This scene.. I have no words to describe how powerful it is. Poirot's sense of right and wrong is absolute and unshakeable. And here he stands conflicted so deeply and broken.. because he knows that murder is a murder and these people did something unforgivable. Still he knows they had been wronged... justice was denied... David Suchet is absolutely the best here. No version of this classic will ever be close to this. Kenneth Branagh tries his best but he fails so hard because he is not understanding Poirot like David Suchet do. 10 years later... I am still in love with this movie.
You realize that this adaptation, as great as it is, doesn't actually follow the book, right? This adaptation strays quite far from the source material and Suchet strays VERY far from the character of Poirot. You are welcome to enjoy this mighty performance and adaptation, I like it myself, but it doesn't truly reflect the writings of Agatha Christie. She'd most likely be disappointed in the tone of this show and in her detective's portrayal.
"The rule of law! It must be held high and if it falls you PICK IT UP AND HOLD IT EVEN HIGHER!? for all society, all civilised people will have NOTHING to shelter them if it is destroyed" That hits deeps for me
Suchet is just amazing in this ❤️ his acting is five star already but this scene in particular and the ending of this is so powerful. People like to criticise it because it’s serious and dark but that’s how the novel portrayed it. It’s definitely my favourite version of murder on the orient express hands down 💯
It’s actually much darker than the novel. In the novel Ratchett is unconscious and not aware of being stabbed. Also the murderers go into the compartment one at a time rather than gathering together like a ghoulish execution party.
It is NOT like the novel. I mean no offense, but reading the novel first before making such a claim will make you sound far wiser than you do right now. This adaptation was NOTHING like the tone of the book.
3:46 - And that exactly proves Poirot's point in this moment, he was willing to kill one man, and was more than willing to kill ANOTHER man, who was innocent, if it meant covering it up. "We know what you are, we are just haggling the price."
This film is truely a sum of its parts, the music is on point especially. Those muted trumpets and detuned strings just build the tension and atmosphere, Christian Henson did a truely outstanding job.
The 2017 version was well made and while I realise Poirot's outburst as it's seen here is more of a creation for Suchet's version this to me just is Poirot
It is not a creation, Poirot does get angry like this in other stories, they just chose to place it here because it fited the direction they took with the plot and the storytelling of films, the climax at the end. His portrayal is all and always based on his research from the source material, not a personal choice of style, like Kenneth and the crap he did.
Samantha Ramos I agree Kenneth did a stylized take however checking in the book the ending in his plays out much the same though the rest of the film doesn't, I do however and always will prefer David's version
Yes, but as you see, following the book wasn't enough because it wasn't Poirot, or an Agatha story at all, his film is something else, to me it was kind of like watching a parody, a skit on SNL, it had no substance, no essence from the original source, no resemblance to the time period also, the whole thing could have been set in 2018 that it wouldn't change anything..., and his portrayal of Poirot... well, to say the least is ridiculous and embarassing, and to make matters worst here it comes Death in The Nile smh. Have you seen that one by the way?
Samantha Ramos The old one? Years back don't really remember it, I agree with what your saying my original comment was more just that even though it's not in the book this scene Is more poirot than the 2017 film, so I think we're in agreement haha
Yeah, its early 2000 I think, it's great, I think that beyond David and his talent and everything, his movies are better because they were shot in location also, this new movie was cgi for the most part and it shows, that makes a big difference in the final result. I know, we basically agreed from the start lol ... sorry, I just really love Agatha and David, and early this week I rewatched Orient Express so its super fresh in my mind, couldn't resist the urge to comment something lol
The best scene in the whole episode. Poirot faces a moral dilemna, he understood why these 12 people took the law into their own hands and that they were genuinely good people who were made to commit a repulsive murder because the justice system in the US had failed them, but he also knew that two wrongs don't make a right and that an unlawful killing is wrong, even if it was justified. He eventually chose to let them go, but he also struggles with his conscience and morality too. That's why he walked away from the train crying and holding his rosary, he felt that he had betrayed both God and himself. (Btw, this is the only 'Poirot' episode I have seen. Except for the 2017 movie because idk if I wanna watch it, I wanted to check out some on-screen adaptations of MOTOE.)
If you're looking to see another adaptation of this then definitely watch the 1974 version. Also if you're looking for another great poirot episode then watch death on the Nile
@@viking_2112 I have seen the 1974 movie, it's the best on-screen adaptation ever, this episode comes in second place for me. The 1974 movie was so so well made, from the casting to the acting to the soundtrack, no other adaptations of the same story can beat it.
I just wrote angry Poirot in the search bar and this came up. I liked the late Poirot when he became older and more bitter. We need another Poirot, and we need another columbo aswell, but that's for another video
This was a gut wrenching scene. The ways in which right and wrong, and the themes of good and evil were touched upon, was insane. David Suchet was Hercule Poirot. One of the most powerful scenes ever filmed. He was in limbo. He was conflicted. Although he knows he should not have let them go, he knows it is all in God's hands. Chilling. Powerful. What is justice and who are we to impose it on others?
