A big scar from a wound like that would leave areas without mustache follicles. Trying to grow a mustache would make those areas more noticeable not hide them.
I once heard in an interview with David Suchet, and I'm not sure who said it, but that his portrayal allowed the audience to laugh with Poirot, not at him, and I think it's very true. Also, Poirot's character flaws made me love him, not dislike him
I believe that was something Agatha Christie's daughter asked/demanded of Suchet during a meeting they had when he took on the role. It sounded like she was very protective of the character, which evidently Suchet understood... And I don't think is being carried over in Branagh's version...
Poirot faced a lot of racism. But he quickly handled it with dignity. David Suchet worked extremely hard to learn about and portray Poirot. He accepted the fact that he was always mistaken for being French, and would quickly correct that person. He did have friends as we saw in some of the final episodes. David Suchet is the ultimate Poirot and his portrayal over many seasons has become classic whereas Branagh’s will be quickly forgotten. I know the Christie heirs approved of David. But I wonder if the current relatives approve of Branagh’s interpretation.
Obviously you haven't read the books that Suchet supposedly studied to perfect his character. It is also clear that you are believing Suchet's media hype that stated he nailed the character perfectly and was exactly like what Christie wrote. He wasn't accurate. In fact, Suchet only read a few stories and a couple of novels and based his interpretation on those few stories, which meant he missed out on the entirety of Poirot's character. He did NOT accept the fact that he was mistaken for French, if he accepted it he wouldn't quickly correct that person! He did NOT really have friends, as we saw in the novels and stories Agatha Christie wrote. The "friendships" you are referring to were invented for the t.v. series starring David Suchet. Those friendships didn't exist in the novels and stories, other than a minor friendship with Hastings, which wasn't anything like what Agatha Christie wrote in her books. If you're going to defend David Suchet's portrayal, and make comments about Poirot's characteristics, at least make sure you know what you're talking about. Read the stories instead of blindly assuming the t.v. adaptations were correct because most of the time they weren't.
@@kugelwegI think that you are very much in the minority with your opinions and I also think you didn't interpret the comment correctly. And yes - I have read all the books.
I agree with this 100%; also, if you read the short story Chocolate Box Hasting describes Poriot's vanity as harmless, meaning he doesn't know he's doing it. Suchet does a much better job of giving us that trait than Branagh. Branagh was like, "I Hercule Poirot." every ten seconds, and that drove me mad to the point where I wanted to turn the movie off. It's a small detail that is important to the character.
Branagh will never get anyone’s approval for his sorry portrayal of a great character like Poirot. Suchet was treated like royalty in Belgian in a documentary he was in called being Poirot. Belgian people recognise him immediately and absolutely love him. There’s no way Branagh would ever get that kind of treatment. Suchet didn’t need to act, he just was Poirot and fleshed out a character that everyone loves and still will love for years to come.
One does not necessarily contradict the other. One can be polite and gentle, but still have annoying ticks and habits that test other people's patience.
Actually you are wrong. I realize you either haven't read or perhaps didn't understand the Poirot novels. Poirot was quite bombastic, rude, arrogant, and often unkind when it suited his purposes. Any Poirot fan knows that. He was known to rant and rave while calling people stupid. I realize Ustinov and Suchet played him as if he were kind and gentle, but he had a cranky streak in him, and he used it to meet his own ends.
I was a fan of Agatha Christie’s Poirot during my teenage years, read most if not all Poirot books. To me David Suchet is the best Poirot as described in the books. Albert Finney was a close second!
I love this video, from how you dissect what made Suchet's performance special and unique and how Branagh went wrong with his understanding of the character and his vision for the franchise. Currently watching Agatha Christie's Poirot and David Suchet is just magnifique, just like how Jeremy Brett did with Sherlock Holmes. ( IMO, the 2 definitive live-action adaptations of the great detectives) Can't wait for your video essay on Moffat's Sherlock and if it's possible to compare Cumberbatch's performance with Brett's, just like this one did, as I find the BBC show to be quite a poorly-adapted iteration of the original ACD stories and a huge disservice to SH's overall character too. Really looking foward to it!
Thank you for watching!! Brett perfectly embodies Sherlock imo, whenever I read a Holmes story its his look and voice that pops in my head. A Moffat v Brett analysis is definitely in my queue, I especially want to explore how Brett got so immersed in the role he actually started having hallucinations about the character.
@@hassledvania Thanks so much for replying!! You might already know this, but Brett, during the Granada show's airing, like Suchet, also had on set a 77-page "Baker Street File" on all things about Holmes. And during each episode's prodution, if Brett found out that the director made some changes to the story, he'd be furious. Just saying, the guy loved Holmes and damn if he didn't make that love and passion clear through his performance.
Ah, this might be one of the best videos that I've come across in a while. Thanks a ton for making it. As a fat, bald(ing) man myself, I found Poirot's obsession with his moustache, his most aesthetically pleasing visual trait, very compelling and sympathetic. Wouldn't have realized that without you :)
Thank you! Thank you! I was immediately outraged by Branagh's moustache but suffered through the Orient Express just to see if it explored new aspects to improve or clarify that classic (which it did not). But Death on the Nile completely repelled me as being so Un-Poirot and completely Un-Agatha Christie as to be unrecognizable and foul. But I did not bother to examine why and I find your analysis impeccable and necessary. I would sentence Branagh to be forced to view this video and to issue an Apology to the World for perverting these stories and characters merely for his own ego, for I see nothing in his reboots which are not simply promiscuous and unnecessary. I am so thankful to find your analysis for it soothed a lurking rage which had been irking me. Well done Sir!
Regarding the lack of a back story of Poirot, he was an exile after the first world war. He left everything behind, so also his back story. By giving him a back story they remove the fact that Poirot had to make a new start in a new country.
Suchet's Poirot is almost sacred to me, so I have avoided these new films like the plague as I, too, was deterred by the moustache. So I'm seeing clips of these films for the first time and like.. I'm just in shock. Poirot would NEVER run. Chase scenes are not someting he does. That job goes to Hastings and Japp if it's needed. Also, as a side note, I find Suchet's Poirot to be quite a lovable character. He's cute and, if you are a nice person, very gentle natured. Of course he's sometimes a bit annoying and his principles very strict, but hey, that's a human character. Likeable but each with their own flaws
Poirot's mustache was described as being ridiculously enormous, immense, and gigantic. Branagh is the only one to portray the mustache as described by Agatha Christie! The mustache that took ME a long time to overcome was the silly mustache that Suchet wore. I thought they looked silly, but then I realized that they helped show the nature of Poirot in terms of being fussy, vain, and totally different from normal people. You're right. Poirot normally didn't run, he was much to old, being in his 80's and older throughout the Christie stories. However, David Suchet's Poirot did run, in The Big Four and The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, so I'm assuming your criticism also applies to Suchet, for running when according to you Poirot never ran. Suchet IS adorable as Poirot. However, Poirot was a bit of a jerk in the books. He was arrogant, bombastic, and ridiculously vain. Suchet didn't play the character that way, with good reason. Suchet made the character likeable, which is a bit of a departure from the character that Agatha Christie wrote. I prefer Suchet to the written works that his character is based on. As a side note of my own, Poirot's "principals" were not very strict at all. He changed his mind as to whether crime was acceptable or not on a case to case basis, like when he allowed the culprits from Murder on the Orient Express to go free, and even suggested a story to help them get away with it (Suchet played the character differently, of course, not at all like the Agatha Christie story). Poirot aided and abetted some elderly housekeepers in Labors of Hercules (he even gave them money to help them get away with their crime). Don't use Suchet's portrayal as your proof of Poirot's exact nature, because Poirot did not behave like Suchet's rendition. Cheers to you and keep on loving Agatha Christie.
@@kugelwegKB moustache wasn’t ‘correct’ at all because Poirot would never allow his hair to go grey or his moustache to be all bushy and out of control. DS moustache is correct because it’s black and neat and fancy like a posh French or Belgian moustache should look. And Poirot only ran in the scenes you mentioned because his life was at risk.
@@suzie_lovescats Good to see you again! You are correct that the moustache should be black and not grey. However, in the book Murder on the Orient Express, Poirot was described as a "little man with enormous moustaches". So a large mustache is what Christie repeatedly described. In his autobiography Suchet explained that he didn't wear a large moustache because they "swallowed" his face and he looked like a walrus. I'm not making any of this up. This information comes from reading the Christie novels and Suchet's book.
Kenneth's mustache is so freaky looking that I would be looking at it instead of the show. David Suchet's Poirot I loved even all his quirks on David they were endearing and it made me chuckle when poor Miss Lemon was his secretary. Even how Poirot treated Captain Hastings was so funny since Hastings was so clueless like having a new puppy around.
I have just discovered that the "Bombastic Little Freak" line from DotN (2022) was a direct quote from Christie herself in 1960. That is a nice little detail I would have mentioned if I knew.
Little thing, but, the amount of scarring on the Branagh Poirot, wouldn't that mean he wouldn't be able to grow a moustache all over it? I mean, deep scar tissue damages the hair follicles, doesn't it? It'd be like maybe half his face w facial hair and half without and scarring instead?
Yeah it feels like a really odd last minute thing. Not only would it prevent hairs growing, but the size of the mustache clearly shouldnt cover up the size of the scars haha
A year ago I went on a trip with the Orient Express (albeit just to Venice). Among other things the David Suchet film shows how cramped it actually is on board that particular train, whereas Kenneth Branagh's film leaves you with a strange feeling of spaciousness - just one tiny objection among many as your video so admirably documents. Thank you so much! Fond greetings from Denmark
Actually there was a novel where Poirot did get a scar on his lip, I think he wore a fake mustache after but it was as a double bluff posing as his twin brother Edit. It happens in “the big four”
Great analysis. I totally agree Branagh’s Poirot is abhorrent! I love Agatha Christie and particularly like comparing the various adaptations and how they represent the original version. So I forced myself to sit through Branagh’s monster children. Death on the Nile was especially awful where they not only changed Poirot’s character but also a back story giving him entirely different motivations. Just wrong.
Excellent analysis 👏👏 the TV series adaptation has always been the one I loved, and I can never imagine Poirot being different. The new version lacks personality, atmosphere and cohesion for me, and as you've pointed out, they did try to make Poirot more 'relatable', while stripping him of all the quirky personality in the process, making him quite bland in the process to the point he's not Poirot anymore. Also, the accent used by Branagh for the character annoyed me even in the trailer, and the only reason i even went to see the movie was literally me needing to spend some time in between jobs in the afternoon and that movie being the only one i have not yet seen in the local cinema. The way he speaks sounds very forced to me.
Hercule poirot's serie with David Suchet has been my hyperfixation for the longest time, if there is a TV near me, I WILL watch Hercule Poirot. The music of the first few seasons is seared into my mind. I love how flawed the original character is, and I don't really like how "flat" they made him in the modern adaptation, and missed some of the most fundamentals of Hercule Poirot as you outlined so well :( (ps : Sorry for bad english, I am French, not Belgian)
David Suchet ís the ultimate Poirot, but honestly, Peter Ustinov deserves some credit too. I think he did amazing in Death on the Nile and the 1978 adaptation might be my favourite poirot adaptation overall (possible unpopular opinion, I know). Mostly because it stands well on it's own. As you mentioned: Suchet's characterisation of Poirot is so strong in the long run over the series, but Ustinov does a great job as a standalone portrayal of the character.
He annoys Poirot's vanity to the point where I want to go into the TV and yell at him. The whole point of the vanity trait is that he DOESN'T know that he is doing it (this is explained by hastings in the short story Chocolate Box). If you want a good portrayal of Poriot, go watch the BBC version with David Suchet.
Oh, Five Little Pigs is one of my favorites from David Suchet's Poirot TV series. It's an example of how to put an emotional weight on the new casts that we barely know. That case was heartbreaking, even more than Bouc's scene in the most recent Death on the Nile movie.
