliberate, but finds in the ash tray a fragment of a paper that they had attempted to burn.

The salvage team arrive and begin work digging out the front carriage. This allows for more outside filming as rather than using the wire frames from hatboxes, Poirot uses one of the worker’s oil lamps to heat the paper, temporarily revealing what was printed on it. Poirot deduces that the killer’s real name is Cassetti, the mastermind behind the Armstrong murders.

We reveal in flashback that the Armstrong’s daughter Daisy was kidnapped and held to ransom, they paid the ransom but she was killed anyway. The shock caused the mother, who was pregnant to enter premature labour, which she didn’t survive, nor did the unborn child. The father contacted Poirot for help but before Poirot could respond he shot himself. It’s quite a dark story which only enforces how badly that opening fits with the rest of the story in terms of tone too.

Anyway, Mrs Hubbard demands to speak with Poirot, she realised the murderer may have been in her cabin that night, it’s the cabin next to Ratchett’s and there’s an inter-connecting door, which she found unbolted after the incident. She presents as evidence a button, most likely from a train guard, we see Michel has none missing.

Next, Poirot talks to Mr Masterman. He admits he brought Ratchett his coffee at around 9 and that’s the last time he saw him. He has a toothache, supposedly, that Ratchett insisted he had looked at. It was not Ratchett’s usual practice to drink coffee at night but he wanted to stay alert for potential threats. Masterman was rather rude to Ratchett in flashback and Poirot deduces it’s not just a toothache, it’s confirmed he has thyroid cancer… Why?

Poirot asks where the coffee and cups were procured, as of course they were laced with barbital, but they were ordered from the kitchen so anyone could’ve tampered with it. Next up for interview and we move to the kitchen because of reasons, is Pilar Estravados (Penelope Cruz) a missionary who trained as a nurse who changed profession for reasons to be explained later.

We quickly change to the luggage compartment for Mr Hardman (Willem Dafoe) an Austrian scientist. That’s all from him, next is Mr Marquez (Manuel Garcia-Rulfo) an Italian gentleman. And we’re cutting between them so let’s quickfire the details

Miss Estravados got up once for aspirin, she’d been offered one by Mrs Hubbard earlier but declined

Mr Hardman is on his way to a conference in Turin, he’s the only Austrian to present there

Mr Marquez has a criminal record but swore off further criminal activity after bribing his way into US, you see it’s ok for him because he’s white.

Mr Hardman is racist

Mr Marquez shared his room with Mr Hardman

Miss Estravados opened the wrong door and stumbled on Mr Ratchett, making her the last person to see him alive.

Mr Marquez is a used car salesman

Miss Debenham did not leave the carriage as Miss Estravados would’ve noticed

Poirot deduces that Marcquez is actually a chauffeur

Miss Estravados has blistered hands, implying she’d been a few fights (of course), she worked in dangerous cities is her justification for it.

For reasons of ‘scenery’ Miss Debenham’s interview is going to take place outside. And this is the crux of a major issue this film has, choosing things that are interesting to look at over what makes logical sense. This isn’t just from a plot perspective, though having all these scenes out in what’s supposed to be freezing cold weather is certainly questionable, but it also covers my previously mentioned issue with the overhead shots meaning detail is lost.

Miss Debenham seems to be put in the position where she’s calling out people. She called out Hardman’s racism and seems to have a knack for calling out Poirot’s methods. It’s hard to see Poirot as the smartest guy in the room when there’s someone telegraphing his moves this way. It’s also not endearing, Daisy Ridley or not.

Anyway, he asks for a signature, which he didn’t to everyone else like he did in the book, confirming that she’s left-handed and her full name is Hermione, the handkerchief is not hers though. Poirot asks about her talk with Abuthnot, but she deflects by calling him out more, next! Mrs Dragomirof (Judy Dench) and her maid Hildegard Schmitt (Olivia Coleman) she called for her Frau Schmitt as a quarter to one and she helped her off to sleep.

She was an admirer of Sonia Armstrong’s mother, Linda, an actress, who was to turn to directing but the tragedy intervened. Daisy, the murdered child was her goddaughter, she asks to speak to Hildegard and they speak in German, Poirot can speak German apparently, Hildegard confirms that isn’t her handkerchief and Mrs Dragomirof’s alibi was accurate, she said she saw another conductor, that wasn’t Michel who was short and had a high voice, Poirot deduces it would likely be from his uniform that the button came so begins searching the passenger’s luggage.