The one plothole that even this adaptation doesn’t acknowledge is how on Earth could they have gotten away with it without the snowstorm, like the killer just took the risk of not falling down a hill by jumping out the window. And if they didn’t know Poirot would be there, why get a kimono? The conductor’s uniform makes sense, but why the kimono. They could’ve done most of these things in Ratchett’s house, probably have MacQueen and the manservant have alibis. Look, I love this book and the 1970s film version was the first Agatha Christie adaptation I’ve watched but now when I realize it, the way they tried to get away with murder, it makes no sense
I would say the snowstorm actually hampered them, same goes for Poirot being on the train. Maybe the kimono was to deceive the other passengers and staff.
Yes and No. That's why this is such a good scene. The rule of law is what keeps a civilization together. Earlier in this episode there was a woman being stoned to death in Istanbul according to the same principle. People taking the law in to their own hands. No trail, no jury, no evidence, no justice. And still... on an emotional level I totally agree; He deserved to die. That's why I love this scene, you can see this struggle in Poirot. He's trying to convince himself, not the "criminals".
I love the later scene in the frozen carriage with the tea for finishing the theme. The murderer admits that she thought if she 'did what was right' she would be at peace. Poirot responds, "And ARE you?" And she can only respond, "but I did what was right!" thereby admitting that she wasn't at peace. Because ultimately, neither revenge nor the execution of the law can bring the little girl back to life. There is no peace to be had through either revenge OR the law. When I first heard that Suchet was making this book I was both excited and worried. It's a classic story and how could the producer keep the suspense of a story when everyone knew the ending. I was astonished to see the director's make the choice to completely change the mood. Gone is Christie's mood of a parlor murder mystery where the point is to astonish the reader with the cleverness of the identity of the murderer. In its place is a dark film about the source, justification, and ultimate outcome of even successful revenge...coupled with excellent performances from Suchet and Chastain. One of my cult favorite films about a serious philosophical issue.
@@dclark142002 This is a good take. The really neat thing about this movie is that while Poirot makes a fair case, he is also... pretty clearly wrong. He's clearly motivated less by what is *right* and more with what is lawful. There *is* a fair argument for sparing Cassetti-the argument you make, that it heals nothing to kill him-but Poirot is still desperately trying to rationalize his accidentally driving a man to suicide. He is stubbornly upholding ideals of honesty and justice to the point that he almost sends twelve people to the gallows. Was it right to kill Cassetti? Maybe, maybe not. But it is definitely wrong to turn the twelve people in. Poirot eventually does what they couldn't do: He forgives. He lets them go because even though he thinks they were wrong to kill Cassetti, it would be wrong, too, to seek "justice" for what they did.
Not to mention the persistent themes of forgiveness. Can *any* crime be forgiven? Poirot, a Catholic, believes so. Cassetti represents the hardest case-a man who clearly doesn't deserve forgiveness who seeks it from God anyway to protect himself. Can he ever earn forgiveness for what he did? To kill him is to deny the slim chance.
@Jon's Dimension As Poirot says of justice, "You let God administer it, not you!" The implication is that God didn't act through the killers-just as God didn't act through Cassetti when he killed that child. It was their own choices that brought them here.
Such a brilliant episode, but it's exactly that, an episode. It only really works in the context of the series. This episode lacks Poirot's good humor and jovial nature. It works because their absence is felt to an audience that knows them. If someone were to watch this episode without the context of the earlier series, they would only see Poirot as a bitter frustrated man. I think this is a big part of why I prefer this take on so many other adaptations of Orient Express. We know exactly who this Poirot is and how low he must feel to behave the way he does here. There's a reason it took Suchet's Poirot almost 20 years to get to this point, it's a shame to see so many adaptations start out with a bitter, troubled, & frustrated Poirot, and not earn his moral indignation. The recent Orient Express film, and the ABC murders miniseries come to mind as particularly egregious examples of this sort of adaptation.
Your comment makes me so happy. People usually crucify this episode specifically because of that scene, because it takes too much liberty with the personnage Poirot, but this is exactly why this adaptation took so long to be done. The character, we all know him, and we all know he wouldn't let it go as easily as in the book. Not THIS Poirot.
My fav 3 characters are Princess Dragomiroff (Eileen Atkins), Poiret (David Suchet) & Miss Debenham (Jessica Chastain). This is the best version ever, my favourite scene. The book is amazing!
Indeed, Suchet's interpretation of Poirot is deeper, way more intense and gripping than Branagh's performance. For me Suchet is anyway the only real personification of Poirot.
It is really impressive this scene and all. I love the acting. But I love the book even more and the way it is handled there. As much as I like Suchet as Poirot... I felt as if it was... out of his character. Ending of this movie is fascinating and breathtaking but I will pick the one from book anytime.
My one issue with the book is that we barely see poirot grapple with the morality of the choice. In the books it is established that poirot is deeply devoted to the law and his religion and so naturally poirot would be conflicted with it which we don't really get as the book cuts off just after the reveal. I love this scene but the drama is slightly overblown for me and so my favourite version is the 1974 version as its faithful to the book and isn't as overblown as this version but does address his morality as after he puts forward the solutions, he is grappling with it and is in two minds while accepting that the police at brod will prefer the simpler solution which shows that it isn't the easiest choice for him and he leaves to console his conscience. I think that was the best way to do it as it addresses the morality more than the book but isn't as overblown as the suchet version. Despite that, the suchet version is still my favourite
@@viking_2112 Yeah, Suchet is the best Poirot. I think the book could have some inner monologue of his or some calm conversation about this yeah but still I prefer the book version where he decided to let the case go without the drama that is in this one. It was just too out of his character, I mean the whole dramatic stuff.