Your talk about how they sexied up Poirot and Sherlock makes me remember when a playwright was adapting Agatha’s “Murder of Roger Ackroyd” and forced Agatha to let him youngen the age of a character or the opposite would be making Poirot a young lady’s man *(shivers in disgust)*
Thank you for the really good video! I'm also in David Suchet team. Definetly do the anime review too! I enjoyed it a lot when it came out as a Poirot fan. Also if you can read visual novels: Uminekos Erika Furudo is based on Poirot, I think you could make a good video of her too :D
I’ve loved Poirot since I was in middle school and now that my OCD has gotten more invasive in my life I relate to him even more. It’s not a crutch for him like it is in other stories with characters with OCD, it is actually a huge asset to his job. I know exactly when someone else has touched any of my things because I am so particular about where I put everything so seeing that in a detective work of fiction is incredibly validating and it makes me feel like this disorder is more of a superpower than a debilitation. People have told me that I should be a detective because of my attention to detail and it makes me happy every time because it’s almost like I’m Poirot! I am currently in the middle of reading every one of his stories and it’s fun to read them in order so I can go on this journey with him! (As a person who has had OCD for over 2 decades I believe that he has OCD, especially since he needs his eggs the same size and he lines up books from smallest to largest, not to mention countless other instances)
Im also diagnosed with OCD and again do not feel he has it. Its really not a depicting of an anxiety disorder, its a choice to be neat and perfunctory - a key separational element here. Having said that, there are benefits that come with OCD and I would not discourage you from viewing the condition through that lens.
I came here after I started listening to David Suchet's reading of Murder on the Orient Express. It's absolutely brilliant! It is amazing to hear him portray all of the characters. Highly recommend to all fans of Suchet and the ITV series.
Watching this video after suffering through The Haunting in Venice and especially what they did to Ariadne Oliver in that movie (not to spoil too much but Poirot is not the only character who needs to be attractive, thin and without their original character flaws). I would really enjoy a breakdown of that movie if you get around to it, it suffered from so many flaws you criticized in this video. This video sums up very well the things that annoy me about Branagh's Poirot and also the things I love about Suchet's portrayal. I am really not against change when it adds something fascinating to the character (like if we compare the book ending of Orient Express to Suchet's ending, it's very different, but it doesn't make Suchet's ending any less compelling). I also personally really liked the new ABC Murders with John Malkovich. The series highlighted Poirot's vanity in an interesting way and re-invented Poirot's backstory in a way that re-framed everything the viewer knows about the character. Great video and many great points!
Nailed it as always! Your pacing is incredibly strong, and you got a lot of chuckles out of me with your jokes haha You came up with points that wouldn't occur to most people! Can't wait for more 😎
6:40 Excellent point. One of my biggest issues with film today, is when no effort is made to keep a character's uniqueness. It's particularly egregious with period pieces, where there's also no effort at preserving the look or idiom of a particular time. Whether set in ancient Rome or Merry Olde England, everyone looks like they've jumped off the cover of a cheap Hollywood magazine.
The scene at the start of the first Branagh "Poirot" movie where Poirot steps on shit is... honestly one of the most fascinating scenes on recent cinema to me... And no, I'm not kidding. When he steps on it he pauses for a moment and then steps on it again on his other foot... ...And I'll argue that for a moment the writer was on to something that could make me say; "Yes! They got it! That's Poirot!" The man keen of symmetry. As disgusting as it is to him it was the "lesser evil" to him in order for his shoes to remain symmetric. I'm not saying he ain't known for his nearly sickening tidyness and elegance, but I am saying that (as said) I'll argue that for a moment - for a single, brief, fleeting moment - they got Poirot on the film. ....But then on the otherhand it is Poirot stepping on shit solely for a poo-poo humor joke showing no respect at all for the character and/or story they're trying to adapt here, so *** all I said previously... The scene sent the message loud and clear... this was gonna be one of "those" movies, and I've not seen the sequels nor I plan to... As said, it's just... so baffling yet fascinating scene to me. For five seconds they get everything so, SO right, yet so magnificently wrong. They show they understood what they need to go for, yet they show they give absolutely zero **** to all that.... And all at the same time during those five'ish seconds... The scene it a true five seconds of art if I've ever seen something like it...
I'll also add that while Poirot values order very highly, he's not someone with OCD. As such, he puts a lot of effort into his appearance and how to live his life - but he's not so lost to this ideal what he'd willingly step in poo because he can't help himself.
15.48, a great point. Poirot has what he has described as "a bourgeois attitude to murder". In one of the stories (I forget which) he even admits that there are some people who might deserve to be murdered, but still disapproves of murder *for its effect on the murderer*. He sees this as different from killing in for example, war, because there one doesn't excercise "private judgement" (I can't remember which story that was in either) It makes the ending of Curtain when he finally murders Norton himself all the more shocking. In the book, if I remember rightly, Poirot says he has two solutions to lay before Bouc and Constantine (a doctor who is written out of the Branaugh film). The first solution he lays before them is that a stranger boarded the train at Vincovci and escaped through the snow. They point out several issues with this theory. He warns them not to discount it and suggests his second (correct) solution. Bouc and Constantine choose the first solution and Poirot agrees that that is the solution he will lay before the Yugoslav police. It's a similar principle to the Sherlock Holmes short story The Adventure of the Abbey Grange, in which Holmes, before presenting his case, appoints Watson as the "British jury" and Watson, having heard all the evidence and heard the backstory of the accused, declares him "not guilty".
I have watched the Orient Express section of your video and find it well thought out and presented, with one exception: that being comparing Suchet's and Branagh's attitude towards the culprits. For all the praise given to Suchet's (otherwise excellently performed) outrage that these people have taken the law into their own hands, in the book Poirot is implicitly on their side all along. He first proposes the fake explanation, and when Dr Constantinou objects that it is full of holes, Poirot tells him to reserve his judgement after he has heard the second explanation, since he thinks he will then find the first one more agreeable. At the end, he leaves the fate of the passengers to Bouc, knowing full well that he will grant them mercy. This decision doesn't seem to weigh too heavily on him; in fact, in "Cards on the Table" he lets a character see the murder weapon the train company gave him as a souvenir, casually revealing that it was used by twelve people stabbing the same man. I doubt that he would have been this forthcoming if the case's denouement had traumatized him. It is also not the only time that book Poirot has let his personal sense of morality or justice interfere with the rule of law. For example, in "Death on the Nile", he tells Mrs Allerton that he anticipated Jackie would commit suicide, and that he wished for this outcome. He lets Tim Allerton and Mrs. van Schuyler off the hook for thievery. He also sits back and allows the culprit of "The Hollow" to accidentally poison herself rather than turn her in. Now, I have to say Suchet's portrayal as Poirot is unparalleled, and the series as a whole is excellent. I will also go further and admit that Poirot's change in "Orient Express" to a man holding the rule of law paramount makes a large amount of sense in the frame of the series' overarching narrative. In the series, this story is placed close to the end of Poirot's career, where we can expect him to be more world-weary and jaded. Most importantly it is close to "Curtain", when Poirot himself is faced with a situation similar to the one of the Orient Express passengers, and struggles with resolving it to his satisfaction. However, given that you are discussing how one adaptation has succeeded where another has failed, I would be interested in hearing your perspective on why Suchet's adaptation deviating from the book's portrayal of Poirot on this particular point is, in your opinion, less objectionable to Branagh's.
Being german, i , Brittas boyfriend, like both Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot, and detective stories playing between 1880s, and about 1940 ( yes, i am a nostalgic). But we in Germany have no detective literature, playing in this era, so i like Holmes and Poirot, in the TV shows with David Suchet, to some degree also Peter Ustinov, the atmosphere of ,upperclass' and ,britishness' is well described, for me as a german. When watching Brannaghs ,Death on the Nile' some months ago in a german cinema, of course dubbed in german, i was totally disappointed. The ,british upperclass' atmosphere was not existing, it was more an US Hipster atmosphere, the persons act not like persons of 1930s, but as current persons. For political correctness/ wokeness reasons, the nationatility and skin colour has changed, some acting characters are added/ missing, the lesbian thing of Mrs. van Schuyler and her maid etc., no necessary reason for this changes. The main character, Hercule Poirot is wrong interpreted, he was ( as a man in his 70s in 1930s) to agile, also Poirot, as described by Suchet and Ustinov, is not a man interessted in fighting. Brannaghs mustache ( in german Schnurrbart) is totally impossible. And finally, as a person , interessted in history, there are historical mistakes. When i know Poirots fictional biography correct, he was born in 1860s, was for a long time serving in belgian police, leaved belgian police because of problems with police hirarchy and bureaucracy to become a private investigator and fleed (?) to Great Brittain, when 1914 german troops invaded Belgium. But he was no soldier ( well in those days paramilitary police existed everywhere as Gendarmerie, but at start of wwl men arround 50 years usually served in rearline, not frontline units, not at frontline, also poison gas was in 1914 not used. Not to mention the short trousers of female ship crew members in 1930s muslim Egypt.
As you said, changes aren't all bad. The Suchet series already made Poirot kinder and more considerate than the books, so much that most of the show's humour comes from him being unfailingly polite, not him being fussy. And of course they added Hastings and Japp to almost every episode. But I think these changes make it work better as a TV series. For what it's worth, I don't think Branagh's Death on the Nile is bad (apart from the brief WWI backstory). And his Orient Express is bad but it made me think "I wonder if that old TV show covered this?" which is what got me into Poirot.
It's strange that many modern adaptations fundamentally change classic characters then rely on your knowledge of that character for the drama - calling out, subverting or responding to character traits that DON'T EXIST in their version. It feels like a fanfic writer trying to squeeze in multiple "interesting takes" simultaneously without ever looking at their work on its own.
Embarrassing as it is to admit I stayed away from Agatha Christy because I had a misconception that she was soft like Cozy Mystries. I was a bookseller and student of English Lit who never read the best selling author of all time right behind Shakespeare and the Bible. Conan Doyle I had covered. During lockdown I discovered the David Sushet Poirot. Wow was I shamed and thrilled! I absorbed this series and won't even say how many times I have watched some episodes. Then I read the books. Wow again. Some have more plot than the series, some less. When people have to go back to books and candles, which may be sooner rather later, we can make the interpretations for ourselves. Which you'll like once you get used to it!
"Moffat is such a hack" I wholeheartdly agree, and I clicked the suscribe button in hopes you'll elaborate further on that one day XD Oh and thank you for mentioning the C. J. Sansom novels! I had never heard of them, and I'm always looking for a good historical mystery!
Actually, I found the emphasis on his Catholicism in the Suchet adaptation of Orient Express to be uncalled for and jarring. I felt it was more representative of the actor (a very devout Christian) than of Poirot (who was religious... but not THAT religious). I also wasn't fond of the changes made to Death on the Nile. In many ways, I consider the Ustinov version to be the superior, even though I prefer Suchet's Poirot to his, on the whole. Please note: All these qualms are about Suchet. Because pointing out what few flaws and faults his stories had are easy for being few. I have nothing to say of the... New movies... whose faults are legion, as you pointed out, above. Edit: I just got to the bit where you say it's ridiculous to see Poirot being interested in a woman or nervous around her. But... Vera Rosakoff?
Vera Rosakoff did come to mind, but I didnt bother bringing it up as his feelings were limited to admiring her from a great distance in a couple of lines. The idea of growing that into kissing photographs, and mumbling incoherently around a woman he fancies I feel is very at odds with his character. In other words, the one time he is drawn to a woman its a very chaste and closed admiration, and he lacks any further interest in the remaining 82 stories. It has even been argued that he may be asexual, which I do disagree with because of Rosakoff. But I do feel he is not a character who pursues romance, and definitely not as doggedly as Branagh's. Thanks for the question, it is an interesting area of the character!
David Suchet was spot on but the Captain in that series was horrendous! He comes across as just plain silly and stupid… there is no ways a man who had gone through the First World War, fought in the trenches, been wounded and had been a Captain, would be anything like he was portrayed. He would have been the level-headed, practical, intelligent and he would have kept his eccentric, silly friend in enough check to have been able to function in society.
The same could be said of Dr Watson. He’s too frequently portrayed as inept. Surely a doctor would have more intelligence than the bumbling clod often seen in the Sherlock movies.
41.51. This reminds me of, of all things, that BBC Dracula adaptation from a while back. They made Van Helsing an atheist *why* exactly? When in the novel he was a man of strong faith.
I have seen the 1970s (Albert Finny) and the Kenneth Branagh versions. Completely agree with you about Branagh’s moustache - yuk. I have not seen Suchet’s version of Orient Express. It sounds brilliant.