They come up empty until Poirot decides to check his own luggage and finds the red kimono, he deduces the most likely for the guard’s uniform would in Hildegard’s compartment, he finds it, missing the button and finds that it contains a passkey so he could’ve travelled through locked doors. Poirot smells bourbon on the uniform and this brings them back to Mr MacQueen, Poirot searches his room for a ledger of Ratchett’s dealings MacQueen would’ve had but finds it missing.

MacQueen is outside the train on the bridge and burns the ledger so we can have a pointless chase scene. MacQueen is eventually captured, somehow at the bottom of quite tall bridge, this was quite a short chase scene, how did he get so far. Poirot recovered enough of the ledger to confirm that MacQueen was stealing from him, he suspects that he was on the verge of being discovered and this is why he killed Ratchett but MacQueen denies this and asks why he’d kill his cash cow.

Dr Abuthnot comes in to confirm his alibi, that the two had been drinking together till the early hours. So it’s time for his interview and we get a weird over the shoulder view that means that we never actually see Poirot speak here, potentially a way of getting away with a double so the director could… you know, direct? Just theorising.

It was one of his pipe-cleaners at the crime scene, he was one of the few black students permitted to study medicine, he was admitted in 1924 (the film is in 1936). He was a sharpshooter in the military with an exemplary record, he proclaims zero knowledge of Colonel John Armstrong, Daisy’s father. He provides a slightly contradictory account of meeting Miss Debenham which elevates her as a suspect.

But it’s by no means the end of questioning for MacQueen either as Poirot has deduced that he is the son of the DA who was disgraced as a direct result of the Armstrong murders. The higher ups wanted a sacrificial lamb, and forced the DA to go after a maid with a weak alibi, unfortunately she killed herself and then the evidence came in pointing to Cassetti. Just as progress seems to being made, there’s a scream and Mrs Hubbard has a knife stuck in her neck. This is by far the dumbest change they made for this adaptation, but I can’t explain it without giving away the rest of the film, so we’ll have to come back to this.

Abuthnot manages to remove the knife and Poirot correctly deduces it to be the murder weapon. She then goes around randomly accusing everybody and what? This makes no sense. Continuing this weird trend of distrust and paranoia, Miss Debenham decides to sleep in the dining area, where she can see everyone. Poirot goes to speak with the Andreynis, they’ve travelled under diplomatic passports, meaning they have some level of immunity.

Count Andreyni proclaims his wife to be unwell, but Poirot insists and ultimately gets his way. Turns out the Countess tends to sleep during the day, she cannot go outside in the daylight or sleep without the use of barbital. She says it helps her against her fears. There’s a grease spot on her passport, which Poirot quickly deduces was to cover up the H in Helena to protect her from the Handkerchief, it isn’t hers anyway. Poirot manages to work out from what he knows that Helena is in fact Sonia Armstrong’s sister. This causes the Count to go beserk and kick Poirot out, he’s only saved by the intervention of Mr Hardman.

Poirot has correctly deduced that Hardman is neither Austrian nor a Professor, this based on his mispronunciation of Turin. He provides his true passport and a name of Cyrus Betham, he’s a Pinkerton detective hired to keep an eye on Ratchett, we already know this is a lie because Ratchett asked Poirot to do this whilst on the train.

 

Poirot ponders this case, staring at his Katherine, which may as well be a euphemism for all the point it has. The train is clear but needs to be put back on the tracks, so the passengers need to disembark, what about all the other ones on the other coaches, f*ck ‘em. Poirot is in the luggage compartment, apparently not having got the memo and summons Miss Debenham. He has 10 questions noted down, something that is lifted directly out of the book, although it was much earlier in the story there.

Poirot has worked out that Mary was in fact a governess at the Armstrong household. Before Poirot can finish, he’s shot in the shoulder because… are you kidding me? Dr Abuthnot has shot him, confessing to the murder on the spot. Colonel John Armstrong was in fact a great friend of the good Doctor and was instrumental in him becoming a doctor. He found Mary and claims what Poirot overheard was his plan to expose him to the police. You know, you could have said this without shooting Poirot in the shoulder, just saying.

We get a full-on fight, that ends with M Bouc knocking out the Doctor. This is beyond stupid. As is Poirot threatening the clearance workers with a gun. I guess it’s time for the big reveal, everyone’s gathered in the tunnel because inside the train looks boring.

Poirot works out quickly that Abuthnot’s shot was meant to incapacitate rather than kill Poirot, though why he actually decided to shoot at all is questionable. Poirot suggests 2 possible solutions to the case, the first where an unknown mobster, a small man with a high pitched voice enters the train when they were at the station, having procured a conductor’s uniform, he waits till all are asleep and stabs Ratchett to death in a frenzied, escaping when the train stopped in the snowdrift. 