Poriot was right, I feel for what had happened to these people, a terrible tragedy but it does not justify murder. They are now no better then cassetti! This was not justice, it was vengeance!!
@@victorious8562 in my opinion, killing him won't make it right or take their pain away, it would only make it worse and now he (cassetti) will haunt them always! This was vengeance, not justice!!!
@@MrFilmfan86 so they should have left Casetti's awful crime go unpunished? The justice system failed all of them and you expected them to just sit there and let that pos of Casetti walk free and happy? Had justice been done, they wouldn't have killed Casetti. And yes, they're still better than Casetti. Killing an innocent person is a lot worse than killing those who hurt innocent people. So what if it's vengeance? At least Daisy's murder didn't go unpunished.
I liked the 2017 adaptation, to be honest. It's not as good as this one, obviously, but I didn't find it terrible, either. It had good acting and good conematography, and it also added true, raw emotion to the Armstrong tragedy. Also, the one thing I didn't like about this version is how angry Poirot gets at the reveal. He didn't burst out in explosive anger in the book snd he was much more empsthetic to Casetti's killers, but I guess they added it to put some philosophical debate on morals and ethics.
In my opinion, this scene, while brilliantly acted, is an insult to both the novel and the character Poirot. Cassetti *murdered* a little girl in cold blood! Then, he made a mockery of Poirot's precious justice. How can anyone possibly think that his death wasn't justified?
Read this: www.sparknotes.com/lit/orientexpress/canalysis.html#Hercule-Poirot It says, "While Poirot does not always obey the law, he always abides his conscience and his sense moral law. "Moral Law" is somewhat like religious law or the law of God, it is a general sense of right and wrong that supersedes any man-made written laws. In the case of the Armstrong family, Poirot put moral law first." That's why, in my opinion, the Poirot in this scene is not the Poirot that Agatha Christie wrote about in her books.
Thing his, even in the film, he lets them walk away as the quote suggests. In the book he doesn't have the outburst, indeed, however: 1) There is a different dynamism in a film (it needs a strong emotional climax) then in a book and 2) If you watch the film carefully, the main theme is just that: the conflict or tension between moral law and positive law (e.g. the suicide of the Lieutenant and the stoning scene at the beginning). It would be strange to not have this play out. In the end the movie is about just this (point 2) and the scene helps to illustrate it. I am willing to accept that (knowing that Poirot does get very angry in this style in other books).
Thank you. So tired of people who don't understand something so obvious: film is a different media. You can not tell the story in the same way that is writen in a book, also you don't have to do that if you keep the essence of the story itself and of the characters, wich is what happened here, and what David did for 25 years playing Poirot. There will never be someone who does it better or even in the same level that he did, the new version is horrible and Kenneth is ridiculous, totally ruined the character (sorry, just venting out). And you are so right, he does get angry like this in other books, there is not a single flaw with the performance, David in fact read all the novels and short stories that Agatha wrote about Poirot, made notes and studied the character carefully. People should do the same (read more of his books) before criticizing such a meticulous work, because they expect everything to be copy and paste in a screen.
Let's put aside the "is it right to seek revenge for its own sake?" question for a second and assume that it can hypothetically be right to murder bad people simply for things they have done-that there is a place for a death penalty in a civil society-and focus on the characters. Poirot desperately seeks an absolute here. He fucked up towards the start, and got a man killed. Throughout this story, he is trying to rationalize what he did by saying, "No matter what, the truth. No matter what, the law." He wants a simple answer to a complicated mistake he made. Now he faces a challenge to that: Whether it not it was right to kill Cassetti, it clearly cannot be right to condemn twelve people to death for killing him. Poirot is desperately *afraid* in this scene. The internal, objective order he demands is falling apart as he is faced with twelve scared faces. In the end, he probably still thinks it was wrong to kill Cassetti. Hell, I do, though for different reasons: Killing Cassetti heals nothing in the world. But it's clear that holding twelve people accountable for Cassetti's murder wouldn't help, either.
I disagree, because Hercule is a Catholic. Therefore the argument from religion works on him. But he handles it perfectly "there is a higher justice" - "then you let Him administrate it."
@@Briselance It's a decent counter, but it's basically an argument for anarchy, which wouldn't be acceptable for an old cop. edit: sorry, I meant vigilantism, not anarchy.
@@YourLocalCopiumDealer An argument for vigilantism? Maybe be so, indeed. What what is the other way? Letting someone like Cassetti go unpunished? Personally, I sure am not sure of how I would go: one way (strict Poirot's way) or the others' (the Twelve).