Thank you so much for making this video. I agree with so much of what you said. It's a real shame what these works are doing to potentially new fans--turning them off to a great character and stories. May I ask what your issue was in the 'Roger Ackroyd' episode with David Suchet. I rather liked that episode and that story is so good, so I'd love to hear your thoughts
Not to go too much into it becuase of spoilers but they took THAT interesting twist and instead of even trying to adapt it, they scaled it all back to make it a more regular case. Even threw in an action scene at the end, bit of a shame imo! Ofcourse Suchet is as great as ever, love the marrow scene
@@hassledvania Thank you! I need to reread the book to have a firm opinion one way or the other, but you got me thinking and piqued my interest. Again, thanks for the video!
I have enjoyed some of Branagh's work in the past, but I am amazed that he seems to have zero understanding of how to present a mystery. I loved Dead Again. I can't figure out what happened with the Poirot adaptations. It's as though the director/writer completely forgot that these stories are, first and foremost, mysteries.
This is a very well-made video! My only exposure to Christie has been the Branagh films and the original Orient Express book. I need to dive deeper into the stories and check out more of the novels and Suchet films. And also what's that Sherlock Holmes show you kept using for footage? It looks interesting.
My biggest problem with Death on the Nile is very simple: the number of characters they cut. Cornelia Robson and Miss Bowers are combined into one character. Mr Ferguson is cut. Tim Allerton is cut.
Of course you are 100% right. But, perhaps, by resorting to psychology, there is a simple explanation to the blunder committed by Branagh: he is a histrionic narcissistic egomaniac that does not care for accuracy to the character, and turns it into a kind of OCD James Bond, but without the lust.
Well, in the book (Murder on Orient Express) Poirot has no problem letting the culprits go, and even suggests it himself. Honestly, I think it is better than Granada's adaptation.
I mostly agree. The new one is pretty bad in lots of way. But I will say it. I did not like Orient Express with Suchet. Yes, Suchet is perfect Poirot playing his role perfectly... I love Suchet as Poirot. But that ending was really out of character for Poirot. Poirot is not the way you or the 2010 version depicted them. Truth is his ultimate goal, not the justice as it functions in the world. It is shown how he clash sooo many times with police and other detectives in other books (Murder on the Links for example). He sometimes wants to make people happy (he let the jewelry thief from Karnac escape with his new love)... and it was HE... I repeat HE who was first ready to drop this particular case in this particular train from the moment he found the whole truth. He was the one who suggested the version with thief from outside and then he calmly and with elegance dropped the case. He is not justice mad. 2010 version kinda ruined his character too. I hated it, it was clearly really strong part of the movie but so much out of character for ever elegant Poirot to be so tense. He is angry when someone is lying but this was soo different. His catholic side is sometimes mentioned in books too but here it was above the norm too. And the part with interrogations and finding clues was pretty weak compared to books. The beginning of the movie with that city stoning scene was bad too. I am sorry. I love Poirot, Christies books and I think new version of movie is bad... but so is 2010 version.
Glad someone else said it. The Suchet is so absurd to anyone who read the book. Poirot regularly covered up indiscretions, affairs, and lies of his own accord. The murder in Evil under the sun only happens because Poirot agrees to cover up an extra marital rendezvous.
I was a huge fan of the earlier films with Ustinov and Finney so I saw the newer "Murder on the Orient Express" and I nearly walked out. It was bbaadd... Brannagh was doing Poirot as a Shakespeare character and that's a bad choice. When in Brannagh's film he had all the suspects sitting in chairs in the cave while he performed his sanctimonious speech it was difficult for me to believe that he's British adapting a British story and still doesn't get it. "Murder on the Orient Express"'s coolness comes from they all did it and Poirot's ego needs him to solve the crime, but also to exit the train without getting murdered because he's trapped in there with murders. That all goes away when you put them in a cave where Poirot is not in danger anymore. They should have just re-released the original 1974 version and it would have gotten more praise.
The problem with movies is that Hollywood doesn’t set out to make good movies, they set out to make profitable ones. If they happen to turn out to be good, hey that’s a bonus, but that’s not the goal anymore. (Obviously, there are movies being made that don’t fit this generalization but it is the vast majority, look at how many sequels we get to movies that were profitable but not necessarily “good”) I listened to something on Suchet and it delighted me how well researched he was on the character, if they made him do something poirot wouldn’t do he’d stand his ground until he got to do it the right way. He WAS Poirot.
👍Good for you! I despise the current fashion of "improving" classics to better suit the tastes of "modern" audiences. Enough is enough. I also think that Suchet is absolutely the definitive Poirot. BUT... the writers of the Suchet Orient Express episode managed to completely botch his turn at "Murder on the Orient Express", which has been adapted five 5 or six times now that I know of. As you note, they introduced a newly invented backstory subplot which altered the entire tone of the narrative, both to it's detriment and to the detriment of Poirot's character IMO. Their overblown moral dilemma/condemnation climax sucks too, and is nothing like the book. Yes, Poirot believes in lawful punishment, but has been known to turn a blind eye in other cases, and without becoming a broken man as seen here. Newcomers shouldn't bother with the Branagh version which is even worse - instead go for the 1974 movie with Albert Finney as Poirot opposite an all-star Old Hollywood cast. It's both a delightful film in it's own right and an excellent introduction to both Poirot and Christie .
Yes, thank you! In the book he turned a blind eye quite easily, without any internal moral fight and praying! As much as I love the series with David Suchet, this is one thing that has been changed quite heavily. (However, there are many changes in the series as well. But I love it anyway.) 👍
In the book, if I remember rightly, Poirot says he has two solutions to lay before Bouc and Constantine (a doctor who is written out of the Branaugh film). The first solution he lays before them is that a stranger boarded the train at Vincovci and escaped through the snow. They point out several issues with this theory. He warns them not to discount it and suggests his second (correct) solution. Bouc and Constantine choose the first solution and Poirot agrees that that is the solution he will lay before the Yugoslav police. It's a similar principle to the Sherlock Holmes short story The Adventure of the Abbey Grange, in which Holmes, before presenting his case, appoints Watson as the "British jury" and Watson, having heard all the evidence and heard the backstory of the accused, declares him "not guilty".
@@AgnesPerditaX IIRC, in the beginning of the Suchet "Orient Express" they show him responding to the execution of a woman guilty of adultery (in a Muslim country) by saying she broke the law, therefore she must pay the price. I stopped watching after that, even though I like the series. Poirot has frequently described himself as a "bourgeois" man with bourgeois values. He is quite conservative. As such, he would have condemned any law from a foreign culture he disapproved of as "barbaric". He is not a fanatic obsessed with the law.
I agree that softening up of Poirot (like turning Holmes into a male model) just does not work. It isn't that Branaugh did a bad job of acting, per se, but his version of Poirot is not fascinating, not compelling, not nearly as real or powerful as Suchet's version (although I think it might be better than Ustinov's and much better than Tony Randall's). If you are going to re-imagine Poirot (or Holmes, or Dracula, or Zorro, or Batman) that is fine. But this only works if your re-imagining is a deep dive into something really, really compelling. Thus I enjoyed the BBC's SHERLOCK with Benedict Cumberbatch very much. Likewise I ended up loving THE ABC MURDERS with John Malkovitch of all people as Poirot! Because that re-imagination was not an exercise in making Poirot or the murder more bland. Just the opposite! I was utterly startled at how gripping that version turned out! Especially given the extremely high quality of Suchet's version! Wow! I will also not I still think Suchet's MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS is the best version. And the Soviet version of AND THEN THERE WERE NONE was the best version of that story. Branaugh's ORIENT EXPRESS felt like someone fiddling with details to try and come up with a more conventional Hollywood formula. The acting overall did much to try and overcome that, but there were limits. They did all they could. But in the end, I don't think the re-imagination worked, because it was less compelling in the end, not more. From what I've read the third movie is based on HALLOWEEN, which is changing the location in a big, big, big way. I dunno. I'm not enthusiastic.
Did you every see the very popular US tv serious “Monk”. The Poirot version you described is basically the character Monk (who may be himself an Americanize Poirot mixed with very heavy dosed of OCD)
Before you talk about these films, I'll summarise what I think of them. I think that they're pretty good as films, if completely divorced from the books, but lacking as adaptations of the books. I would recommend the films to someone who hadn't read the books and was never going to read the books-- after all, the plot is interesting, and the visuals are nice. However, seen as adaptations of the books, they leave much to be desired. My great issue with Murder on the Orient Express was the fact that Doctor Constantine's character was removed. In the book, Constantine is travelling in another compartment (I think a slip-coach from Athens?) and Poirot's luggage, at first in, I think, with MacQueen, is moved into the slip-coach with Constantine (because the murderers had booked the train full, with a non-existent Mr Harris, but when Mr Harris did not arrive and Poirot wanted to travel, he was allowed into Mr Harris' bunk as a personal friend of Bouc-- the murderers had not factored the railway company making exceptions for friends of theirs). On the night of the murder, the connecting doors between coaches are shut. In the morning, Constantine helps Poirot with the medical evidence, as someone who is not a suspect. In the film, his character is merged with that of Colonel Armstrong, so when Armstrong gives the medical evidence, it's from the position of a suspect. Armstrong gives the correct medical evidence-- but why? Why not lie? Why is it so hard to cast one more character for this very expensive film who only has to be paid for five minutes of screen time? It was this that made me doubt if the scriptwriter understands detective novels.
My second major issue, was that Count Andrenyi did not replace his wife as a murderer. This firstly ruins the point of having twelve murderers which is important in the book. Now there are thirteen. More importantly I think it takes away a bit of the characterisation in a story with a large cast where we need all the charactrisation we can get. A man who deeply loves his young wife, who despite her painful life is of a nervous disposition and not the stabbing kind, and wants to protect her, to the point of committing a crime that risks his own life for her. You have free characterisation there-- use it!
I wish you’d mention Albert Finney’s Poiroit, as that version was one that Agatha Christie saw and apparently enjoyed, although she thought his mustache was too small.
