MUBI is awesome! I grew up loving the '74 version (no pun intended) of Murder On The Orient Express with the absolutely stellar cast of film greats so I was perhaps a bit biased against the Kenneth Branagh version upon release thinking it was a John Wick style adaptation of classic Agatha Christie. To @CinemaStix point though I can see that film making AND viewing style has changed in 40 plus years so perhaps I shall give Branagh's version another view with a more open mind. Thank You for the insightful review.
Im pretty sure modern Directors overuse cuts because they underestimate or even distrust their Camera-Men Modern Cinema is over-fixated on Directors, when it takes hundreds or even thousands of people to make a Movie
Thank you for this amazing video. I learnt a lot about the art of filming movies. That video is another evidence of the total decadent world we live in, and the anthropological decay. Idiocracy rule the waves.
i find it so odd how films made so long ago were often so heavily detailed and subtle that rewatching them was often the best way of enjoying them, but was during a time when going to the cinema was probably the only way you'd view the film at your leisure, and now that we have a world saturated with on-demand services, all films seem to want to focus on grand set pieces and quick punchy action leaving no room for any subtlety and killing all rewatchability.
And doesn’t that make it all the sadder? If anything, it should be the other way round, because the on demand services mean you can rewatch a film much easier than having to pay to keep going to the cinema over and over.
Shamalamadingdong's "The Village" is not worth a second viewing because once the "grand secret" is revealed (at the end), all the sparkle and shine is gone.
I've stopped watching Modern movies. As if insipid dreary dialogue isn't enough. Why do we have to suffer? - The last time I went to the Cinema was a spy movie with lovely Jennifer Lawrence in the lead. After a relentlessly bleak 90 mins the audience was subjected to the unedifying sight of Miss Laurence having her head bashed in on the side of a bath. I felt I'll and had to leave the Cinema. I'm never going back. 'Handmaids Tale' is the same. Who is the audience for this material?
@@Jeremy-ho3vi The audience is YOUNG and accustomed to speed, spectacle and so on. 90% of all movie goers are younger than 25 years of age. Old movies were made for people of all age classes, that is why they "move" more slowly. It is also a history of camerawork and editiing to consider. Back then they chose different shots than today. Framing was in principle very different than today. You have the same with modern novels, for example. Very different to novels 50 years ago.
I took a mystery and detective literature class in college and it seemed to me that more recent whodunnits were oftentimes harder to solve than older ones, but I could never put my thumb on why. Now I see that an emphasis on cinematography and dramatic flair can come at the cost of dialogue and a fairer chance for the watcher to solve the mystery for themselves; thanks for your insight and eloquence, Danny.
I would also argue that the writing is just “cheaper”. For example- the first Knives Out (which I personally found enjoyable and which kept me guessing) has the line “HUGH did it!” was presented as “YOU did it” as if the word swap were some astounding reveal…. It felt to me then as it feels to me anytime I rewatch it- irksome, irritating, like it’s presume I was not smart enough to appreciate something more nuanced and interesting. I know studios are making everything idiot-proof if they can, but goddam…. I’ll present everything Jordan Peele has done so far- there’s a reveal without a character going into exposition to make sure us dummies get it…. AND- his films have been incredibly successful. Proof studios really don’t need to dumb it down to be entertaining and moneymaking
Fun Fact: For Murder on the Orient Express (1974), the luxury food that is inspected and carried aboard the train had been stolen from the set just before shooting. All of the food had to be bought again, in the middle of the night, on-location in Paris, France.
This might be a good opportunity for me to mention something else fun: at 00:35 in the video, when I mention the film The Verdict, can anyone spot Bruce Willis? He was a background extra in that scene, six years before Die Hard.
@@CinemaStix I knew he was an extra before he became big in Hollywood and recognized the scene, it still took me a couple seconds to find him even though I knew he was there
Budget, as well. Robert Eggers said himself that The Northman having such a big budget affected his artstyle. Look at 300million dollar Indiana Jones where Logan cost 130m by the same director.
I far prefer how films used to be shot compared to how they are now. So much less hopping between characters faces and just letting full scenes of people play out instead.
There are still a lot of good movies, without gratuitous 20 second scenes and and ubiquitous DOF that makes everything looking like a bad video game. But they are a little less mainstream.