Would God approve of Cassetti's wrongful clearance of the murder? Would God approve of letting a criminal live the rest of his earthly life unpunished for such a crime? Would He approve of some people using His words and teaching to escape earthly punishment after such a crime? No. No, I don't think He would. The letter of law and the spirit of law, or justice, are two concepts that are close, sometimes even twin-like. But far from being always, entirely, absolutely identical.
There is wunn line that has too be cut from the film, that line where the lawyer's son, or whoever he is, where he says, "You're as bad as the crook in the court house, sir," because of how almost derogatory that depiction is, suggesting the men are arrogant and the woman are the only sensible wunns, that wunn bit has too be censored out. I don't give a tinker's cuss what the writer thought he were playing at, and this is not the only time they wrote something very wrong in a Poirot television film, where they came within a hare's breath of painting a derogatory picture of Poirot.
None of them deserve to be let free regardless of what he did they murdered a man, all of them. They broke the law and became killers, fuck their grief, grief does not matter here. All that matters is the law and the law says that they be punished, throw them in jail for their crime. They can have their peace, in jail where they belong.
The law can be unfair and it does not equal morals. "Fuck their grief". You're not a very empathetic person, are you? Yes, they killed a man... A man that had killed an innocent little girl and got away with it. The justice system had failed them and the Armstrongs. Did you expect them to let Daisy's murder go unpunished? If Casetti could get away with killing an innocent child, why couldn't they get away with killing that worthless child killer?
@@magallanesagustin4952 What if they were wrong? What if he was actually innocent of the crime, and they killed him anyway? The moment they decided on that sort of sordid revenge, these people became worthless themselves.
@@Ares99999 only that Casetti wasn't innocent and so, they weren't worthless at all. You're worthless only when you kill innocent people. Casetti wasn't innocent. The system failed them and it also failed the Armstrongs. Did you expect them to be ok with the one that caused everything walk free and happy and unpunished?
@@Ares99999 What if he was actually innocent? He was not. In the novel and in this movie, some irrefutable elements of proof are mentionned, but the whole judgement was rigged in his favour by his maffia clan.
Greta Ohlsson’s lines in this version border on blasphemy. She uses an erroneous part of the King James Bible of 1611 (the first part of John chapter 8, specifically verses 1-11, a group of verses which does not exist in the earlier, most reliable Greek texts and must have been added around the time the Bible was being translated from Hebrew and Greek into Latin, before the time of the earliest English Bibles) to justify taking the law into her own hands. Poirot is the more godly one of the two. Ratchett was a terrible man, who deserved to die, but it was wrong of them to stoop down to his level and resort to violence. They are right that human law failed them, of that there is no doubt. But I remember a Scripture that says, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the LORD” (Note: LORD in all caps in most Bibles is the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, translated YHWH, sometimes rendered “Yahweh” or “Jehovah”) - Romans 12:19, likely quoting Deuteronomy 32:35; compare Hebrews 10:30. Also the sixth of the Ten Commandments - “You must not murder,” or “Thou shalt not kill.” (Exodus 20:13). Christians are not obligated to follow every aspect of the Code of Moses, but it gives insight into how God views such matters as murder and revenge.
Кино
This scene.. I have no words to describe how powerful it is. Poirot's sense of right and wrong is absolute and unshakeable. And here he stands conflicted so deeply and broken.. because he knows that murder is a murder and these people did something unforgivable. Still he knows they had been wronged... justice was denied... David Suchet is absolutely the best here. No version of this classic will ever be close to this. Kenneth Branagh tries his best but he fails so hard because he is not understanding Poirot like David Suchet do. 10 years later... I am still in love with this movie.
My feelings exactly 👍🏻
You realize that this adaptation, as great as it is, doesn't actually follow the book, right? This adaptation strays quite far from the source material and Suchet strays VERY far from the character of Poirot. You are welcome to enjoy this mighty performance and adaptation, I like it myself, but it doesn't truly reflect the writings of Agatha Christie. She'd most likely be disappointed in the tone of this show and in her detective's portrayal.
David Suchet captures the outrage and fury of a man committed to the rule of law, seeing justice perverted in many different ways.
"The rule of law! It must be held high and if it falls you PICK IT UP AND HOLD IT EVEN HIGHER!? for all society, all civilised people will have NOTHING to shelter them if it is destroyed"
That hits deeps for me
Suchet is just amazing in this ❤️ his acting is five star already but this scene in particular and the ending of this is so powerful. People like to criticise it because it’s serious and dark but that’s how the novel portrayed it. It’s definitely my favourite version of murder on the orient express hands down 💯
It’s my favorite version… so heartbreaking and powerful.
It’s actually much darker than the novel. In the novel Ratchett is unconscious and not aware of being stabbed. Also the murderers go into the compartment one at a time rather than gathering together like a ghoulish execution party.
It is NOT like the novel. I mean no offense, but reading the novel first before making such a claim will make you sound far wiser than you do right now. This adaptation was NOTHING like the tone of the book.
THEN LET GOD ADMINISTER IT, NOT YOU!!!
Brilliant delivery by Suchet
"Then let God administer it, not you" asked Poirot, calmly.
Jokes aside, this was a very sad moment.
"And when He doesn't? What happens when He doesn't administer it, and remains silent to our prayers?"
David Suchet is the ONLY one who can play Poirot. My opinion.