Boiling down all characters - especially a canonical Christian, whose faith will centre around being a flawed human - to the same bland mush is a real pitfall of modern media, but it's especially clear with adaptations. Good work, really enjoyed this! 😊
Interesting video. I agree with the points you raised on Bragnah's Poirot and the comparison with Suchet version of the character make them even more relevant and raise well the different issues, flaws and weaknesses of the new interpretation. I would like to put my own analysis on the matter which could complete or emphasize differents aspects of your videos while making some personal stances on Bragnah's choices. I think the main mistake in Bragnah's versions (especially MOTOE as it was Riddley Scott's choice in 2013 before Kenneth Bragnah was chosen to direct the adaptation) was to adapt two stories that were already adapted in previous and succesful versions (1978 for DOTN while MOTOE was adapted in the 1974 film, 2010 David Suchet's version and 2001 telefilm which is IMO better than Bragnah's version). The problem with the two movies is that they follow previous versions that deeply gave tribute to the original stories (in the case of MOTOE, 1974 movie reflects the Christie's atmosphere while MOTOE emphasizes on the realistic part of such a case and the character's dilemma), making any new version more difficult to leave a personal print. This kind of issue and challenge tend to bring new directors to try new directions to make their version unique (unless they are tempted to fall to nostalgia's easiness (Disney's clones)). Bragnah attempts to bring a new version of the character that wasn't a clone of Suchet's version (which is the epitome of Poirot's depiction in regard to Agatha Christie's depiction), but IMO partly failed in doing so. I said "partly" because of the issue of making a new version of stories that were already adapted. It is particularly true for MOTOE as the nature of the story prevented Bragnah and the screenwriter to truly explore the characters in new ways (and how could they have done it without truly changing the story (though it might have been better) as it is a story in a claustrophobic atmosphere with almost every character guilty of the crime). As a result, they try to make the special prints in the action scenes and the overreaction of some characters, but doing so created many issues in the narrative structure and in the story and characters consistencies. While not perfect (I agree with you concerning the dancing scene which takes too much time and is overtop concerning its sexual innuendos), DOTN is IMO better than MOTOE and reflects more Bragnah's stance on Poirot, especially with his "shapespearian" approach of the character. I don't have issues with the new background of the character (we have Suchet's version and it is much better than Malkovich's version which suggested that Poirot was a priest that was traumatized by german destruction of his church with his parishioners, making the scene something more unsubtle than the church burning scene of Roland Emmerich's "The Patriot" (which by the way I love)) as it allows Bragnah's version of the character to be his own and not a mere copy of his predecessors. I love the new stance on the mustache as it gives some kind of symbol on this version of the character (the reminder of his former love and the need to hide his weakness and in some cases, proud people are people that tend to hide their weaknesses and flaws behind violence/arrogance/narcissism...). The fact he shaves the mustache at the end of the movie symbolizes the fact he finally put his former love's shadow and his fears behind himself in order to be able to move on. I think DONT works better than MOTOE because there are more possibilities in exploring and developping new perspectives in the characters and their interactions. Was it better ? Of course not, the social comment and some parts (i.e the mexican standoff in the end of the movie even if I like mrs Otterbourne's reaction, suggesting she is ready to protect her niece and Poirot) can be awkward and needless. I agree with you on the awkward attempt to explore Poirot's flaws as there was not enough materials in Bragnah's versions to truly comment on them, even if I like this attempt. I personnaly think that this attempt works the best with Bouc's death as it is indirectly Poirot's fault since he confronts his friend in presence of Simon Doyle. While it weakens Poirot's loneliness, it gives to this version of the character an emotional moment as he is confronted to loss and regret (especially as he indirectly prevents Rosalie Otterbourne and Bouc to have their "happy ending"). I think this DOTN version works better as a "shakespearian" whodunnit than as an "Christie" whodunnit because of the emotional dimension of the story and the thematic insistance on love (the passionate love of Jacqueline and Simon, the one-sided love of Linnet for Simon, the hidden love between miss Bowers and mrs Van Schuyler, the hopeful but tragically-prevented love between Bouc and Rosalie or the longing love of Poirot for his lost fiancee and his hopeful but unreachable love for Salome Otterbourne). I particularly love the addition of Linnet saying to Jacqueline that she still cares for her in spite of what happened and Jacqueline's reaction as it relies on dramatic irony as Jacqueline planned Linnet's murder with Simon (conversely, this addition can be criticized because of this reliance on dramatic irony as it depends upon the viewer's knowledge of the story). I however agree that it would have worked better if the character has been renamed as Poirot is tied to his incarnations by Finney, Ustinov and more notably Suchet. But the wrongs are shared between Bragnahd, Riddley Scott and the Hollywood current system which is corrupted by the temptation of easy cash through nostalgia cloning, Marvelization of the stories (I mean Poirot Cinematic Universe ? That makes PCU and it looks like a communist party, which would be ironic in an American context). Finally,, I'm not very eager of a third installment, especially with the way DOTN ends as it would imply some kind of retcon that would nullify some details on Bragnah Poirot's narrative path. But it is a toxic flaw of recent Hollywood productions which believed that erasing previous narrative key points/climaxes or dulling stories and characters are an efficient way to create strong tales (while trying to include thematic messages that contradict the story setting or generate confusing and antagonizing impressions because of the narrative biaises that had been chosen).
Poirot was about Justice not the Law. He often let things take place to take care of the innocent. It was important to him to turn people over to the officials of the Law. Justice and taking care of the innocent were. Perhaps you need to reread "Murder on the Orient Express" but I totally agree with you about "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd". They ruined that one so terribly.
I can remember how, but my first exposure to the remake of The Orient was a clip (11:53) with Johnny Depp and Kenneth Branagh. And I thought it was surprised seeing Johnny Depp playing Poirot.
I saw the new Murder on the Orient Express (and I own the original 1974 and Poirot TV series set). And I felt something was just off. First of all it struck me how they exaggerate Poirot's eccentric character. Yes, he's got a few quirks like straightening things, but they over-played it to a point where it didn't feel like the character. Also the ending of the new Orient Express was just so....like what? In the original he leaves it to Bianchi, as the train owner, what to do, but that ending with the whole setup of 'you must shoot me' I was like what the heck are we doing here?! Also yes while they did drop the ball with Ackroyd I was shocked by the character assassination of Rhoda in Cards on the Table.
In "becoming Poirot" D. Suchet says he got the Christie family's approval before playing the character. I naively thought they owned the character and could veto certain portrayals.
you forgot to mention the way of Branagh interpretion changes the method of crime resolving of Poirot, I believe, at least it's my english who is not enough good. We never see or very rarely Poirot use the holmesian deduction thinking laying on tiny details observed in the physical reality to understand things, because as you mention, he prefers to resolve cases in using psychology. So Branagh drops the psychology approach for a more holmesian method of crime resolving.
One of the problems with Orient Express, IMO, is the book never has Poirot react in any way to letting these vigilantes go free. He simply peaces out- resigning from the case without anything else being said. I completely understand why theatrical adaptations have to change this- it's death on film. Frankly, it's a horribly frustrating ending- and you would be hard pressed to find a bigger fan of this book than me. The Lumet version at least gives him the "wrestle with my conscience" line which is closer to the book simply because there's no big speech. I kind of think it almost works better as a Holmes case. Poirot is a former policeman which is why it's so hard to see him have no reaction in the book. Holmes may have been able to get away with this after explaining he was only interested in solving the puzzle, and not the aftermath. I have less of a problem with the Branaugh ending, just because you HAVE to change the ending. The degree you do this to comes down to personal preference because neither his nor Suchet's is book accurate.
I disagree. I think him being all emotional about it is stranger. In the book he clearly sympathizes with the murderers. He comes to accept their logic, and he himself proposes an alternative solution first - although he leaves the final decision to his client, M.Bouc.
@@migmit Hello! I understand your point, but I would just add that Christie always explains the red herrings and false leads in Poirot's big "round up the suspects" scenes. The alternate solution was the red herring- the story the passengers were going to give the police to explain the murder, so Poirot needed to explain what they would have said if he had not been on the train. I absolutely agree that Poirot's sympathies lie with the passengers, and I don't have a problem with him ultimately supporting their lie, but it still bugs me that it ends so abruptly. I repeat, Poirot was a policeman, and this case should leave him somewhat troubled. I really dislike the Souchet version with Poirot screaming at the suspects- again, not true to the text. His histrionics are completely over the top. Again, I think Lumet added the perfect line to the film- his trouble should trouble him a bit based on what we know about him. A couple of extra lines in the text would have solved the problem, IMO.
@@penguinnj173yahoo6 I agree with you. I love the way Lumet handled this - it's my favourite adaptation of Orient Express (which is my favourite Christie book) for that specific reason, though Suchet is overall my favourite Poirot.
We have a haunting in Venice to look forward to now yay…. I got 1/4 way through Nile before turning off in disgust haven’t even attempted Orient. I just can’t David Suchet is Poirot
Idk man, I really like the insecure aspect to a vain character. The way he throws accusations and is fuming at the lies, it does remind me of Ace Attorney, breaking everyone down until they have nowhere left to run. There's no safety net because deep down Poirot doesn't have it all planned out in his head, he's just a man, and it feels like everyone in the movies know.
I thought 'Orient' was.... OK, but Branagh's 'Nile' wasn't a new interpretation of a classic story, it was an act of revenge upon it. There's no need to radically change things people already love, unless it's to spit on the people who love them. And, perhaps, more specifically, who _made_ them. Awful.
100% agree. Outside of trying to "Sherlock" up Poirot, Orient was adapted in a very passionless way. Nile was made with a "The original is bad and we're going to fix it" mindset
There is a Shardlake TV series that's supposed to start sometime this year. I love the Matthew Shardlake audiobooks and hope the series is close to being as good.
The most worst thing is they decided to make all the changes in an adaptation of a book *EVERYONE KNOWS!* It would’ve been better if they did one that was a little more unknown (like one of my favorites, “Curtain”) so the changes wouldn’t be painfully obvious to people (except for me, because it’s one of my favorite Poirots) and he is now in the production of an adaptation of “Hallowe’en Party” (not “Italian Nobleman” like you thought) *TAKE A HINT BRANAGH! WE ALL HATE YOUR ADAPTATIONS!* (although it made me read more Agatha because I only had Curtain which I found in my grandma’s trunk, the cover was all torn and about to fall off, making me tape it constantly and have to say, probably the most saddest book I’ve ever read, store at the wall in shock for 5 seconds *IN SHOCK!* where was I?) Anyway, I mean, we all know the plot of the Orient Express’ snowstorm and the triple homicide on the S.S Karnak and the 10 Dead Bodies on Soldier Island and the murder at King’s Abbott but no one knows the poisoning of Rosemary Barton or Sir Stafford Nye’s trip with the unidentified woman or even Parker Pyne’s and Harley Quin’s adventures! The canon has *FOUR NOVELS* that haven’t been adapted but *NO! THEY. HAVE. TO DO. ANOTHER. DEATH ON THE NILE ADAPTATION ALTHOUGH THE PETER USTINOV AND DAVID SUCHET ONES WERE GOOD AS THEY WERE!* We need to stop Branagh! You all for his terrible adaptations that are just different stories with the same characters and settings and for me so he doesn’t get the chance to adapt “Curtain”!
While I agree with most of your points and am not a fan of the Branagh adaptations, Suchet's ending of Murder on the Orient Express has always troubled me. At a superficial level, it isn't in the novel; more significantly, Poirot's rant about law and order really isn't him. Poirot was always more concerned with justice and compassion than law and order. The tone and emphasis is off. In the novel - and most film iterations - Poirot does want to let them off, hence suggesting the first solution.
They race-swap a character so that they can say multiple times how racism is bad, and in the meantime they make the Hungarian man a mindless savage (who, in the book was the most noble of them all). 🙄
A big scar from a wound like that would leave areas without mustache follicles. Trying to grow a mustache would make those areas more noticeable not hide them.
I once heard in an interview with David Suchet, and I'm not sure who said it, but that his portrayal allowed the audience to laugh with Poirot, not at him, and I think it's very true. Also, Poirot's character flaws made me love him, not dislike him
I believe that was something Agatha Christie's daughter asked/demanded of Suchet during a meeting they had when he took on the role. It sounded like she was very protective of the character, which evidently Suchet understood... And I don't think is being carried over in Branagh's version...
Anthony Hicks (husband of Agatha Christie's daughter) said that. David Suchet wrote this in his book 'Poirot and me'.
He makes all of the details of Poirot lovable and workable, while Branagh doesn't.
Poirot is not an action star. Poirot stays on the train, he does not go out to swing on bridges. Mon Dieu, Poirot is not the man of a trapeze.
Exactly, it’s like KB read the novels and said let’s do the exact opposite of what the real Poirot would do just to piss off the Agatha Christie fans.
@@suzie_lovescats Not really. As the Critical Drinker would say, it's done for Modern Audiences. Go away now.
@@nomadmarauder-dw9reKB does this for woke audiences and because he’s got a massive ego.
Poirot faced a lot of racism. But he quickly handled it with dignity.
David Suchet worked extremely hard to learn about and portray Poirot.
He accepted the fact that he was always mistaken for being French, and would quickly correct that person.
He did have friends as we
saw in some of the final episodes.
David Suchet is the ultimate Poirot and his portrayal over many seasons has become classic whereas Branagh’s will be quickly forgotten.
I know the Christie heirs approved of David.
But I wonder if the current relatives approve of Branagh’s interpretation.
I think the word you're looking for is xenophobia
Obviously you haven't read the books that Suchet supposedly studied to perfect his character. It is also clear that you are believing Suchet's media hype that stated he nailed the character perfectly and was exactly like what Christie wrote. He wasn't accurate.
In fact, Suchet only read a few stories and a couple of novels and based his interpretation on those few stories, which meant he missed out on the entirety of Poirot's character.
He did NOT accept the fact that he was mistaken for French, if he accepted it he wouldn't quickly correct that person!
He did NOT really have friends, as we saw in the novels and stories Agatha Christie wrote. The "friendships" you are referring to were invented for the t.v. series starring David Suchet. Those friendships didn't exist in the novels and stories, other than a minor friendship with Hastings, which wasn't anything like what Agatha Christie wrote in her books.
If you're going to defend David Suchet's portrayal, and make comments about Poirot's characteristics, at least make sure you know what you're talking about. Read the stories instead of blindly assuming the t.v. adaptations were correct because most of the time they weren't.
@@kugelwegI think that you are very much in the minority with your opinions and I also think you didn't interpret the comment correctly.
And yes - I have read all the books.
I agree with this 100%; also, if you read the short story Chocolate Box Hasting describes Poriot's vanity as harmless, meaning he doesn't know he's doing it. Suchet does a much better job of giving us that trait than Branagh. Branagh was like, "I Hercule Poirot." every ten seconds, and that drove me mad to the point where I wanted to turn the movie off. It's a small detail that is important to the character.