100% agree. What we see at the cinema now is content. It's entertainment primarily and has little substance. There's a place for it. Authentic films made with craftsmanship are few and far between.
Plus when scenes are filmed/edited so that the camera jumps from actor to actor, there’s a very big chance that the actors aren’t even in the same room. They could be filmed days apart, and that’s just something that for me personally feel less human. They often lack the human connection in communication we can often see in, good, ”long shots”. How the chracters seem to react to one another especially when it comes to their body language.
Now that you've pointed it out, I can see how the wide shot is so much better than a bunch of cut up close ups. As the viewer, I feel as if I'm in the room, rather than watching a movie. I've often felt that so much of being an actor is not just about delivering your own lines as it is reacting to the dialogue of others. The wide shot allows me to watch the reaction to the speech as well as the speech itself.
@@boxonothing4087 Yes, it also gives you the feeling of being in the cheap seats. The editing and the tight shots seem like different issues to me. Sometimes you want to see through one character's eyes rather than feeling like an outside observer and a competent director shouldn't need to get the camera right in the actor's face for a close up.
I was surprised that Branaugh’s decision to have the actors living on the train, which should have added to a feeling of claustrophobia, was not carried into the film because he kept cutting away from the train.
He is not a good director. Every film except possibly Henry V always end up visually convoluted focusing on technicalities rather than letting the story take center stage. And, he has become more involved with this as time has progressed. He has ended up falling victim to changing stories to include inappropriate modern themes that distract and undermine the story’s characters and plot.
@@wordragonFair points. Though I would argue that this isn’t a unique issue to him individually, but the product of a tidal shift of industry practices that he has inevitably followed in suit. Methods and priorities have changed with time, and not always for the better. A modern director trying to adapt in order to remain successful perhaps can’t help but be influenced by this.
@@nickcara97 -I would agree with you, but there are examples of modern film-making where story and character take center stage while still being dynamic visually. It is his choices which ultimately make his movies terrible. And, let's remember he made Hamlet in an era when you can't blame modern culture.
@@wordragon there are indeed still some people who are willing to entrust the intricacies of a well told story and it’s developments to its audience's understanding. It’s just a shame that they seldom get nearly the same recognition or appreciation for it anymore. Although, I wouldn’t go as far as to say Branaugh’s movies are terrible now, they’re certainly not the same as they were much earlier is his career. You make a good point about Hamlet. That would be just the example I would refer to as well, still my personal favorite by him.
Old school film took more cues from stage acting / plays. New film takes cues from trailer editing: a bunch of quick cuts to keep people's ever-shortening attention spans.
Exactly, 1974 movie is like a theatrical play. Cinema used to be held down by theatrical traditions - innovations in filmmaking were all about transcending a "stage play" viewer experience. But now, there is a complete reversal. Absence of any theatrical background is one of the main reasons why modern filmmaking is so bad, with overuse of cuts and bad blocking.
That's no surprise considering Sidney Lumet got his start doing Off-Broadway live theater and went on to live television. He was a completely gifted aficionado that doesn't receive the well-earned adulation he deserves.
@@IDontReallyGiveAShit Nope. My generation isn't stupid or ADD prone any more than any human before us. We aren't 'Great Communicators!' or 'Problem Solvers!' We're god damn honest normal people. Yeah, no yourself. I hate how you pretend to know better when you don't. I'm not going to talk to you.
Ironically, Branagh’s early films were never afraid to use long takes, with scenes that were often notable for relying on deft blocking over cutting to direct the viewer’s attention. His style seems to have adapted to fashion over time.
I noticed a lot of extremely pretentious framing in these few scenes presented here. Shots from the under carriage of a train, through some weird frosted glass etc etc. It amounts to a very gimmicky look that is below his station in my opinion. The sort of stuff a 20-something film student would think was cool and edgy but is just needless and annoying. It's almost as if he was doing a parody of a Tarantino film, or perhaps trying to emulate one and doing horribly at it.
"Belfast" is no "Hamlet" but it still is much better directed than those Poirot films. Branagh has seemed more interested in playing Poirot than directing a Poirot film. Or perhaps it's a matter of the right choice of DoP and editor.