@todeszauberer7784incorrect take
meh, he sounds annoying
Correct
@@abdulrosyida236poirot is supposed to be annoying even Agatha Christie got annoyed by him and she created him.
Yes ❤❤❤
3:46 - And that exactly proves Poirot's point in this moment, he was willing to kill one man, and was more than willing to kill ANOTHER man, who was innocent, if it meant covering it up. "We know what you are, we are just haggling the price."
beautiful performances, all of them especially from David Suchet.
This production can never be top. The cast were brilliant and its heart wrenching.
This film is truely a sum of its parts, the music is on point especially. Those muted trumpets and detuned strings just build the tension and atmosphere, Christian Henson did a truely outstanding job.
This was my favorite scene.
The best detective series in the world. Best stories ever writen.
This performance earned Suchet his knighthood.
The 2017 version was well made and while I realise Poirot's outburst as it's seen here is more of a creation for Suchet's version this to me just is Poirot
It is not a creation, Poirot does get angry like this in other stories, they just chose to place it here because it fited the direction they took with the plot and the storytelling of films, the climax at the end. His portrayal is all and always based on his research from the source material, not a personal choice of style, like Kenneth and the crap he did.
Samantha Ramos I agree Kenneth did a stylized take however checking in the book the ending in his plays out much the same though the rest of the film doesn't, I do however and always will prefer David's version
Yes, but as you see, following the book wasn't enough because it wasn't Poirot, or an Agatha story at all, his film is something else, to me it was kind of like watching a parody, a skit on SNL, it had no substance, no essence from the original source, no resemblance to the time period also, the whole thing could have been set in 2018 that it wouldn't change anything..., and his portrayal of Poirot... well, to say the least is ridiculous and embarassing, and to make matters worst here it comes Death in The Nile smh. Have you seen that one by the way?
Samantha Ramos The old one? Years back don't really remember it, I agree with what your saying my original comment was more just that even though it's not in the book this scene Is more poirot than the 2017 film, so I think we're in agreement haha
Yeah, its early 2000 I think, it's great, I think that beyond David and his talent and everything, his movies are better because they were shot in location also, this new movie was cgi for the most part and it shows, that makes a big difference in the final result. I know, we basically agreed from the start lol ... sorry, I just really love Agatha and David, and early this week I rewatched Orient Express so its super fresh in my mind, couldn't resist the urge to comment something lol
The best scene in the whole episode. Poirot faces a moral dilemna, he understood why these 12 people took the law into their own hands and that they were genuinely good people who were made to commit a repulsive murder because the justice system in the US had failed them, but he also knew that two wrongs don't make a right and that an unlawful killing is wrong, even if it was justified. He eventually chose to let them go, but he also struggles with his conscience and morality too.
That's why he walked away from the train crying and holding his rosary, he felt that he had betrayed both God and himself.
(Btw, this is the only 'Poirot' episode I have seen. Except for the 2017 movie because idk if I wanna watch it, I wanted to check out some on-screen adaptations of MOTOE.)
If you're looking to see another adaptation of this then definitely watch the 1974 version. Also if you're looking for another great poirot episode then watch death on the Nile
@@viking_2112 I have seen the 1974 movie, it's the best on-screen adaptation ever, this episode comes in second place for me. The 1974 movie was so so well made, from the casting to the acting to the soundtrack, no other adaptations of the same story can beat it.
This wasn't in the book, but still very good
Love this version!
Me too 😊
I just wrote angry Poirot in the search bar and this came up. I liked the late Poirot when he became older and more bitter. We need another Poirot, and we need another columbo aswell, but that's for another video
Also really love the Countess Andrenyi too! (Elena Satine)
Hold on. That’s Jessica Chastain... unexpected
It is indeed her.
Amazing! I love David Suchet!
This was a gut wrenching scene. The ways in which right and wrong, and the themes of good and evil were touched upon, was insane. David Suchet was Hercule Poirot. One of the most powerful scenes ever filmed. He was in limbo. He was conflicted. Although he knows he should not have let them go, he knows it is all in God's hands. Chilling. Powerful. What is justice and who are we to impose it on others?
1:39 This is what inspired that one Big Band quote, everybody.
He's just too good.
The interesting thing is this comes up again in his final case … and what he chooses to do ( the right choice in the end I’ve always felt)
Brilliant performance-one and only Poirot-David Suchet. Nobody comes close
The one plothole that even this adaptation doesn’t acknowledge is how on Earth could they have gotten away with it without the snowstorm, like the killer just took the risk of not falling down a hill by jumping out the window. And if they didn’t know Poirot would be there, why get a kimono? The conductor’s uniform makes sense, but why the kimono. They could’ve done most of these things in Ratchett’s house, probably have MacQueen and the manservant have alibis. Look, I love this book and the 1970s film version was the first Agatha Christie adaptation I’ve watched but now when I realize it, the way they tried to get away with murder, it makes no sense
I would say the snowstorm actually hampered them, same goes for Poirot being on the train. Maybe the kimono was to deceive the other passengers and staff.
01:10 “Monseigneur Poirot, she was five years old.”
I personally think that the murder of Cassetti was totally justified and deserved.
