More on MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS

MORE ON MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS

[SPOILER WARNING: DETAILS OF THE SOLUTION OF THE MURDER WILL BE DISCUSSED]

The following conversation between Peter Rozovsky and myself (Steve Lewis) previously appeared as a series of comments after my review of the 1974 movie version of Murder on the Orient Express, which you should go back and read, or even re-read, before continuing on with what we had to say. Peter goes first:

   This will not be an easy comment to make, since my one quibble with the movie involves a plot point, and I want to avoid giving vital information away to anyone who has not yet seen the movie. As Poirot did, I prefer the easier solution. So, first, for the simple matters.    I agree completely with your assessment of Albert Finney's performance. He is almost demonic at times, almost scary, which is the last thing one expects of a Poirot. His performance was a most pleasant surprise.

   Lauren Bacall's performance was enjoyable, but I liked Ingrid Bergman's better. And I had never realized until now not just how beautiful Vanessa Redgrave's face was, but how wonderfully she could use it. I also enjoyed John Gielgud's and Richard WIdmark's performances as well as several of the others.

   If the movie reflects the novel faithfully, I can see which aspect would have troubled censors. It's a sobering question that such a matter could keep the story off the screen for so long.

    Finally, the plot point: the resolution, as presented on screen had a ritualistic aspect that I found far-fetched. I can say no more until everyone in the world has seen the movie or read the novel. When that happens, we can discuss my objection openly.

          Peter

      Detectives Beyond Borders
        "Because Murder Is More Fun Away From Home"

       ========================

Peter

Or should I call you “Artful Dodger.” Thanks for being so skillful in saying what has to be said about the movie without actually revealing what it is that can’t be talked about.

    Why is it, I wonder, why so many otherwise intelligent people can’t resist giving the solutions away to detective story plots? Only this morning I read an op-ed column in the Hartford Courant which, to make another point, gave away for nothing the ending of Murder on the Orient Express.

   And as for The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, the mystery that Christie is even more famous for, you can forget it. Even people who are trying to recommend the novel to others do so by saying, “You’ll never guess who did it. It was …” And every kind of variation on blab, blab, blab comes spouting forth.

    In any case, however, I certainly agree with you about the way the crime itself was committed, as shown on the screen. It seemed to me to be borderline distasteful. But more than that, because of the sensationalistic nature of this aspect of the film, the point that (I think) was intended to be conveyed was lost.

   One other thing. While I enjoyed Lauren Bacall’s performance more, in more ways than one, I would not have considered it worthy of an Oscar. Ingrid Bergman’s, yes, even if I quibbled about it.

      – Steve

       ========================

    I thought it was less distasteful that it was slightly ridiculous. I'll have to go read the novel to see how Christie made the same point and if she did so any differently.

    Regarding people who give away plots, they are selfish, stupid, or simply unable to distinguish between contemporary crime stories, in which who did it tends to be less important, and older ones, in which the mystery aspect is paramount. They add obtuseness and lack of taste to their selfishness or stupidity.

    I realize now that one aspect of Ingrid Bergman's performance may have especially endeared it to Oscar voters. She was a beautiful woman playing an unbeautiful character. It's been noted that Oscar voters tend to reward that sort of thing.

           -- Peter

       ========================

Hi Peter

    I think you are absolutely correct in what you saw about Ingrid Bergman in your last paragraph, and I'm going to give you the last word about that. I saw a clever glint in her eye all the while she was being interviewed, as if she were secretly play-acting a part, and of course she was, as were all of the passengers on the train. Their roles in the movie were a double one: they all had a secret that they were in on together and in that sense were playing that role also.

    I will have to watch the movie again and look at everyone more carefully this second time, to see how each of them handles this double play-acting.

    As for the ending, what I couldn't say in either the review or my comments, is that the idea was that each one was to stab the victim, but as in a firing squad in which only one of the guns has a bullet, no one person would be able to say it was he or she who killed him.

    I may even have to re-read the novel myself. I was very young when I read it for the first time.

        -- Steve

       ========================

A clever glint in her eye, and some engaging nervous smiles, too. I never thought of the firing-squad parallel. In this case, maybe it was a reverse firing squad: Each one would want to think he or she did kill him. I did like the clue that the script planted: the doctor's verdict that some of the wounds could have been fatal, others not, and some were barely scratches. In retrospect, that was a nice touch.

-- Peter

YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME.

Return to the Main Page.