He's definitely got better with actors (or maybe can now call upon better actors). Look at Peter's Friends and In the Bleak Mid Winter. Some of the overacting (especially from Jennifer Saunders) makes my toes curl.
Also the dialog in 1974 was captured by an overhead boom mic, the remake used on talent lav mics (and possibly boom mics). The dialog sound is quite different. The 74 film dialog had good audio perspective where the room can be heard like in real life. The remake dialog is all close sounding no matter if the camera is close to talent or farther away.
I've never payed attention to that but it actually bothers me when a character is 20 feet away and you can hear their voice as if they're shouting in your ear
It's weird to call the 2nd movie a remake. It's merely a new adaptation of the novel. I mean, it's not like anyone called Jackson's LotR a remake of Bakshi's LotR.
Sidney Lumet has made so many great films. Just staggering amount of great films. "12 Angry Men" is essentially a film school in itself for budding directors to learn "Blocking".
Yup, I rewatched it a couple weeks ago after probably 6 or 7 years when I first watched it. I was fascinated with how much the characters moved around and the camera moved with them and how much the direction was so good that not one second of it was even close to boring. Some action films are more boring than this 2 hour movie that's set in only a very small room.
@@MamadNobari Its so good, that even the remake from 1997 coasts on that excellent premise, and is very good. I have heard of an audio only version done with the likes of John de Lancie, Dan Castellaneta, Jeffrey Donovan, Héctor Elizondo, Robert Foxworth, Kevin Kilner, Richard Kind, and Armin Shimmerman. That sounds intriguing.
Your note that Lumet kept the action trapped on the train with the guests is exactly why Scott’s The Martian is a missed opportunity. I’ve always wanted to make a cut that only includes the scenes on Mars. Cutting constantly to the Earth removes the fear, isolation and claustrophobia of the mission. Imagine when he finally touches hands with another human being? How important that scene would feel after being lost in space for so long.
Wow the flashback example made my jaw drop. Such cool and thought-out cinematography. To think ahead and shoot both parts, I would assume back-to-back, but with a different lens and lighting/composition is awesome. Such a dramatic shift in the feeling it conveys.
I think of David Suchet as the definitive Hercule Poirot. The 2010 version that he was in might not be what you would call cinematically comparative, but as an actor he embodied that character so perfectly. Since he's the version I grew up with, watching anyone else in that role takes me out of it, regardless of how good they actually are.
I found Branagh's interpretation a complete farce and almost offensive to the character to make him so ostentatious and ridiculous. Suchet embodied Poirot to the point that he is a household name in Belgium and signs autographs on the street when he's there! That's dedication.
I concur wholeheartedly with this. Suchet’s Poirot is the definitive interpretation IMHO. Also, the theme music to that TV show is stuck in my mind for eternity. And that’s not a bad thing at all.
such a great TV series, i grew up with it, if i remember it was on Sunday night ITV, anyway just re-watched it recently and hadn't seen the later episode. It's strange as i don't live that far away from the apartment block they used as his home. apartment very american, however calling that beautiful art deco building a block of flats seems off :)
Ever since Every Frame A Painting went dark, I've longed for someone who could provide the same level of complex and thoughtful analysis to movies. This channel, hands down, is it. Every video essay is well-paced, well thought-out, and thought-provoking. I can't wait to see more!
I actually found this channel a couple days ago while watching "when the director reallyyyy respects the audience…" from Scene It. They're both really good.
The 2010 version starting David Suchet is a masterpiece. While they added scenes before Poirot got on the train that highlight his struggle at the end between what is right and what is just, it truly hits home how difficult his decision is at the end. The scene before the murder where Poirot is praying for guidance while Ratchett is praying for deliverance on opposite sides of the same wall is brilliant and the final shot of Poirot walking away from the rest of the passengers clutching his rosary beads while shaking and crying is devastating.