Branagh will never get anyone’s approval for his sorry portrayal of a great character like Poirot. Suchet was treated like royalty in Belgian in a documentary he was in called being Poirot. Belgian people recognise him immediately and absolutely love him. There’s no way Branagh would ever get that kind of treatment. Suchet didn’t need to act, he just was Poirot and fleshed out a character that everyone loves and still will love for years to come.
Poirot is also extremely polite and gentle. He is not a disagreeable person, on the contrary.
One does not necessarily contradict the other.
One can be polite and gentle, but still have annoying ticks and habits that test other people's patience.
Actually you are wrong. I realize you either haven't read or perhaps didn't understand the Poirot novels. Poirot was quite bombastic, rude, arrogant, and often unkind when it suited his purposes. Any Poirot fan knows that. He was known to rant and rave while calling people stupid.
I realize Ustinov and Suchet played him as if he were kind and gentle, but he had a cranky streak in him, and he used it to meet his own ends.
I was a fan of Agatha Christie’s Poirot during my teenage years, read most if not all Poirot books. To me David Suchet is the best Poirot as described in the books. Albert Finney was a close second!
I love this video, from how you dissect what made Suchet's performance special and unique and how Branagh went wrong with his understanding of the character and his vision for the franchise. Currently watching Agatha Christie's Poirot and David Suchet is just magnifique, just like how Jeremy Brett did with Sherlock Holmes. ( IMO, the 2 definitive live-action adaptations of the great detectives)
Can't wait for your video essay on Moffat's Sherlock and if it's possible to compare Cumberbatch's performance with Brett's, just like this one did, as I find the BBC show to be quite a poorly-adapted iteration of the original ACD stories and a huge disservice to SH's overall character too. Really looking foward to it!
Thank you for watching!!
Brett perfectly embodies Sherlock imo, whenever I read a Holmes story its his look and voice that pops in my head.
A Moffat v Brett analysis is definitely in my queue, I especially want to explore how Brett got so immersed in the role he actually started having hallucinations about the character.
@@hassledvania Thanks so much for replying!!
You might already know this, but Brett, during the Granada show's airing, like Suchet, also had on set a 77-page "Baker Street File" on all things about Holmes. And during each episode's prodution, if Brett found out that the director made some changes to the story, he'd be furious. Just saying, the guy loved Holmes and damn if he didn't make that love and passion clear through his performance.
@@DK-xz6sz I wasn't aware of that, thank you! Will definitely look more into what he wrote in there
@@hassledvania That would be terrific- would love to see!
Ah, this might be one of the best videos that I've come across in a while. Thanks a ton for making it. As a fat, bald(ing) man myself, I found Poirot's obsession with his moustache, his most aesthetically pleasing visual trait, very compelling and sympathetic. Wouldn't have realized that without you :)
Thank you so much!
Thank you! Thank you! I was immediately outraged by Branagh's moustache but suffered through the Orient Express just to see if it explored new aspects to improve or clarify that classic (which it did not). But Death on the Nile completely repelled me as being so Un-Poirot and completely Un-Agatha Christie as to be unrecognizable and foul. But I did not bother to examine why and I find your analysis impeccable and necessary. I would sentence Branagh to be forced to view this video and to issue an Apology to the World for perverting these stories and characters merely for his own ego, for I see nothing in his reboots which are not simply promiscuous and unnecessary. I am so thankful to find your analysis for it soothed a lurking rage which had been irking me. Well done Sir!
Totally agree. Branagh has totally fucked it up.... The scene, where Poirot jumps, and runs around, on Orient Express. Poirot does not run and jump.
So true, he more walk fast, like pinguin xD like when he ran away from a bomb in the big four.
Except for the one time in Styles where he skips with joy. 😂
Regarding the lack of a back story of Poirot, he was an exile after the first world war. He left everything behind, so also his back story. By giving him a back story they remove the fact that Poirot had to make a new start in a new country.
Suchet's Poirot is almost sacred to me, so I have avoided these new films like the plague as I, too, was deterred by the moustache. So I'm seeing clips of these films for the first time and like.. I'm just in shock. Poirot would NEVER run. Chase scenes are not someting he does. That job goes to Hastings and Japp if it's needed.
Also, as a side note, I find Suchet's Poirot to be quite a lovable character. He's cute and, if you are a nice person, very gentle natured. Of course he's sometimes a bit annoying and his principles very strict, but hey, that's a human character. Likeable but each with their own flaws
Poirot's mustache was described as being ridiculously enormous, immense, and gigantic. Branagh is the only one to portray the mustache as described by Agatha Christie! The mustache that took ME a long time to overcome was the silly mustache that Suchet wore. I thought they looked silly, but then I realized that they helped show the nature of Poirot in terms of being fussy, vain, and totally different from normal people.
You're right. Poirot normally didn't run, he was much to old, being in his 80's and older throughout the Christie stories. However, David Suchet's Poirot did run, in The Big Four and The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, so I'm assuming your criticism also applies to Suchet, for running when according to you Poirot never ran.
Suchet IS adorable as Poirot. However, Poirot was a bit of a jerk in the books. He was arrogant, bombastic, and ridiculously vain. Suchet didn't play the character that way, with good reason. Suchet made the character likeable, which is a bit of a departure from the character that Agatha Christie wrote. I prefer Suchet to the written works that his character is based on.
As a side note of my own, Poirot's "principals" were not very strict at all. He changed his mind as to whether crime was acceptable or not on a case to case basis, like when he allowed the culprits from Murder on the Orient Express to go free, and even suggested a story to help them get away with it (Suchet played the character differently, of course, not at all like the Agatha Christie story). Poirot aided and abetted some elderly housekeepers in Labors of Hercules (he even gave them money to help them get away with their crime).
Don't use Suchet's portrayal as your proof of Poirot's exact nature, because Poirot did not behave like Suchet's rendition.
Cheers to you and keep on loving Agatha Christie.
He just does a light jog, meaning a quick pace.
That's all.
@@kugelwegKB moustache wasn’t
‘correct’ at all because Poirot would never allow his hair to go grey or his moustache to be all bushy and out of control. DS moustache is correct because it’s black and neat and fancy like a posh French or Belgian moustache should look. And Poirot only ran in the scenes you mentioned because his life was at risk.
@@suzie_lovescats Good to see you again! You are correct that the moustache should be black and not grey. However, in the book Murder on the Orient Express, Poirot was described as a "little man with enormous moustaches". So a large mustache is what Christie repeatedly described. In his autobiography Suchet explained that he didn't wear a large moustache because they "swallowed" his face and he looked like a walrus.
I'm not making any of this up. This information comes from reading the Christie novels and Suchet's book.
@@kugelwegI read his book too but I think the ones Suchet wore were big enough. They didn’t have to go around his face.
Kenneth's mustache is so freaky looking that I would be looking at it instead of the show. David Suchet's Poirot I loved even all his quirks on David they were endearing and it made me chuckle when poor Miss Lemon was his secretary. Even how Poirot treated Captain Hastings was so funny since Hastings was so clueless like having a new puppy around.
I have just discovered that the "Bombastic Little Freak" line from DotN (2022) was a direct quote from Christie herself in 1960. That is a nice little detail I would have mentioned if I knew.
All you have to do is pay attention to Ariadnie to know what Christy thinks of Poriot.
This is excellent but I must take exception to the idea that the real Poirot’s moustache isn’t sexy
Little thing, but, the amount of scarring on the Branagh Poirot, wouldn't that mean he wouldn't be able to grow a moustache all over it? I mean, deep scar tissue damages the hair follicles, doesn't it? It'd be like maybe half his face w facial hair and half without and scarring instead?
Yeah it feels like a really odd last minute thing. Not only would it prevent hairs growing, but the size of the mustache clearly shouldnt cover up the size of the scars haha
A year ago I went on a trip with the Orient Express (albeit just to Venice). Among other things the David Suchet film shows how cramped it actually is on board that particular train, whereas Kenneth Branagh's film leaves you with a strange feeling of spaciousness - just one tiny objection among many as your video so admirably documents.
Thank you so much! Fond greetings from Denmark
Actually there was a novel where Poirot did get a scar on his lip, I think he wore a fake mustache after but it was as a double bluff posing as his twin brother
Edit. It happens in “the big four”
Great analysis. I totally agree Branagh’s Poirot is abhorrent! I love Agatha Christie and particularly like comparing the various adaptations and how they represent the original version. So I forced myself to sit through Branagh’s monster children. Death on the Nile was especially awful where they not only changed Poirot’s character but also a back story giving him entirely different motivations. Just wrong.
Poirot would never have a dead rat on his upper lip.
Excellent analysis 👏👏 the TV series adaptation has always been the one I loved, and I can never imagine Poirot being different. The new version lacks personality, atmosphere and cohesion for me, and as you've pointed out, they did try to make Poirot more 'relatable', while stripping him of all the quirky personality in the process, making him quite bland in the process to the point he's not Poirot anymore. Also, the accent used by Branagh for the character annoyed me even in the trailer, and the only reason i even went to see the movie was literally me needing to spend some time in between jobs in the afternoon and that movie being the only one i have not yet seen in the local cinema. The way he speaks sounds very forced to me.
Yeah its definitely not as natural as Suchets.
"wHaT oF coNsCieNcE?"
Liked your editing inserts; and good content. This is a well-structured review/video essay.
I can't begin to describe how happy this video made me. Thank you for reminding me why Suchet is just the forever superior Poirot. ^_^
"I am not a bloody little frog; I am a bloody little Belgian."
Hercule poirot's serie with David Suchet has been my hyperfixation for the longest time, if there is a TV near me, I WILL watch Hercule Poirot. The music of the first few seasons is seared into my mind.
I love how flawed the original character is, and I don't really like how "flat" they made him in the modern adaptation, and missed some of the most fundamentals of Hercule Poirot as you outlined so well :(
(ps : Sorry for bad english, I am French, not Belgian)
Also i absolutely vibed at the music from Professor Layton in the backround ! Fits the video so well, good job !
David Suchet ís the ultimate Poirot, but honestly, Peter Ustinov deserves some credit too. I think he did amazing in Death on the Nile and the 1978 adaptation might be my favourite poirot adaptation overall (possible unpopular opinion, I know). Mostly because it stands well on it's own. As you mentioned: Suchet's characterisation of Poirot is so strong in the long run over the series, but Ustinov does a great job as a standalone portrayal of the character.
In similar fashion to modern Disney live action films, these films are not cannon to the eyes of real Poirot fans
I’ve been waiting for this video that I didn’t know existed! Great work, thank you for saying everything I’ve always wanted to ❤️
He annoys Poirot's vanity to the point where I want to go into the TV and yell at him.
The whole point of the vanity trait is that he DOESN'T know that he is doing it (this is explained by hastings in the short story Chocolate Box). If you want a good portrayal of Poriot, go watch the BBC version with David Suchet.
There is Countess Rossakoff, so romance is not out of the question, but I basically agree with everything else. Great video.
Oh, Five Little Pigs is one of my favorites from David Suchet's Poirot TV series. It's an example of how to put an emotional weight on the new casts that we barely know. That case was heartbreaking, even more than Bouc's scene in the most recent Death on the Nile movie.
Based taste
Your talk about how they sexied up Poirot and Sherlock makes me remember when a playwright was adapting Agatha’s “Murder of Roger Ackroyd” and forced Agatha to let him youngen the age of a character or the opposite would be making Poirot a young lady’s man *(shivers in disgust)*
Thats not gar off what Brannagh did, ew
Thank you for the really good video! I'm also in David Suchet team. Definetly do the anime review too! I enjoyed it a lot when it came out as a Poirot fan. Also if you can read visual novels: Uminekos Erika Furudo is based on Poirot, I think you could make a good video of her too :D
I’ve loved Poirot since I was in middle school and now that my OCD has gotten more invasive in my life I relate to him even more. It’s not a crutch for him like it is in other stories with characters with OCD, it is actually a huge asset to his job. I know exactly when someone else has touched any of my things because I am so particular about where I put everything so seeing that in a detective work of fiction is incredibly validating and it makes me feel like this disorder is more of a superpower than a debilitation. People have told me that I should be a detective because of my attention to detail and it makes me happy every time because it’s almost like I’m Poirot! I am currently in the middle of reading every one of his stories and it’s fun to read them in order so I can go on this journey with him! (As a person who has had OCD for over 2 decades I believe that he has OCD, especially since he needs his eggs the same size and he lines up books from smallest to largest, not to mention countless other instances)
Im also diagnosed with OCD and again do not feel he has it. Its really not a depicting of an anxiety disorder, its a choice to be neat and perfunctory - a key separational element here.