Yes and No. That's why this is such a good scene. The rule of law is what keeps a civilization together. Earlier in this episode there was a woman being stoned to death in Istanbul according to the same principle. People taking the law in to their own hands. No trail, no jury, no evidence, no justice. And still... on an emotional level I totally agree; He deserved to die. That's why I love this scene, you can see this struggle in Poirot. He's trying to convince himself, not the "criminals".
I love the later scene in the frozen carriage with the tea for finishing the theme.
The murderer admits that she thought if she 'did what was right' she would be at peace. Poirot responds, "And ARE you?" And she can only respond, "but I did what was right!" thereby admitting that she wasn't at peace.
Because ultimately, neither revenge nor the execution of the law can bring the little girl back to life. There is no peace to be had through either revenge OR the law.
When I first heard that Suchet was making this book I was both excited and worried. It's a classic story and how could the producer keep the suspense of a story when everyone knew the ending.
I was astonished to see the director's make the choice to completely change the mood. Gone is Christie's mood of a parlor murder mystery where the point is to astonish the reader with the cleverness of the identity of the murderer. In its place is a dark film about the source, justification, and ultimate outcome of even successful revenge...coupled with excellent performances from Suchet and Chastain.
One of my cult favorite films about a serious philosophical issue.
@@dclark142002 This is a good take. The really neat thing about this movie is that while Poirot makes a fair case, he is also... pretty clearly wrong. He's clearly motivated less by what is *right* and more with what is lawful. There *is* a fair argument for sparing Cassetti-the argument you make, that it heals nothing to kill him-but Poirot is still desperately trying to rationalize his accidentally driving a man to suicide. He is stubbornly upholding ideals of honesty and justice to the point that he almost sends twelve people to the gallows.
Was it right to kill Cassetti? Maybe, maybe not. But it is definitely wrong to turn the twelve people in. Poirot eventually does what they couldn't do: He forgives. He lets them go because even though he thinks they were wrong to kill Cassetti, it would be wrong, too, to seek "justice" for what they did.
Not to mention the persistent themes of forgiveness. Can *any* crime be forgiven? Poirot, a Catholic, believes so. Cassetti represents the hardest case-a man who clearly doesn't deserve forgiveness who seeks it from God anyway to protect himself. Can he ever earn forgiveness for what he did? To kill him is to deny the slim chance.
@Jon's Dimension As Poirot says of justice, "You let God administer it, not you!"
The implication is that God didn't act through the killers-just as God didn't act through Cassetti when he killed that child. It was their own choices that brought them here.
Such a brilliant episode, but it's exactly that, an episode. It only really works in the context of the series. This episode lacks Poirot's good humor and jovial nature.
It works because their absence is felt to an audience that knows them. If someone were to watch this episode without the context of the earlier series, they would only see Poirot as a bitter frustrated man.
I think this is a big part of why I prefer this take on so many other adaptations of Orient Express. We know exactly who this Poirot is and how low he must feel to behave the way he does here.
There's a reason it took Suchet's Poirot almost 20 years to get to this point, it's a shame to see so many adaptations start out with a bitter, troubled, & frustrated Poirot, and not earn his moral indignation.
The recent Orient Express film, and the ABC murders miniseries come to mind as particularly egregious examples of this sort of adaptation.
Thanks, I have not seen the ABC miniseries, will give it a bash. The Kenneth Branagh version of Orient Express was not my cuppa tea...
Your comment makes me so happy. People usually crucify this episode specifically because of that scene, because it takes too much liberty with the personnage Poirot, but this is exactly why this adaptation took so long to be done. The character, we all know him, and we all know he wouldn't let it go as easily as in the book. Not THIS Poirot.
Because they wanted the series to be more dark, more macabre just like the books! do your research!
@@lovinDaMusik If anything, Agatha Christie's work proved that macabre =/= joyless, a lesson the ABC Murders miniseries sadly missed
@@tjmichael Poirot is not 2 dimensional. he is not just joyful or jovial. he is a versatile character.
They are very "Outlaw"
My fav 3 characters are Princess Dragomiroff (Eileen Atkins), Poiret (David Suchet) & Miss Debenham (Jessica Chastain). This is the best version ever, my favourite scene. The book is amazing!
Who can watch this and say that Branagh was better?
commandert5 me
Yup, me
Not me, both had different styles. One being better than the other? Mais non.
Indeed, Suchet's interpretation of Poirot is deeper, way more intense and gripping than Branagh's performance. For me Suchet is anyway the only real personification of Poirot.
@@colbycarroll7746 lol
It is really impressive this scene and all. I love the acting. But I love the book even more and the way it is handled there. As much as I like Suchet as Poirot... I felt as if it was... out of his character. Ending of this movie is fascinating and breathtaking but I will pick the one from book anytime.