@@brutusvonmanhammer Indeed! Although my first encounters with the character were Peter Ustinov and Albert Finney respectively. David Suchet has enormous shoes to fill when it comes to Poirot. Much like the Sherlock Holmes of my heart will always be Jeremy Brett. ❤️
In the original you can see the efficiency of having so many of the actors in the shot. You can get all the reactions in real time and with the right rehearsal and the actors doing good work you discover things in the scene rather than it being force fed to you “see this, feel this”. Plus I can imagine a producer thinking, we have a loaded cast that we’re paying a lot of money too. We better get them all on screen as much as possible!…lol I love older noir movies in the way they often had scenes that showed most of the room, rarely close up unless for an actual purpose and you would see all the actors in the shot. You could see them using their bodies, props, using the space of the room and it was still fun and energetic because you had great dialog being delivered by great actors. All the money spent on production design, costumes and FX in new movies and most of it is just closeups and bland singles and doubles and two shots. They think they satisfy you with every now and then throwing in a grand CGI shot of size but then it’s back to the same ol’ same ol’.
I agree. Single-shot scenes are not inherently better than multille-shot ones but you have to know when to use each. Modern films are so enamoured with their own supposed beauty they forget about where's the substance of the scene. They are usually so pretentious, they only care about looking good at the cost of effectiveness, ending up losing so fake and artificial. It happens to me usually that I see modern films that instead of filming something within the story that tries to cause a specific feeling the film, they try to cause it without the origin. I remember in Dune, EEAAO and Oppenheimer that the music went super loud and the direction of the scene, with the editing, the shots and the actors seem to say "how incredible is that!", yet I couldn't find what was what they were trying to tell. It happened a lot to me with Oppenheimer that the film seemed to be running, always focusing somewhere else, on the future, never in the present. The whole film seemed to be a buildup for something that would never come.
Wes Anderson would have done incredible job with this remake. He loves to innovate in restricted frames and brings appealing characters to life quite easily while unfolding the narrative.
Or David Lynch? 😂 What I really would have liked to see , would be a Wong Kar-Wai adaptation. He also knows how to make movies in restricted space and frames.
Wes Anderson would've made it so everyone was always in the exact middle of the frame with lots of space around them, looking directly at the camera. Would've been riveting.
9:30 Exactly, it invites the viewer to be their own detective, because they always will try to solve the mystery before the movie reveals it. Just like every mystery story does in every medium, it's what holds people in. Not to mention the credit it gives to the actors because it makes the audience aware of how every potential reaction and expression might hold the key information that will solve the plot. This is what cinema should be all about.
Yes, totally with you. I think the problem is that our age is obsessed about the technical aspect of cinema, less of the performance part. Acting is the key, the technical aspect secondary. That is not the case nowadays. Now it is cutting, editing and CGI.
The secret to modern commercially successful cinema is that it tells the viewer exactly what to think through dynamic edits while creating the illusion that the viewer is making up their own mind. There's a reason a lot of successful directors working today cut their teeth making commercials. The lingering shots of older movies may feel plodding and more artificial, but they actually open up the viewer's mind to greater interpretations. So-called boring or unexciting cinema is, in a way, more liberating.
@@DizzyBusyAlso support indie creators! Like the rise of Indie Animation on RUclips or the Analog Horror community. I’m obsessed with both of those genres and they are amazing amd inspiring.
THANK YOU for making a 10 minute video about both films without throwing any spoilers. You're talented! I feel like watching them after your analysis but almost paused the video in fear of spoiling the plot.
Yep! Now they use bad wigs and so much product the curls and waves look like a frozen sculpture…. Instead of the natural frizz the hair has….. DON’T GET ME STARTED ON 80s and 90s hair on present day “nostalgia” …. Way worse!
Would love to see a comparison between Branagh's death on the Nile with the David Suchet one, especially in the opening ballroom scene which in Suchet's is a brilliant scene that tells you everyone's motive and character whereas Branagh's is mostly violent dry humping.
A Death on the Nile is one of my favorite Christie books, and I loved the original one. The remake was such a disappointment. I give Branagh credit(or maybe all credit to the cinematographer?) for the beautiful shots along the Nile.
Thank you for watching them! And don’t worry if you try watching the 74 version and don’t feel compelled by it. It’s not for everybody. But at least you’ll hopefully be able to appreciate it a bit for what it achieves on a technical level, if nothing else. :) -Danny
I actually remember watching it as a kid and have very positive memories of it. I'll have to watch it again; I'm curious to see how my perspective has changed.
I think the remake is like "watching a movie about the story", wheras the older one puts you *in the story*, as another invisible passenger. Both are pretty good. But it's akin to two different chefs making a steak. the core is the same, but the fixings are completely different.
