Some twenty-ish years ago, the BBC (and by extension on this side of the pond, PBS) began running a TV series based on Agatha Christie’s Hercule Poirot, starring David Suchet as the quirky little detective.
And it was brilliant. David Suchet perfectly captured the strange mixture of warm, insightful playfulness and cold calculation that made Poirot so formidable a detective, not to mention nicely embodying Poirot’s long list of idiosyncrasies without becoming quite the grotesque that other actors had tended to turn him into in the past. Hardcore Christie purists might grumble about the way Col. Hastings, Inspector Japp, and Miss Lemon were crammed into every story with a crowbar because they were “part of the regular cast,” and there may have been moments when the series veered a bit towards being a situation comedy that just happened to have detective stories in it. But on the whole, it was brilliant. And many people, myself included, said of this series, “Man, I wish they’d do Murder On the Orient Express!”
But that was twenty years ago. Poirot had a great run in the U.K. and over here, but eventually was cancelled as all good shows must someday be. Like so many other great TV detectives, David Suchet’s Poirot moved on to the occasional “movie special” instead of the regular weekly offering, allowing them to take on Christie’s longer works without abridging the heck out of them. Unfortunately, something changed along the way. Hercule Poirot, the quirky and offbeat Belgian detective who winked and chuckled at English society, became POIROT, ZEALOUS DEFENDER OF LAW AND ORDER! And his cases went from being charming parlour games, to GRIM CRIME DRAMA.
And thus, twenty years later, we are finally presented with David Suchet as Poirot in Murder On the Orient Express … and the series that used to portray Poirot so perfectly, instead gets it all wrong.
We start on a sour note with Poirot solving a case which results in a young and promising military officer blowing his brains out, spattering gore all over Poirot’s face. This scene, while unpleasant, at least has a hint of a precedent in the actual book; the scene that follows, in which Col. Arbuthnot and Mary Debenham happen upon a woman being viciously stoned to death for adultery, not only didn’t appear in the book but is completely contradictory to the deliberately-pedestrian way in which the the book starts. Things keep going from grim to grimmer as Poirot boards the train, meets Ratchett and turns down his job offer, and various characters begin throwing religion at each other and praying all over the place. (Do what now?) And Poirot finds himself telling Mary Debenham that the woman who was stoned to death “knew the rules of her culture” and that by breaking them she invited being brutally stoned to death in the street.
The train may stay on the rails, but this script sure didn’t. 0.o The screenwriter (or director, or whoever it was making these decisions) was so intent on making a Big Damn Point about “justice” vs. “law” — whatever that point was, I never could quite figure it out — that they were perfectly happy to twist Poirot from a likable ex-cop who did amateur sleuthing as a mental diversion into a cold zealot who cares only about The Law (in capital letters) and believes that the slightest slip leads instantly to anarchy and barbarism. On top of this, all of the charm, all of the pleasant “conversationality” of Christie’s writing is thrown completely away, leaving only a bleak landscape where what little humor there is seems like a bitter jab instead of a friendly nudge. This Murder On the Orient Express has Poirot scowling and barely able to stomach the presence of Ratchett during the job offer and essentially refusing even to speak to him, instead of the book’s lighthearted exchange of, “At the risk of being personal, I don’t like your face.” By the end, both Poirot and the suspects are all nearly frozen to death, croaking at each other in grim darkness, and the presentation of the “right” solution to the Yugoslavian police is an angsty dark night of the soul for Poirot, instead of gently handing the decision to M. Bouc, the director of the line, and “retiring from the case.”
SPOILER ALERT: In one of the most egregious twists of character, even if it is a supporting character, Col. Arbuthnot, the steadfast British officer who was so upset that Ratchett was murdered instead of being sentenced to death by a jury of twelve, “the civilized way,” pulls out a gun with the intent to murder Poirot in order to prevent him from telling the police what actually happened — thus not only perverting the character, but also the whole damn point of the story. This, to me, falls under the heading of the screenwriter (or director, or whomever), putting themselves and their own desires above the work, which is something I always resent in any adaptation.
I don’t know the motivation behind turning Poirot from light whodunnit into bleak melodrama, and honestly I don’t care. But one idea that occurred to me was that they may have done it deliberately to distance themselves from the 1970s Albert Finney version of Murder On the Orient Express. That version is a grand symphony, a tribute not only to Agatha Christie but to the glories of old Hollywood and pre-war Europe, with the Orient Express itself all but waltzing across the screen in its own exuberance. What better way to be different from its exalted elegance than to be harsh and grim, right?