Having said that, there are benefits that come with OCD and I would not discourage you from viewing the condition through that lens.
I came here after I started listening to David Suchet's reading of Murder on the Orient Express. It's absolutely brilliant! It is amazing to hear him portray all of the characters. Highly recommend to all fans of Suchet and the ITV series.
Where did you find this?
Watching this video after suffering through The Haunting in Venice and especially what they did to Ariadne Oliver in that movie (not to spoil too much but Poirot is not the only character who needs to be attractive, thin and without their original character flaws). I would really enjoy a breakdown of that movie if you get around to it, it suffered from so many flaws you criticized in this video.
This video sums up very well the things that annoy me about Branagh's Poirot and also the things I love about Suchet's portrayal. I am really not against change when it adds something fascinating to the character (like if we compare the book ending of Orient Express to Suchet's ending, it's very different, but it doesn't make Suchet's ending any less compelling). I also personally really liked the new ABC Murders with John Malkovich. The series highlighted Poirot's vanity in an interesting way and re-invented Poirot's backstory in a way that re-framed everything the viewer knows about the character.
Great video and many great points!
Seconding this about a breakdown of Haunting.
Nailed it as always! Your pacing is incredibly strong, and you got a lot of chuckles out of me with your jokes haha
You came up with points that wouldn't occur to most people! Can't wait for more 😎
My little grey cells are going poggers
6:40 Excellent point. One of my biggest issues with film today, is when no effort is made to keep a character's uniqueness. It's particularly egregious with period pieces, where there's also no effort at preserving the look or idiom of a particular time. Whether set in ancient Rome or Merry Olde England, everyone looks like they've jumped off the cover of a cheap Hollywood magazine.
The scene at the start of the first Branagh "Poirot" movie where Poirot steps on shit is...
honestly one of the most fascinating scenes on recent cinema to me... And no, I'm not kidding.
When he steps on it he pauses for a moment and then steps on it again on his other foot...
...And I'll argue that for a moment the writer was on to something that could make me say; "Yes! They got it! That's Poirot!" The man keen of symmetry. As disgusting as it is to him it was the "lesser evil" to him in order for his shoes to remain symmetric.
I'm not saying he ain't known for his nearly sickening tidyness and elegance, but I am saying that (as said) I'll argue that for a moment - for a single, brief, fleeting moment - they got Poirot on the film.
....But then on the otherhand it is Poirot stepping on shit solely for a poo-poo humor joke showing no respect at all for the character and/or story they're trying to adapt here, so *** all I said previously... The scene sent the message loud and clear... this was gonna be one of "those" movies, and I've not seen the sequels nor I plan to...
As said, it's just... so baffling yet fascinating scene to me.
For five seconds they get everything so, SO right, yet so magnificently wrong. They show they understood what they need to go for, yet they show they give absolutely zero **** to all that.... And all at the same time during those five'ish seconds...
The scene it a true five seconds of art if I've ever seen something like it...
I'll also add that while Poirot values order very highly, he's not someone with OCD. As such, he puts a lot of effort into his appearance and how to live his life - but he's not so lost to this ideal what he'd willingly step in poo because he can't help himself.
I fell asleep watching murder on the orient express in theaters too lol I thought it was just me
15.48, a great point. Poirot has what he has described as "a bourgeois attitude to murder". In one of the stories (I forget which) he even admits that there are some people who might deserve to be murdered, but still disapproves of murder *for its effect on the murderer*. He sees this as different from killing in for example, war, because there one doesn't excercise "private judgement" (I can't remember which story that was in either) It makes the ending of Curtain when he finally murders Norton himself all the more shocking. In the book, if I remember rightly, Poirot says he has two solutions to lay before Bouc and Constantine (a doctor who is written out of the Branaugh film). The first solution he lays before them is that a stranger boarded the train at Vincovci and escaped through the snow. They point out several issues with this theory. He warns them not to discount it and suggests his second (correct) solution. Bouc and Constantine choose the first solution and Poirot agrees that that is the solution he will lay before the Yugoslav police. It's a similar principle to the Sherlock Holmes short story The Adventure of the Abbey Grange, in which Holmes, before presenting his case, appoints Watson as the "British jury" and Watson, having heard all the evidence and heard the backstory of the accused, declares him "not guilty".
I have watched the Orient Express section of your video and find it well thought out and presented, with one exception: that being comparing Suchet's and Branagh's attitude towards the culprits.
For all the praise given to Suchet's (otherwise excellently performed) outrage that these people have taken the law into their own hands, in the book Poirot is implicitly on their side all along. He first proposes the fake explanation, and when Dr Constantinou objects that it is full of holes, Poirot tells him to reserve his judgement after he has heard the second explanation, since he thinks he will then find the first one more agreeable. At the end, he leaves the fate of the passengers to Bouc, knowing full well that he will grant them mercy.
This decision doesn't seem to weigh too heavily on him; in fact, in "Cards on the Table" he lets a character see the murder weapon the train company gave him as a souvenir, casually revealing that it was used by twelve people stabbing the same man. I doubt that he would have been this forthcoming if the case's denouement had traumatized him.
It is also not the only time that book Poirot has let his personal sense of morality or justice interfere with the rule of law. For example, in "Death on the Nile", he tells Mrs Allerton that he anticipated Jackie would commit suicide, and that he wished for this outcome. He lets Tim Allerton and Mrs. van Schuyler off the hook for thievery. He also sits back and allows the culprit of "The Hollow" to accidentally poison herself rather than turn her in.
Now, I have to say Suchet's portrayal as Poirot is unparalleled, and the series as a whole is excellent. I will also go further and admit that Poirot's change in "Orient Express" to a man holding the rule of law paramount makes a large amount of sense in the frame of the series' overarching narrative. In the series, this story is placed close to the end of Poirot's career, where we can expect him to be more world-weary and jaded. Most importantly it is close to "Curtain", when Poirot himself is faced with a situation similar to the one of the Orient Express passengers, and struggles with resolving it to his satisfaction.
However, given that you are discussing how one adaptation has succeeded where another has failed, I would be interested in hearing your perspective on why Suchet's adaptation deviating from the book's portrayal of Poirot on this particular point is, in your opinion, less objectionable to Branagh's.
Being german, i , Brittas boyfriend, like both Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot, and detective stories playing between 1880s, and about 1940 ( yes, i am a nostalgic). But we in Germany have no detective literature, playing in this era, so i like Holmes and Poirot, in the TV shows with David Suchet, to some degree also Peter Ustinov, the atmosphere of ,upperclass' and ,britishness' is well described, for me as a german.
When watching Brannaghs ,Death on the Nile' some months ago in a german cinema, of course dubbed in german, i was totally disappointed. The ,british upperclass' atmosphere was not existing, it was more an US Hipster atmosphere, the persons act not like persons of 1930s, but as current persons. For political correctness/ wokeness reasons, the nationatility and skin colour has changed, some acting characters are added/ missing, the lesbian thing of Mrs. van Schuyler and her maid etc., no necessary reason for this changes. The main character, Hercule Poirot is wrong interpreted, he was ( as a man in his 70s in 1930s) to agile, also Poirot, as described by Suchet and Ustinov, is not a man interessted in fighting. Brannaghs mustache ( in german Schnurrbart) is totally impossible. And finally, as a person , interessted in history, there are historical mistakes. When i know Poirots fictional biography correct, he was born in 1860s, was for a long time serving in belgian police, leaved belgian police because of problems with police hirarchy and bureaucracy to become a private investigator and fleed (?) to Great Brittain, when 1914 german troops invaded Belgium. But he was no soldier ( well in those days paramilitary police existed everywhere as Gendarmerie, but at start of wwl men arround 50 years usually served in rearline, not frontline units, not at frontline, also poison gas was in 1914 not used. Not to mention the short trousers of female ship crew members in 1930s muslim Egypt.
Thank you so much for this. 😂 it means the world to us
What do you think of Albert Finney's Poirot? I don't think you've mentioned him.
I'm honestly a HUGE fan of the 1974 and 78 adaptations of the two Poirot stories. :)
I love the Professor Layton soundtrack you had through the video 😁
As you said, changes aren't all bad. The Suchet series already made Poirot kinder and more considerate than the books, so much that most of the show's humour comes from him being unfailingly polite, not him being fussy. And of course they added Hastings and Japp to almost every episode. But I think these changes make it work better as a TV series.
For what it's worth, I don't think Branagh's Death on the Nile is bad (apart from the brief WWI backstory). And his Orient Express is bad but it made me think "I wonder if that old TV show covered this?" which is what got me into Poirot.
It's strange that many modern adaptations fundamentally change classic characters then rely on your knowledge of that character for the drama - calling out, subverting or responding to character traits that DON'T EXIST in their version. It feels like a fanfic writer trying to squeeze in multiple "interesting takes" simultaneously without ever looking at their work on its own.
Bad enough here but especially aggravating when done to properties that have not had proper adaptations yet lol
Embarrassing as it is to admit I stayed away from Agatha Christy because I had a misconception that she was soft like Cozy Mystries. I was a bookseller and student of English Lit who never read the best selling author of all time right behind Shakespeare and the Bible. Conan Doyle I had covered.
During lockdown I discovered the David Sushet Poirot. Wow was I shamed and thrilled!
I absorbed this series and won't even say how many times I have watched some episodes. Then I read the books. Wow again. Some have more plot than the series, some less.
When people have to go back to books and candles, which may be sooner rather later, we can make the interpretations for ourselves. Which you'll like once you get used to it!
"Moffat is such a hack" I wholeheartdly agree, and I clicked the suscribe button in hopes you'll elaborate further on that one day XD Oh and thank you for mentioning the C. J. Sansom novels! I had never heard of them, and I'm always looking for a good historical mystery!
Haha working on a Sherlock video as we speak!
The difference in his point of view between this mystery and his last case is very stark.
I really appreciate the arc he goes through, its a very unique one for Detectives even today
@@hassledvania It shows he has lived a lifetime.
Actually, I found the emphasis on his Catholicism in the Suchet adaptation of Orient Express to be uncalled for and jarring. I felt it was more representative of the actor (a very devout Christian) than of Poirot (who was religious... but not THAT religious).
I also wasn't fond of the changes made to Death on the Nile. In many ways, I consider the Ustinov version to be the superior, even though I prefer Suchet's Poirot to his, on the whole.
Please note: All these qualms are about Suchet. Because pointing out what few flaws and faults his stories had are easy for being few.
I have nothing to say of the... New movies... whose faults are legion, as you pointed out, above.
Edit: I just got to the bit where you say it's ridiculous to see Poirot being interested in a woman or nervous around her. But... Vera Rosakoff?
Vera Rosakoff did come to mind, but I didnt bother bringing it up as his feelings were limited to admiring her from a great distance in a couple of lines.
The idea of growing that into kissing photographs, and mumbling incoherently around a woman he fancies I feel is very at odds with his character.
In other words, the one time he is drawn to a woman its a very chaste and closed admiration, and he lacks any further interest in the remaining 82 stories.
It has even been argued that he may be asexual, which I do disagree with because of Rosakoff. But I do feel he is not a character who pursues romance, and definitely not as doggedly as Branagh's.
Thanks for the question, it is an interesting area of the character!
@@hassledvania
Kissing photographs? Gaaaaaaah.
Yet another reason to avoid these movies.
He really has no idea.
No one will ever do it like Suchet. Wish we had more
David Suchet was spot on but the Captain in that series was horrendous! He comes across as just plain silly and stupid… there is no ways a man who had gone through the First World War, fought in the trenches, been wounded and had been a Captain, would be anything like he was portrayed. He would have been the level-headed, practical, intelligent and he would have kept his eccentric, silly friend in enough check to have been able to function in society.
Yes, good point. Hugh Fraser would have done a terrific job if given the chance.
The same could be said of Dr Watson. He’s too frequently portrayed as inept. Surely a doctor would have more intelligence than the bumbling clod often seen in the Sherlock movies.
41.51. This reminds me of, of all things, that BBC Dracula adaptation from a while back. They made Van Helsing an atheist *why* exactly? When in the novel he was a man of strong faith.