Best way to describe it imo. Both films are incredible in their own ways and had different takes on how to shoot it. I appreciate that the newer one did things different since we'll always have the older one to watch so it's not more of the same. Now you get two versions of the same story to enjoy in different ways.
I think this comparison here is relevant for performance and directing now in general. Now, actors are taught to tone down everything, be nonchalant, even in cases when it would be better to be more theatrical. And as for directing, simplicity and repetition are concepts very far from the minds of blockbuster filmmakers.
Over the last twenty or so years there seems to have been a weird, unspoken rule that if something is "stagey" or theatrical then audiences will reject it. I've seen no evidence to support this rule.
The same toning down has happened with the background scoring, where the old-fashioned leitmotific style has been largely supplanted with the droning ”sonic wallpaper” approach. This modern approach is imagined as being ”less emotionally manipulative”, but on the contrary, it robs the music of any ability to provide commentary or subtext on the events we are watching (see for example how the whole Debbie-is-actually-Ethan’s-daughter subtext in THE SEARCHERS (1956) is entirely communicated through the musical architecture of Max Steiner’s score)
I believe it all depends on the director. We have so many people nowadays from all over making movies with diverse cast. I love actors that can do minimal action cause it's harder than it looks and I also love the theatrics.
Thank you. Just yesterday I was thinking how MotOE 1974 was, essentially, the last movie I felt joy in figuring out the solution (well- guessing it was a plausible solution while watching); and how Usual Suspects started me thinking modern mystery plots are mostly comprised of grammatical tricks. You've given words to something I've lamented for decades.
Yeah. These days it’s largely about distraction and disorientation. Which are valid tactics. But I think it shows a lot of confidence when other methods are used, and more information is given.
I’m glad you brought up the characters’ intros. The way it was done in the modern adaptation gave me whip-lash from how quick it was and I think in the end it made it harder to remember/distinguish them (which ironically I think the director was trying to avoid by making them more varied). I think getting them all in on one shot makes it easier to tell them apart and remember who is who, which is essential when you have such a big cast of suspects.
Thank you for articulating so well what many of us feel when watching movies nowadays. Back in the day, camera cuts and angles where there mostly to situate us, the viewers, in the scene and help us follow the story.
The colors in the original film are so beautiful. The haze and the full range of colors are just so wonderful. Modern color grading just feels so..... why. The outdoor scenes with Daisy Ridley for example look the best because they're the most natural. Everything else is just so green and bronze.
This got me thinking about how a lot of movies seem to look very gray and lifeless to me. But they're not in black and white, they still have color. But if you want to remove the color from the film to make it feel "more real," why not go all the way? A serious movie can still have color in it, it's nothing to be afraid of. Granted, I'm not a filmmaker, so who am I to say?
@@Damon_BlueYou're definitely onto something. I've noticed as well a lot of recent movies (especially when they treat topics like war) are very washed out in colours. As if they applied a shade of grey onto the film ; it's such a shame because brighter colours can absolutely work for a movie dealing with more grounded subjects. A bleak subject doesn't mean it has to look bleak or dread in terms of colours. I'm thinking movies like Full Metal Jacket, where the tones really pop out and are an absolute part of the cinematography, they serve to make the shots more memorable, and in my opinion, more real. The greens of the jungle, the more red tones of the faces... no need for things to look grey to be considered more serious.
Digital cameras. Film, particularly in the late 80s to the early 2000s, the Zenith of the technology and technical understanding of it, always look better and is natively 8k since it's a real physical object.
@@tobyjohnson9136 You can have digital look like anything you want, the information is there. We're at a point that digital is on par with or better than 35mm film in both resolution and dynamic range. But the look is done in post production and that's the point where the color scheme is decided: you can have it look like Saving Private Ryan or like an Oled TV demo. Or you can have it emulate the look of a certain film stock. The main reason for most people to shoot on film is because of the inherent imperfections and the limitations of the medium.
Splendid analysis. One of favourites of the seventies. This is one of the challenges of filming a Agatha Christie mystery that Sidney Lumet and company faced with grace and aplomb, and that is you must allow the story to unfold and breathe, so that we the audience know where we are at all times and still want to know what's next. In his book Making Movies, he described the pre-production process of MOTOE and the rehearsal process of blocking out these scenes with all of these great stage and screen actors. Taping the floor out to replicate the trains they were going to shoot on and directing and aiding all of their performances through the lens of this great cast cumulative experience. All of this anchored by Albert Finney's titan performance of Hercule Poirot. He had so much to do and say in this movie, Mr. Finney deserved his Oscar and BAFTA nomination that year.