My one issue with the book is that we barely see poirot grapple with the morality of the choice. In the books it is established that poirot is deeply devoted to the law and his religion and so naturally poirot would be conflicted with it which we don't really get as the book cuts off just after the reveal. I love this scene but the drama is slightly overblown for me and so my favourite version is the 1974 version as its faithful to the book and isn't as overblown as this version but does address his morality as after he puts forward the solutions, he is grappling with it and is in two minds while accepting that the police at brod will prefer the simpler solution which shows that it isn't the easiest choice for him and he leaves to console his conscience. I think that was the best way to do it as it addresses the morality more than the book but isn't as overblown as the suchet version. Despite that, the suchet version is still my favourite
@@viking_2112 Yeah, Suchet is the best Poirot. I think the book could have some inner monologue of his or some calm conversation about this yeah but still I prefer the book version where he decided to let the case go without the drama that is in this one. It was just too out of his character, I mean the whole dramatic stuff.
whats the score that was being played when he said lock the door?
Was probably composed for the episode.
I believe its called "Redemption"
Redemption by Christopher Gunning. Originally composed for this episode. It is a hauntingly beautiful piece.
min 3:35 this is the proof that Poirot was right
You could observe what happens directly afterwards to see proof that Poirot was wrong. It's an open-ended scene.
Poriot was right, I feel for what had happened to these people, a terrible tragedy but it does not justify murder. They are now no better then cassetti! This was not justice, it was vengeance!!
@@MrFilmfan86 So in your opinion murdering an innocent little girl(which caused 3 more deaths) is =killing this killer? Uhm....sure dude.
@@victorious8562 in my opinion, killing him won't make it right or take their pain away, it would only make it worse and now he (cassetti) will haunt them always! This was vengeance, not justice!!!
@@MrFilmfan86 so they should have left Casetti's awful crime go unpunished? The justice system failed all of them and you expected them to just sit there and let that pos of Casetti walk free and happy? Had justice been done, they wouldn't have killed Casetti.
And yes, they're still better than Casetti. Killing an innocent person is a lot worse than killing those who hurt innocent people. So what if it's vengeance? At least Daisy's murder didn't go unpunished.
This was such a better version than that overloaded, over stylized bloated Hollywood production with the worst version of Poirot ever!
Agreed, that recent hollyweird version was crap!
I liked the 2017 adaptation, to be honest. It's not as good as this one, obviously, but I didn't find it terrible, either. It had good acting and good conematography, and it also added true, raw emotion to the Armstrong tragedy. Also, the one thing I didn't like about this version is how angry Poirot gets at the reveal. He didn't burst out in explosive anger in the book snd he was much more empsthetic to Casetti's killers, but I guess they added it to put some philosophical debate on morals and ethics.
I prefer this Poirot but this outburst is unlike the story. The movie got it right.
Great acting either way.
This story and this adaptation are a perfect riposte to Dostoyevsky's views.
The, god Theory. And not want of The Feed Us. And Then To Clarity. Which Drama, never need Be. Digi` Docx. -Mikayl Angilinou.
00:56 - 02:18
In my opinion, this scene, while brilliantly acted, is an insult to both the novel and the character Poirot. Cassetti *murdered* a little girl in cold blood! Then, he made a mockery of Poirot's precious justice. How can anyone possibly think that his death wasn't justified?
Rule of law.
Read this: www.sparknotes.com/lit/orientexpress/canalysis.html#Hercule-Poirot
It says, "While Poirot does not always obey the law, he always abides his conscience and his sense moral law. "Moral Law" is somewhat like religious law or the law of God, it is a general sense of right and wrong that supersedes any man-made written laws. In the case of the Armstrong family, Poirot put moral law first." That's why, in my opinion, the Poirot in this scene is not the Poirot that Agatha Christie wrote about in her books.
Thing his, even in the film, he lets them walk away as the quote suggests. In the book he doesn't have the outburst, indeed, however:
1) There is a different dynamism in a film (it needs a strong emotional climax) then in a book and
2) If you watch the film carefully, the main theme is just that: the conflict or tension between moral law and positive law (e.g. the suicide of the Lieutenant and the stoning scene at the beginning). It would be strange to not have this play out.
In the end the movie is about just this (point 2) and the scene helps to illustrate it. I am willing to accept that (knowing that Poirot does get very angry in this style in other books).
Thank you. So tired of people who don't understand something so obvious: film is a different media. You can not tell the story in the same way that is writen in a book, also you don't have to do that if you keep the essence of the story itself and of the characters, wich is what happened here, and what David did for 25 years playing Poirot. There will never be someone who does it better or even in the same level that he did, the new version is horrible and Kenneth is ridiculous, totally ruined the character (sorry, just venting out).
And you are so right, he does get angry like this in other books, there is not a single flaw with the performance, David in fact read all the novels and short stories that Agatha wrote about Poirot, made notes and studied the character carefully. People should do the same (read more of his books) before criticizing such a meticulous work, because they expect everything to be copy and paste in a screen.
Let's put aside the "is it right to seek revenge for its own sake?" question for a second and assume that it can hypothetically be right to murder bad people simply for things they have done-that there is a place for a death penalty in a civil society-and focus on the characters.
Poirot desperately seeks an absolute here. He fucked up towards the start, and got a man killed. Throughout this story, he is trying to rationalize what he did by saying, "No matter what, the truth. No matter what, the law." He wants a simple answer to a complicated mistake he made.