Unfortunately, for all of Albert Finney’s chewing the scenery in the 1970s film, he is at least chewing the scenery in ways compatible with what Agatha Christie actually wrote. The 1970s Murder On the Orient Express is an extremely faithful adaptation; one that even Dame Agatha herself was pleased with, after a lifetime of seeing her works hacked up and generally mucked around with. (And crying all the way to the bank, it’s true.) Admittedly, that leaves the makers of the Suchet version in a tough spot: how do you make a faithful adaptation of such a famous work, without simply doing again the extremely faithful adaptation that’s already been made? The key there I would think would be in letting it ride on David Suchet, with his subtle, nuanced, warm and humorous Poirot taking the stage instead of the eccentric, french-horn-laughing, wild-eyed Poirot of Albert Finney. Twenty years ago, when I was wishing for the David Suchet Murder On the Orient Express, that was what I was wishing for. The 1970s version had everything right except Poirot himself — the new version seems to get everything wrong including Poirot himself.
C’est la vie!
CORRECTION: I should mention here that Agatha Christie’s Poirot is made by ITV, not the BBC; my apologies. It’s all “British television” to me.
Warning: Includes muddle-headed political questions. Skip if necessary.
 Do you have the guts to answer these questions and re-post?
Nope, I'm totally not posting this now.
 Would you do meth if it was legalized?
No; I prefer to keep what brain cells I've got, thank you.
 Abortion: for or against it?
Abortion qua itself? Not keen on it; but it's a giant and complex issue that requires better thinking than bumper stickers will allow. I'm not ready to go around telling women what they can or can't do with their own bodies.
 Do you think a country would fail with a female president?
It's no more or less likely than with a male president. Maggie Thatcher kept the U.K. afloat.
 Do you believe in the death penalty?
Do I believe it exists? Surely, you can find evidence in the newspapers. Do I think it's a good idea? Not really; I don't have enough confidence in the legal bureaucracy to do it right.
 Do you wish marijuana would be legalized already?
I think it should be; I don't wish about it either way. And I'm not about to start smoking the crap.
 Are you for or against premarital sex?
Between responsible adults? For if they want it. Between idiots? Absolutely against. Postmarital sex too, for that matter.
 Do you believe in God?
I'm unconvinced either way. I'd like to, but I just don't see any compelling evidence.
 Do you think same sex marriage should be legalized?
Actually, I think the state should get out of the marriage business all together. But if you're going to have marriage as a legal construct, I think it should be open to whomever wants it, with whomever they want it. I know plenty of gay couples that are more stable and healthy than some hetero couples I know.
 Do you think it's wrong that so many Hispanics are illegally moving to the USA?
I'm not happy about it, but I also think it's wrong that legally moving here is such a Kafka-esque nightmare. What happened to being the beacon of hope and all that jazz? Immigration should be easy.
And like longtail says, why pick on the Hispanics? There are lots of groups illegally moving to the USA.
 A twelve year old girl has a baby, should she keep it?
Depends on the twelve year old girl. It's not like foster care is a happy experience for most kids either.
 Should the alcohol age be lowered to eighteen?
I think if you are considered old enough to die for your country, you should be considered old enough to be a responsible adult about everything else. Besides, I believe that in VA it is eighteen, isn't it?
 Should the war in Iraq be called off?
Don't you read the news? They surrendered. If you mean should the U.S. pull out the troops, I think we should go when the legitimate Iraqi government asks us to leave (assuming they ever do). That said, I'm an isolationist by nature and would prefer that the U.S. kept its fat fingers out of most world politics -- but having gone in, we're now obliged to stay 'til the job's done.
 Assisted suicide is illegal: do you agree?
Do I agree that it's illegal? I don't actually know for sure without looking it up, but I would assume it is. Who writes these questions?
If you mean do I agree that it should be illegal, I don't know, but I'm inclined towards keeping it off the table except under the most extreme of circumstances.
 Do you believe in spanking your children?
Generally, yes, but it has to be in a very detached "bad behavior = spanking" way, rather than an emotional "you made me mad so I'm going to smack the crap out of you" way. It's a teaching tool, not an instrument of revenge.
 Would you burn an American flag for a million dollars?
What kind of idiot would offer me a million dollars to burn an American flag?
 Who do you think would have made a better president? McCain or Obama?
Well, I voted for one of 'em, didn't I? The fact that McCain was either willing to accept Palin as his veep, or couldn't prevent having her as his veep, told me that he was either a bad choice or lacked the necessary control over his party. And I've discussed before the "mental health of the country" benefits of having Obama in the White House. As for his actual presidency, I'd give it a C+ ... but that's better than the F- we had before him. (And the D- we had before that.)
 Are you afraid others will judge you from reading some of your answers?
Anybody who's surprised by my answers must not have been paying attention!