I haven't seen either version but the fact that the remake seemingly takes every opportunity to leave the train, in a story about people trapped on a train, is probably telling
Great video. I recently saw A Haunting in Venice, and while I enjoyed it a good deal, I did pick up on the different approach to the source material. It’s not really trying to be a mystery story, more a psychological thriller about a detective.
Branagh also made the most pretentious Hamlet of all time. It never feels genuine, it's "look how great of an actor I am". All the fancy costumes and sets and it can't hold a candle to Gregory Doran's simple, modernish-timeless staging (and this comes from a Regietheater hater).
I like your point about minimal camera angles & cuts, focusing on clear story telling. I wonder if this was also due to the developmetn of cinematic technology. it is so much easier to cut, or use multiple camera anglers nowadays due to the ease and access we have with cameras. Back when films were made in the 70s cameras were limited and a lot more expensive for films.
It's also an example of the limited technology available for it's time we're not constraints when the focus was storytelling through script and performances. Not relying heavily on stylism as the sole throughline to engage your audience because you think that's what makes you stand out.
there's another version that I like even better : the episode from the Poirot serie. This one assumed that the story's so well known by then that there was no point in dwelling too much on the mystery solving. Instead, it gave the characters lot of time to discuss the moral aspects of the crime, and for Poirot to decide what he would do with his conclusions. I don't know whether it was particularly well filmed, but nobody went out of the wagon until the Brod police showed up.
i love the comparison made here between the two movies not necessarily pointing out that one is better but more that Danny's personal taste leans him towards the different style of filmmaking, I also love the point about how these are made in two different eras of Hollywood really demonstrates how audience can play a role in the type of film your making. Love it Danny keep it up ;)
So true. I remember watching Dune and thinking that the film was so obsessed with looking good it felt fake and they lost the focus on story. It happens usually that films, instead of creating something in the story that causes a spefici feeling, they try to directly cause it without the origin. And it feels so pretentious and ridiculous. I think that happened with Oppenheimer and EEAAO a lot. That's not good direction.
@@r.c.c.10 We can find flaws in almost all movies but the most important thing is what the movie tries to convey and did it success at it. For Dune it's a bit early to say it's good or not as it will depend on the other movies, but I really liked the effort and maturity put into it, it's a rare movie. There is flaws maybe in Openeimer while I'm not sure if it's not also an artistic choice, but it doesn't mean that's a bad movie at all. Finding flaws don't make them bad, there is a also a lot of flawed movies that are very good, even LOTR movies have flaws and it's the best series ever made.
@@kieranl5249 "a number of film legends" implies some countable number of film legends likely more than two. With just Judi Dench, Willem Dafoe, and Johnny Depp I would say that qualifies even if you don't include any of the rest of the cast. It would be interesting to do the math and see which film has more years of experience considering that was the main point of OPs comment.
The 1974 version is one of my favorite movies of all time, I don't go 6 months without watching it. I love David Suchet's Poirot and I'm very fond of Peter Ustinov's, but Finney's is my absolute favorite. Lumet's ability to juggle all these incredible stars still delights me, and the summation is, in my opinion, the best ever put to screen. I went to see the new one and I didn't find it very engaging, it was just okay. Thank you for your video, :)
Thank you for highlighting this. So well presented. Incredible. Mainstream films were still willing to create this feeling of "being the observer" in many 90s movies. Sometimes the world of older films feel so much more lived-in than nearly anything I'm seeing today. Even when it's the same director 20+ years between projects, they abandon the style.
I believe that the 1974 version (and Lumet's approach as a whole) has it's own strong benefit for the modern audiences. We live in the age of not only rapidness but also in the age of the obsession with reactions. The 'someone reacts to the content' genre is as valuable as the content itself. And Lumet, being as you said an actor's director, does provide this by paying a lot of attention to his characters reactions. Take '12 angly men' for instance. Now, when watching movies clip by clip on TikTok is trending, this movie fits the trend perfectly and does have millions of views on the platform. So probably 1974 verison doesn't look as outdated as someone might think.
your analysis and video is so good that there isnt a single bump in the timeline of the video, everyone watched it start to end, no skipping or hopping to a different part of the video.