Oh lord dont even get me started on that last episode "Twist" haha
I have seen the 1970s (Albert Finny) and the Kenneth Branagh versions. Completely agree with you about Branagh’s moustache - yuk. I have not seen Suchet’s version of Orient Express. It sounds brilliant.
It is - apart from the ending when he goes on a very un-Poirot-ish moralising rant :)
I hope you’re seen it since. It’s the best version in my opinion because it’s a very emotionally powerful performance by David Suchet ❤
Thank you so much for making this video. I agree with so much of what you said. It's a real shame what these works are doing to potentially new fans--turning them off to a great character and stories.
May I ask what your issue was in the 'Roger Ackroyd' episode with David Suchet. I rather liked that episode and that story is so good, so I'd love to hear your thoughts
Not to go too much into it becuase of spoilers but they took THAT interesting twist and instead of even trying to adapt it, they scaled it all back to make it a more regular case. Even threw in an action scene at the end, bit of a shame imo!
Ofcourse Suchet is as great as ever, love the marrow scene
@@hassledvania Thank you! I need to reread the book to have a firm opinion one way or the other, but you got me thinking and piqued my interest.
Again, thanks for the video!
I have enjoyed some of Branagh's work in the past, but I am amazed that he seems to have zero understanding of how to present a mystery. I loved Dead Again. I can't figure out what happened with the Poirot adaptations. It's as though the director/writer completely forgot that these stories are, first and foremost, mysteries.
This is a very well-made video! My only exposure to Christie has been the Branagh films and the original Orient Express book. I need to dive deeper into the stories and check out more of the novels and Suchet films.
And also what's that Sherlock Holmes show you kept using for footage? It looks interesting.
Ahh thats the Jeremy Brett series! Fantastic adaptation, I recommend trying "A Scandal in Bohemia"
@@hassledvania right!
My biggest problem with Death on the Nile is very simple: the number of characters they cut. Cornelia Robson and Miss Bowers are combined into one character. Mr Ferguson is cut. Tim Allerton is cut.
Of course you are 100% right. But, perhaps, by resorting to psychology, there is a simple explanation to the blunder committed by Branagh: he is a histrionic narcissistic egomaniac that does not care for accuracy to the character, and turns it into a kind of OCD James Bond, but without the lust.
Yup. Branagh is always Branagh plus his ego - on a stage vs in a movie.
Branagh plays Poirot, Suchet IS Poirot.
Amen
Well, in the book (Murder on Orient Express) Poirot has no problem letting the culprits go, and even suggests it himself. Honestly, I think it is better than Granada's adaptation.
I mostly agree. The new one is pretty bad in lots of way. But I will say it. I did not like Orient Express with Suchet. Yes, Suchet is perfect Poirot playing his role perfectly... I love Suchet as Poirot. But that ending was really out of character for Poirot. Poirot is not the way you or the 2010 version depicted them. Truth is his ultimate goal, not the justice as it functions in the world. It is shown how he clash sooo many times with police and other detectives in other books (Murder on the Links for example). He sometimes wants to make people happy (he let the jewelry thief from Karnac escape with his new love)... and it was HE... I repeat HE who was first ready to drop this particular case in this particular train from the moment he found the whole truth. He was the one who suggested the version with thief from outside and then he calmly and with elegance dropped the case. He is not justice mad. 2010 version kinda ruined his character too. I hated it, it was clearly really strong part of the movie but so much out of character for ever elegant Poirot to be so tense. He is angry when someone is lying but this was soo different. His catholic side is sometimes mentioned in books too but here it was above the norm too. And the part with interrogations and finding clues was pretty weak compared to books. The beginning of the movie with that city stoning scene was bad too. I am sorry. I love Poirot, Christies books and I think new version of movie is bad... but so is 2010 version.
I can think of a good number of Poirot movies with Suchet that I didn't care for, including the 2010 version of "Orient Express".
Glad someone else said it. The Suchet is so absurd to anyone who read the book. Poirot regularly covered up indiscretions, affairs, and lies of his own accord. The murder in Evil under the sun only happens because Poirot agrees to cover up an extra marital rendezvous.
Thank you for putting it into words!!!
I was a huge fan of the earlier films with Ustinov and Finney so I saw the newer "Murder on the Orient Express" and I nearly walked out. It was bbaadd... Brannagh was doing Poirot as a Shakespeare character and that's a bad choice. When in Brannagh's film he had all the suspects sitting in chairs in the cave while he performed his sanctimonious speech it was difficult for me to believe that he's British adapting a British story and still doesn't get it. "Murder on the Orient Express"'s coolness comes from they all did it and Poirot's ego needs him to solve the crime, but also to exit the train without getting murdered because he's trapped in there with murders. That all goes away when you put them in a cave where Poirot is not in danger anymore. They should have just re-released the original 1974 version and it would have gotten more praise.
The problem with movies is that Hollywood doesn’t set out to make good movies, they set out to make profitable ones. If they happen to turn out to be good, hey that’s a bonus, but that’s not the goal anymore. (Obviously, there are movies being made that don’t fit this generalization but it is the vast majority, look at how many sequels we get to movies that were profitable but not necessarily “good”)
I listened to something on Suchet and it delighted me how well researched he was on the character, if they made him do something poirot wouldn’t do he’d stand his ground until he got to do it the right way. He WAS Poirot.
👍Good for you! I despise the current fashion of "improving" classics to better suit the tastes of "modern" audiences. Enough is enough.
I also think that Suchet is absolutely the definitive Poirot. BUT... the writers of the Suchet Orient Express episode managed to completely botch his turn at "Murder on the Orient Express", which has been adapted five 5 or six times now that I know of. As you note, they introduced a newly invented backstory subplot which altered the entire tone of the narrative, both to it's detriment and to the detriment of Poirot's character IMO. Their overblown moral dilemma/condemnation climax sucks too, and is nothing like the book. Yes, Poirot believes in lawful punishment, but has been known to turn a blind eye in other cases, and without becoming a broken man as seen here. Newcomers shouldn't bother with the Branagh version which is even worse - instead go for the 1974 movie with Albert Finney as Poirot opposite an all-star Old Hollywood cast. It's both a delightful film in it's own right and an excellent introduction to both Poirot and Christie .
Yes, thank you! In the book he turned a blind eye quite easily, without any internal moral fight and praying! As much as I love the series with David Suchet, this is one thing that has been changed quite heavily. (However, there are many changes in the series as well. But I love it anyway.) 👍
In the book, if I remember rightly, Poirot says he has two solutions to lay before Bouc and Constantine (a doctor who is written out of the Branaugh film). The first solution he lays before them is that a stranger boarded the train at Vincovci and escaped through the snow. They point out several issues with this theory. He warns them not to discount it and suggests his second (correct) solution. Bouc and Constantine choose the first solution and Poirot agrees that that is the solution he will lay before the Yugoslav police. It's a similar principle to the Sherlock Holmes short story The Adventure of the Abbey Grange, in which Holmes, before presenting his case, appoints Watson as the "British jury" and Watson, having heard all the evidence and heard the backstory of the accused, declares him "not guilty".
@@becky3983 Oh yes, you are perfectly right. 👍
@@AgnesPerditaX IIRC, in the beginning of the Suchet "Orient Express" they show him responding to the execution of a woman guilty of adultery (in a Muslim country) by saying she broke the law, therefore she must pay the price. I stopped watching after that, even though I like the series. Poirot has frequently described himself as a "bourgeois" man with bourgeois values. He is quite conservative. As such, he would have condemned any law from a foreign culture he disapproved of as "barbaric". He is not a fanatic obsessed with the law.
I agree that softening up of Poirot (like turning Holmes into a male model) just does not work. It isn't that Branaugh did a bad job of acting, per se, but his version of Poirot is not fascinating, not compelling, not nearly as real or powerful as Suchet's version (although I think it might be better than Ustinov's and much better than Tony Randall's).
If you are going to re-imagine Poirot (or Holmes, or Dracula, or Zorro, or Batman) that is fine. But this only works if your re-imagining is a deep dive into something really, really compelling. Thus I enjoyed the BBC's SHERLOCK with Benedict Cumberbatch very much. Likewise I ended up loving THE ABC MURDERS with John Malkovitch of all people as Poirot! Because that re-imagination was not an exercise in making Poirot or the murder more bland. Just the opposite! I was utterly startled at how gripping that version turned out! Especially given the extremely high quality of Suchet's version! Wow!
I will also not I still think Suchet's MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS is the best version. And the Soviet version of AND THEN THERE WERE NONE was the best version of that story.
Branaugh's ORIENT EXPRESS felt like someone fiddling with details to try and come up with a more conventional Hollywood formula. The acting overall did much to try and overcome that, but there were limits. They did all they could. But in the end, I don't think the re-imagination worked, because it was less compelling in the end, not more.
From what I've read the third movie is based on HALLOWEEN, which is changing the location in a big, big, big way. I dunno. I'm not enthusiastic.
Did you every see the very popular US tv serious “Monk”. The Poirot version you described is basically the character Monk (who may be himself an Americanize Poirot mixed with very heavy dosed of OCD)
I did and wasn't really a fan to be honest, though I cant in good conscious say I gave it a proper try!
Before you talk about these films, I'll summarise what I think of them. I think that they're pretty good as films, if completely divorced from the books, but lacking as adaptations of the books. I would recommend the films to someone who hadn't read the books and was never going to read the books-- after all, the plot is interesting, and the visuals are nice. However, seen as adaptations of the books, they leave much to be desired. My great issue with Murder on the Orient Express was the fact that Doctor Constantine's character was removed. In the book, Constantine is travelling in another compartment (I think a slip-coach from Athens?) and Poirot's luggage, at first in, I think, with MacQueen, is moved into the slip-coach with Constantine (because the murderers had booked the train full, with a non-existent Mr Harris, but when Mr Harris did not arrive and Poirot wanted to travel, he was allowed into Mr Harris' bunk as a personal friend of Bouc-- the murderers had not factored the railway company making exceptions for friends of theirs). On the night of the murder, the connecting doors between coaches are shut. In the morning, Constantine helps Poirot with the medical evidence, as someone who is not a suspect. In the film, his character is merged with that of Colonel Armstrong, so when Armstrong gives the medical evidence, it's from the position of a suspect. Armstrong gives the correct medical evidence-- but why? Why not lie? Why is it so hard to cast one more character for this very expensive film who only has to be paid for five minutes of screen time? It was this that made me doubt if the scriptwriter understands detective novels.
My second major issue, was that Count Andrenyi did not replace his wife as a murderer. This firstly ruins the point of having twelve murderers which is important in the book. Now there are thirteen. More importantly I think it takes away a bit of the characterisation in a story with a large cast where we need all the charactrisation we can get. A man who deeply loves his young wife, who despite her painful life is of a nervous disposition and not the stabbing kind, and wants to protect her, to the point of committing a crime that risks his own life for her. You have free characterisation there-- use it!
I wish you’d mention Albert Finney’s Poiroit, as that version was one that Agatha Christie saw and apparently enjoyed, although she thought his mustache was too small.
Boiling down all characters - especially a canonical Christian, whose faith will centre around being a flawed human - to the same bland mush is a real pitfall of modern media, but it's especially clear with adaptations.
Good work, really enjoyed this! 😊
Interesting video. I agree with the points you raised on Bragnah's Poirot and the comparison with Suchet version of the character make them even more relevant and raise well the different issues, flaws and weaknesses of the new interpretation.
I would like to put my own analysis on the matter which could complete or emphasize differents aspects of your videos while making some personal stances on Bragnah's choices.
I think the main mistake in Bragnah's versions (especially MOTOE as it was Riddley Scott's choice in 2013 before Kenneth Bragnah was chosen to direct the adaptation) was to adapt two stories that were already adapted in previous and succesful versions (1978 for DOTN while MOTOE was adapted in the 1974 film, 2010 David Suchet's version and 2001 telefilm which is IMO better than Bragnah's version).
The problem with the two movies is that they follow previous versions that deeply gave tribute to the original stories (in the case of MOTOE, 1974 movie reflects the Christie's atmosphere while MOTOE emphasizes on the realistic part of such a case and the character's dilemma), making any new version more difficult to leave a personal print. This kind of issue and challenge tend to bring new directors to try new directions to make their version unique (unless they are tempted to fall to nostalgia's easiness (Disney's clones)).