This solution doesn’t work for a number of reasons, some of which are the odd additions they made to the film. So Poirot proceeds to his second solution. All of the passengers on the train were related to the Armstrong case in some way or another, Frau Schmidt was the Armstrong’s cook, Miss Estravados was the nurse of young Daisy, and her death brought her to religion. Apparently, she had had a drink and was asleep as Cassetti entered.

Mr Masterman was partnered with Colonel Armstrong, then became his personal valet, Mr Marquez was his chauffeur and it was through a start up loan from Armstrong that Marquez set up his automobile empire. Mr Hardman was the detective assigned to the case and fell in love with the maid who committed suicide when falsely accused of the murder, speaking of the maid, Michel also happens to be her surname. Pierre the conductor was her brother. And Poirot has worked out that the illusive Linda Arden, who Dragamirof has previously mentioned, is in fact Mrs Hubbard, who had been wearing a wig the whole time and had orchestrated this trap, it’s for this reason the train was so full.

The suspects all planned this the whole time, making adjustments to account for the fact that the famed Detective was aboard. The idea was to make it look like the first solution was the cause, and it was the fact that their alibis had to be sorted in a hurry that resulted in all the mistakes, inconsistencies and obvious lies.

OK, so going back to Mrs Hubbard’s stabbing for a second, I said this made no sense. The murderer is supposed to have gone, that was your cover story, you stand to gain nothing by throwing doubt over your co-conspirators. Yes, Mrs Hubbard found the murder weapon in the book, and the other adaptations, in her bathroom. The difference is the murderer could’ve dropped the weapon off there as he left, with the stabbing it becomes evidence the murderer is still on the train, which is not what you wanted.

They drugged him with barbital, then killed him early in the night as the train ran, with a lot of fuss being made in the aftermath to distract Poirot. I’m pretty sure in the book he was killed after all the fuss had been made but that’s small potatoes. Arden says she should take the full blame for this, she’s got barely any life left, but killing Cassetti has hopefully given the others life anew.

Poirot refuses to decide and says if they wish to go free, they have to kill him. I guess this is a step down from the visceral anger of David Suchet version but either way it makes no sense. He deliberately brought up a version of events he knew to be inaccurate as a possible solution, a solution that means they all go free. Poirot would never have brought that up if he didn’t intend for it to have a purpose.

In the book, and the 1974 film, he leaves it to M Bouc to decide, so he was obviously conflicted there too, but in trying to give Poirot an arc over this film without correctly adjusting this pivotal moment is ill-advised. Arden points the gun to her own head and pulls the trigger and finds it unloaded. If this was intended as a test of faith, I don’t understand the point of it.

The train begins to move again and we see Helena throwing away the rest of her Barbital. The train arrives at the station and Poirot presents his version of events to the police, confirming the original theory to them. Poirot leaves the train to conclude formalities, but before that he’s summoned to Egypt because there’s been a ‘Murder on the Nile’ I’m not expert in that story but isn’t Poirot supposed to be present for the murder in that story? Anyway, to be continued in 2021

So that was Murder on the Orient Express, probably the most similar of the 3 versions to the book in terms of structure, but not by any other measure (the 1974 wins there). I was quite impressed with Brannagh’s interpretation of Poirot. He carries his egotism, mannerisms and the conflict really well. Most of the rest of the cast put in solid performances, Johnny Depp was kinda phoning it in, but he's a corpse for most of it.

What they seem to do is add elements to the story that were never necessary and ultimately detract. Poirot is a detective, he’s never been much of a physical character which is why the action just doesn’t work. It feels tacked on, and the claustrophobic camera work actually detracts as it’s difficult to see what’s going on. The chase scene on the bridge holds other problems, as somehow they make it all the way down a very tall bridge in seconds.

The opening is good in and of itself but is so goofy and silly it feels tonally disconnected with the rather dark and depressing story. I’m not saying I wanted a suicide and a stoning, as they had with David Suchet, if anything that’s too far in the other direction but something less funny might’ve set the tone a bit better.

Murder on the Orient Express is a great story, and this follows the book’s example well enough, but what they change and particularly what they add often doesn’t work in the film’s favour, it’s a shame because there’s a clearly talented cast (even if some have very little to do). The direction can be a little all over the place with techniques that benefit the visuals whilst detracting from the story. Branagh may wish to excise more care in his next Poirot adaptation

Rating -45%