I love watching Columbo sometimes because the shots are always long and personal and every line feels naturally delivered because of it. There are like 7 minute scenes with no cuts
Side-stepping the question of why make Murder on the Orient Express in 2017 in the first place, I think Branagh did a commendable job of trying a different angle, especially when the definitive whodunnit version has already been made by the great Lumet. Lumet's version has a sense of claustrophobia that Branagh's lacks, but Branagh's has a sense of isolation that Lumet's lacks. In the Branagh version, the characters can leave the train but they are still trapped, just as they have been trapped by the tragedy that unites them. In the Last Supper dénouement, the suspects sit with the darkness of the tunnel behind them and light ahead of them, with Poirot as the arbiter of what will happen to them. For better or worse, Branagh's movie is really about Poirot, and we see the trope of gathering the suspects as a product of Poirot's ego. He wants an audience and a stage for his explanation, he wants them to know he solved the murder before letting them move on. He could have sat them in a carriage, or next to the train, but we get the most theatrical setting*. Poirot's ego is in the books and the film & TV portrayals (esp. Ustinov's), but I think Branagh is having fun making it the driving force of the classic format and it's theatrical nature. Christie wrote that Poirot wanted everything in structured and ordered, and the chaotic, fast-cutting nature of the characters arriving in the train station and boarding the train is a counterpoint to this - they come from a different world to his. I'm not claiming that Branagh is in the same league as Lumet, but he does strike me as a director that wants to explore ideas and techniques (such as the 70's gothic movie camera angles in A Haunting in Venice). Just to finish: My definitive Poirot is David Suchet, with Ustinov a close second. *We also see this sense of theatricality in the film's opening by the Wailing Wall, there's chaos until Poirot sets up his stage to unmask the perpetrator and, performance over, the stage is dismantled and chaos returns.
This is a brilliant observation. I think what made this film so compelling is that it's clearly personal. Branagh's Poirot is very much a self-portrait, centering the character's theatricality, as well as his inflated ego. And what better metaphor than that grandiose mustache? As soon as I saw it, I could tell where Branagh was going. Also, your insight about the film's sense of isolation is spot-on. The exterior shots really emphasize this, placing the characters between an insurmountable wall and a bottomless drop, unable to move forward or back. I think it's every bit as compelling as the claustrophobia of the original film. Personally, I found Branagh's version captured the dark, rich romance of the train itself much better. Lumet's washed out whites don't quite capture it. As I said in my own comment, I think the key element of the film is the contrast between Poirot's returning the world to order in the opening scene, and being profoundly humbled by the irredeemable chaos at the end. That's absolutely not a part of the original story, or the film. To my mind, that's what makes this a truly worthy remake. I think there's an assumption around beloved pop culture characters that there's some platonic ideal version that everyone should attempt to live up to. But that's not why the characters are beloved. Some writer on The Onion pointed out a long time ago that every Batman fan has their own unique version of the character in their heads, constructed of their personal favorite aspects of their favorite Batman stories. This personal head-canon Batman doesn't quite match any one version in any official story, or in anyone else's head. Yet everyone has an opinion why each new official incarnation is wrong in some way. It's a mistake to think your head-canon version of a character is the "right" one, because there is no right one. These characters have lasted so long because they shift and evolve over the years. Suchey's Poirot isn't quite the same as the book version, or Finney's or Ustinov's. That's the point of casting new actors. And what Poirot means now is different than what he meant when he was written, because society has a different relationship to right and wrong, crime and criminals, ego and righteousness. Kenneth Branagh's Poirot is the right version for our times. The traditional arrogant little egotist who's always right would have been been a truly sour note in this modern world being torn apart by grandiose egos. I don't believe in "definitive" versions of characters. I think what makes them last is their adaptability as much as their universality. They stay in the social zeitgeist because they evolve with the times. So each new version has something new to add to the character's legacy. That's my take on it.