Bragnah attempts to bring a new version of the character that wasn't a clone of Suchet's version (which is the epitome of Poirot's depiction in regard to Agatha Christie's depiction), but IMO partly failed in doing so. I said "partly" because of the issue of making a new version of stories that were already adapted. It is particularly true for MOTOE as the nature of the story prevented Bragnah and the screenwriter to truly explore the characters in new ways (and how could they have done it without truly changing the story (though it might have been better) as it is a story in a claustrophobic atmosphere with almost every character guilty of the crime). As a result, they try to make the special prints in the action scenes and the overreaction of some characters, but doing so created many issues in the narrative structure and in the story and characters consistencies.
While not perfect (I agree with you concerning the dancing scene which takes too much time and is overtop concerning its sexual innuendos), DOTN is IMO better than MOTOE and reflects more Bragnah's stance on Poirot, especially with his "shapespearian" approach of the character. I don't have issues with the new background of the character (we have Suchet's version and it is much better than Malkovich's version which suggested that Poirot was a priest that was traumatized by german destruction of his church with his parishioners, making the scene something more unsubtle than the church burning scene of Roland Emmerich's "The Patriot" (which by the way I love)) as it allows Bragnah's version of the character to be his own and not a mere copy of his predecessors. I love the new stance on the mustache as it gives some kind of symbol on this version of the character (the reminder of his former love and the need to hide his weakness and in some cases, proud people are people that tend to hide their weaknesses and flaws behind violence/arrogance/narcissism...). The fact he shaves the mustache at the end of the movie symbolizes the fact he finally put his former love's shadow and his fears behind himself in order to be able to move on.
I think DONT works better than MOTOE because there are more possibilities in exploring and developping new perspectives in the characters and their interactions. Was it better ? Of course not, the social comment and some parts (i.e the mexican standoff in the end of the movie even if I like mrs Otterbourne's reaction, suggesting she is ready to protect her niece and Poirot) can be awkward and needless. I agree with you on the awkward attempt to explore Poirot's flaws as there was not enough materials in Bragnah's versions to truly comment on them, even if I like this attempt. I personnaly think that this attempt works the best with Bouc's death as it is indirectly Poirot's fault since he confronts his friend in presence of Simon Doyle. While it weakens Poirot's loneliness, it gives to this version of the character an emotional moment as he is confronted to loss and regret (especially as he indirectly prevents Rosalie Otterbourne and Bouc to have their "happy ending"). I think this DOTN version works better as a "shakespearian" whodunnit than as an "Christie" whodunnit because of the emotional dimension of the story and the thematic insistance on love (the passionate love of Jacqueline and Simon, the one-sided love of Linnet for Simon, the hidden love between miss Bowers and mrs Van Schuyler, the hopeful but tragically-prevented love between Bouc and Rosalie or the longing love of Poirot for his lost fiancee and his hopeful but unreachable love for Salome Otterbourne). I particularly love the addition of Linnet saying to Jacqueline that she still cares for her in spite of what happened and Jacqueline's reaction as it relies on dramatic irony as Jacqueline planned Linnet's murder with Simon (conversely, this addition can be criticized because of this reliance on dramatic irony as it depends upon the viewer's knowledge of the story).
I however agree that it would have worked better if the character has been renamed as Poirot is tied to his incarnations by Finney, Ustinov and more notably Suchet. But the wrongs are shared between Bragnahd, Riddley Scott and the Hollywood current system which is corrupted by the temptation of easy cash through nostalgia cloning, Marvelization of the stories (I mean Poirot Cinematic Universe ? That makes PCU and it looks like a communist party, which would be ironic in an American context).
Finally,, I'm not very eager of a third installment, especially with the way DOTN ends as it would imply some kind of retcon that would nullify some details on Bragnah Poirot's narrative path. But it is a toxic flaw of recent Hollywood productions which believed that erasing previous narrative key points/climaxes or dulling stories and characters are an efficient way to create strong tales (while trying to include thematic messages that contradict the story setting or generate confusing and antagonizing impressions because of the narrative biaises that had been chosen).
You have a k missing from your subscriber count. Also, I'm eagerly waiting for the Sherlock Holmes video.
Poirot was about Justice not the Law. He often let things take place to take care of the innocent. It was important to him to turn people over to the officials of the Law. Justice and taking care of the innocent were. Perhaps you need to reread "Murder on the Orient Express" but I totally agree with you about "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd". They ruined that one so terribly.
i love David Suchet, he is Poirot
Yes ❤❤❤
I remember watching the trailer for the new adaptions and out loud say what on earth have they done to his moustaches,
I can remember how, but my first exposure to the remake of The Orient was a clip (11:53) with Johnny Depp and Kenneth Branagh. And I thought it was surprised seeing Johnny Depp playing Poirot.
Recently been pointed out to me how out of character it is for Poirot to munch on cake like that in that scene
I saw the new Murder on the Orient Express (and I own the original 1974 and Poirot TV series set). And I felt something was just off. First of all it struck me how they exaggerate Poirot's eccentric character. Yes, he's got a few quirks like straightening things, but they over-played it to a point where it didn't feel like the character. Also the ending of the new Orient Express was just so....like what? In the original he leaves it to Bianchi, as the train owner, what to do, but that ending with the whole setup of 'you must shoot me' I was like what the heck are we doing here?!
Also yes while they did drop the ball with Ackroyd I was shocked by the character assassination of Rhoda in Cards on the Table.
What a wonderful video, I love David Suchet‘s version of Hercules Poirot.
Albert Finney for me as Poirot. But thank you for your incisive commentary. I really enjoyed this. Also, long live Jeremy Brett as Holmes!!
I need the Poirot Theme with Drip that you played at the beginning.
In "becoming Poirot" D. Suchet says he got the Christie family's approval before playing the character. I naively thought they owned the character and could veto certain portrayals.
Theyre so separated from Agatha at this point, I'm not sure their seal of approval would even mean anything. Same as the Peter Pan situation.
Not any member. Her daughter directly. ☺
I have always liked the Ustinov films, but yeah David Suchet is the best Poirot
I like Ustinov too! Even if Christie wasn't too hot on his mustache haha
@@hassledvania Wasn't that a comment about Finney in Murder On The Orient Express?
you forgot to mention the way of Branagh interpretion changes the method of crime resolving of Poirot, I believe, at least it's my english who is not enough good.
We never see or very rarely Poirot use the holmesian deduction thinking laying on tiny details observed in the physical reality to understand things,
because as you mention, he prefers to resolve cases in using psychology.
So Branagh drops the psychology approach for a more holmesian method of crime resolving.
I can (not “can’t” but “can”) wait *A HAUNTING IN F*CKING VENICE!*
One of the problems with Orient Express, IMO, is the book never has Poirot react in any way to letting these vigilantes go free. He simply peaces out- resigning from the case without anything else being said. I completely understand why theatrical adaptations have to change this- it's death on film. Frankly, it's a horribly frustrating ending- and you would be hard pressed to find a bigger fan of this book than me. The Lumet version at least gives him the "wrestle with my conscience" line which is closer to the book simply because there's no big speech. I kind of think it almost works better as a Holmes case. Poirot is a former policeman which is why it's so hard to see him have no reaction in the book. Holmes may have been able to get away with this after explaining he was only interested in solving the puzzle, and not the aftermath. I have less of a problem with the Branaugh ending, just because you HAVE to change the ending. The degree you do this to comes down to personal preference because neither his nor Suchet's is book accurate.
I disagree. I think him being all emotional about it is stranger. In the book he clearly sympathizes with the murderers. He comes to accept their logic, and he himself proposes an alternative solution first - although he leaves the final decision to his client, M.Bouc.
@@migmit Hello! I understand your point, but I would just add that Christie always explains the red herrings and false leads in Poirot's big "round up the suspects" scenes. The alternate solution was the red herring- the story the passengers were going to give the police to explain the murder, so Poirot needed to explain what they would have said if he had not been on the train. I absolutely agree that Poirot's sympathies lie with the passengers, and I don't have a problem with him ultimately supporting their lie, but it still bugs me that it ends so abruptly. I repeat, Poirot was a policeman, and this case should leave him somewhat troubled. I really dislike the Souchet version with Poirot screaming at the suspects- again, not true to the text. His histrionics are completely over the top. Again, I think Lumet added the perfect line to the film- his trouble should trouble him a bit based on what we know about him. A couple of extra lines in the text would have solved the problem, IMO.
@@penguinnj173yahoo6 I agree with you. I love the way Lumet handled this - it's my favourite adaptation of Orient Express (which is my favourite Christie book) for that specific reason, though Suchet is overall my favourite Poirot.
We have a haunting in Venice to look forward to now yay…. I got 1/4 way through Nile before turning off in disgust haven’t even attempted Orient. I just can’t David Suchet is Poirot
40:43 - I am literally rolling on the floor, inconsolable, dying of laughter. Thank you for this. Thank you oh so very much. 😹 #daymade
Please would you review the new Branagh's A Haunting In Venice? It was so awful. I would love to hear your commentary!
Definitely on my to do list! Have plenty of thoughts haha
Idk man, I really like the insecure aspect to a vain character. The way he throws accusations and is fuming at the lies, it does remind me of Ace Attorney, breaking everyone down until they have nowhere left to run. There's no safety net because deep down Poirot doesn't have it all planned out in his head, he's just a man, and it feels like everyone in the movies know.
Exactly my thoughts, the film is trying too hard to have a big dramatic scene. They lose the human element of Poirot that the TV series nailed.
I thought 'Orient' was.... OK, but Branagh's 'Nile' wasn't a new interpretation of a classic story, it was an act of revenge upon it. There's no need to radically change things people already love, unless it's to spit on the people who love them. And, perhaps, more specifically, who _made_ them. Awful.
100% agree.
Outside of trying to "Sherlock" up Poirot, Orient was adapted in a very passionless way.
Nile was made with a "The original is bad and we're going to fix it" mindset
@@hassledvania And Haunting was made with the mindset of "Let's destroy everything that's good and holy in Christie canon".
There is a Shardlake TV series that's supposed to start sometime this year. I love the Matthew Shardlake audiobooks and hope the series is close to being as good.
Wasnt aware, thanks for the heads up!
The most worst thing is they decided to make all the changes in an adaptation of a book *EVERYONE KNOWS!* It would’ve been better if they did one that was a little more unknown (like one of my favorites, “Curtain”) so the changes wouldn’t be painfully obvious to people (except for me, because it’s one of my favorite Poirots) and he is now in the production of an adaptation of “Hallowe’en Party” (not “Italian Nobleman” like you thought) *TAKE A HINT BRANAGH! WE ALL HATE YOUR ADAPTATIONS!* (although it made me read more Agatha because I only had Curtain which I found in my grandma’s trunk, the cover was all torn and about to fall off, making me tape it constantly and have to say, probably the most saddest book I’ve ever read, store at the wall in shock for 5 seconds *IN SHOCK!* where was I?) Anyway, I mean, we all know the plot of the Orient Express’ snowstorm and the triple homicide on the S.S Karnak and the 10 Dead Bodies on Soldier Island and the murder at King’s Abbott but no one knows the poisoning of Rosemary Barton or Sir Stafford Nye’s trip with the unidentified woman or even Parker Pyne’s and Harley Quin’s adventures! The canon has *FOUR NOVELS* that haven’t been adapted but *NO! THEY. HAVE. TO DO. ANOTHER. DEATH ON THE NILE ADAPTATION ALTHOUGH THE PETER USTINOV AND DAVID SUCHET ONES WERE GOOD AS THEY WERE!* We need to stop Branagh! You all for his terrible adaptations that are just different stories with the same characters and settings and for me so he doesn’t get the chance to adapt “Curtain”!
While I agree with most of your points and am not a fan of the Branagh adaptations, Suchet's ending of Murder on the Orient Express has always troubled me. At a superficial level, it isn't in the novel; more significantly, Poirot's rant about law and order really isn't him. Poirot was always more concerned with justice and compassion than law and order. The tone and emphasis is off. In the novel - and most film iterations - Poirot does want to let them off, hence suggesting the first solution.
Excellent!
They race-swap a character so that they can say multiple times how racism is bad, and in the meantime they make the Hungarian man a mindless savage (who, in the book was the most noble of them all). 🙄
That’s the hypocrisy of the left for you.