Now he faces a challenge to that: Whether it not it was right to kill Cassetti, it clearly cannot be right to condemn twelve people to death for killing him. Poirot is desperately *afraid* in this scene. The internal, objective order he demands is falling apart as he is faced with twelve scared faces.
In the end, he probably still thinks it was wrong to kill Cassetti. Hell, I do, though for different reasons: Killing Cassetti heals nothing in the world. But it's clear that holding twelve people accountable for Cassetti's murder wouldn't help, either.
They were not free of sin regardless of what that gal said, no one is and throwin' religion into it does nothin' to help.
I disagree, because Hercule is a Catholic. Therefore the argument from religion works on him. But he handles it perfectly "there is a higher justice" - "then you let Him administrate it."
No one is free of sin? It all depends on what you consider a sin. And on how severe, or laughably negligible, said sin is.
@@YourLocalCopiumDealer
"Then you let Him administer it, not you!!"
"And when he does not?"
@@Briselance It's a decent counter, but it's basically an argument for anarchy, which wouldn't be acceptable for an old cop. edit: sorry, I meant vigilantism, not anarchy.
@@YourLocalCopiumDealer
An argument for vigilantism? Maybe be so, indeed. What what is the other way? Letting someone like Cassetti go unpunished?
Personally, I sure am not sure of how I would go: one way (strict Poirot's way) or the others' (the Twelve).
tHey are murdereres, regardless of what they say and God would not be proud or approve of what they did.
"Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.
Caroline Cotner, what chapter and verse?
Would God approve of Cassetti's wrongful clearance of the murder? Would God approve of letting a criminal live the rest of his earthly life unpunished for such a crime?
Would He approve of some people using His words and teaching to escape earthly punishment after such a crime?
No. No, I don't think He would.
The letter of law and the spirit of law, or justice, are two concepts that are close, sometimes even twin-like. But far from being always, entirely, absolutely identical.
There is wunn line that has too be cut from the film, that line where the lawyer's son, or whoever he is, where he says, "You're as bad as the crook in the court house, sir," because of how almost derogatory that depiction is, suggesting the men are arrogant and the woman are the only sensible wunns, that wunn bit has too be censored out. I don't give a tinker's cuss what the writer thought he were playing at, and this is not the only time they wrote something very wrong in a Poirot television film, where they came within a hare's breath of painting a derogatory picture of Poirot.
Poirot should have turned them all in instead of lettin' them go.
Matt012763 The first time I saw this I thought he had left them to the police until I gained a bit of sense😂😂
Very much agree. As a law student myself, I was touched by his "rule of law" speech only to be disappointed when he 'pardoned' them.
For not letting Casetti get away with his crime?
killing is paid by killing. that's the true law.
@@keanusolan2844
That rule of law was sabotaged in Cassetti's favour during the investigation for his trial.
None of them deserve to be let free regardless of what he did they murdered a man, all of them. They broke the law and became killers, fuck their grief, grief does not matter here. All that matters is the law and the law says that they be punished, throw them in jail for their crime. They can have their peace, in jail where they belong.
You mean like the kidnapper and a murderer that ended up rotting in jail?
The law can be unfair and it does not equal morals. "Fuck their grief". You're not a very empathetic person, are you? Yes, they killed a man... A man that had killed an innocent little girl and got away with it. The justice system had failed them and the Armstrongs. Did you expect them to let Daisy's murder go unpunished? If Casetti could get away with killing an innocent child, why couldn't they get away with killing that worthless child killer?
@@magallanesagustin4952 What if they were wrong? What if he was actually innocent of the crime, and they killed him anyway?
The moment they decided on that sort of sordid revenge, these people became worthless themselves.
@@Ares99999 only that Casetti wasn't innocent and so, they weren't worthless at all. You're worthless only when you kill innocent people. Casetti wasn't innocent.
The system failed them and it also failed the Armstrongs. Did you expect them to be ok with the one that caused everything walk free and happy and unpunished?
@@Ares99999
What if he was actually innocent? He was not. In the novel and in this movie, some irrefutable elements of proof are mentionned, but the whole judgement was rigged in his favour by his maffia clan.
This film version had an absolutely terrible repetitive soundtrack
Greta Ohlsson’s lines in this version border on blasphemy. She uses an erroneous part of the King James Bible of 1611 (the first part of John chapter 8, specifically verses 1-11, a group of verses which does not exist in the earlier, most reliable Greek texts and must have been added around the time the Bible was being translated from Hebrew and Greek into Latin, before the time of the earliest English Bibles) to justify taking the law into her own hands. Poirot is the more godly one of the two. Ratchett was a terrible man, who deserved to die, but it was wrong of them to stoop down to his level and resort to violence. They are right that human law failed them, of that there is no doubt. But I remember a Scripture that says, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the LORD” (Note: LORD in all caps in most Bibles is the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, translated YHWH, sometimes rendered “Yahweh” or “Jehovah”) - Romans 12:19, likely quoting Deuteronomy 32:35; compare Hebrews 10:30. Also the sixth of the Ten Commandments - “You must not murder,” or “Thou shalt not kill.” (Exodus 20:13). Christians are not obligated to follow every aspect of the Code of Moses, but it gives insight into how God views such matters as murder and revenge.