Fair points but, for me, the key difference in directorial storytelling is that the 1974 version is telling me (exposing) the information while the 2017 version makes me feel as I am discovering it. Long shots are nice but quick shots allow for more dynamic engagement. One makes me feel like I'm watching the moment unfold from the other side of the room. The other makes me feel like I'm actually part of the conversation. Both approaches have their strengths.
I always remember growing up the types of movie scenes where it made you feel like you were right there in the conversation with someone only from the position and length of the shot. I can usually catch them in movies or shows lately because they're not used as much. Great video!! Saw you on my home page. Subscribed and going to watch some more!
Usually when I want to spend a night or a weekend watching films, instead of watching all the new stuff, I ended up re-watching films by Hitchcock, Coppola, Kubrick, or Kurosawa. Lumet's are great too. They are beautifully crafted; the frame, the story, the editing, the music. Feels like lots of thoughts put into it.
Sidney Lumet is the director of one, if not the, best movie I've ever seen: 12 angry men. He can keep you on the edge of your seat with just a room and a few real, oh so real, characters. His cinematography is insane.
I love how this style evolved into what speilberg does. There's this one scene in the sugarland express where a policeman is talking through a police radio. It's so masterfully shot that the blocking itself gives me chills
that's a great way to look at a Mystery Movie: the idea that a long, wide shot gives US the opportunity to watch the people WE find suspect. we get to be our own little detectives in the audience. active audience participation! what a concept.
I often argue with a friend who is adamant that modern filmmaking is the peak of perfection and you can't watch old movies anymore. I on the other hand, can't watch many MODERN movies. Sooooo.....you speak from my heart. Thank you. Take care
That's because movies used to be made on a budget which allowed them to cater to a select demographic. Now, every movie has to make ALL the money. Not some of it, ALL of it. If a movie doesn't cross the $1 billion threshold, it's seen as a colossal bomb. As a result, everything has to have gunfights and third act sky beams to make sure the lowest common denominator and the all-important Chinese market turns out to see it.
Fantastic breakdown for a presentation that is only 11 minutes long. You're far from the first person to do side-by-side comparisons but in this case, it is very effective.
Thank you! I honestly spent a long time debating how much of an actual “comparison” I wanted to do between the two movies, and how much I wanted to just use the 2017 version as a reference. I guess it sort of ended up somewhere in the middle. :) -Danny
It definitely shows the different aspects of classic and modern film. Rapid cutting, moving shots versus static, close up to gauge one reaction or to capture the subtleties of a room. Bite size breakdowns are very east and enjoyable to absorb. @@CinemaStix
Thank you so much for summarising so succinctly why I prefer Lumet's version over Branagh's and why Lumet's is one of my favourite films. The fact the Lumet version is slower is a bonus is my eyes; it's perfect for enjoying on a rainy afternoon.
This was excellent. As somebody who can barely stand any new movies, this really puts into words things that I have struggled to articulate. Old films just feel more confident, intelligent, and better composed. The film just...looks so much nicer. I still have trouble explaining it.
I see tons of new movies. I enjoy some of them (probably more than was implied by my comment) but I mostly leave them feeling disappointed, and this video really elaborated on why. I dislike many modern filmmaking techniques, whether we're talking about CGI, digital cameras, color aesthetics, modern writing, or even modern sound aesthetics. It's extremely difficult to find films that don't employ these techniques outside of some stubborn arthouse directors. If you'd like to suggest some excellent new movies, go for it.
@@jordancooperlalala Ah, I see, originally I read it as more of a condemnation of new movies almost on principle alone. Good to see that there's some leeway there! Hmm, trying to think about recent-ish movies in older styles. How about _Roma_ (2018)? Black and white, long steady panoramic shots with chaotic scenes, borderline meandering camera movement from time. Personally, I'm a big fan of _The Lighthouse_ (2019), but it might be a bit art-housey for some viewers. Oh, perhaps my favorite of all time: _The Grand Budapest Hotel_ (2014), by Wes Anderson! Hell, _most_ movies by Wes Anderson :P Edit: If you want more recent, I think the last movie I enjoyed might've been _Banshees of Inisherrin_ (2022). Been watching Martin McDonagh-movies for a long while, and think he's really found his voice in that one.
I must profess though, it's a bit hard to recommend, without knowing genre prefference, and considering some of those limitations you mentioned are a bit _vague._ Like, what even is "modern color aesthetics"? Is it the overly bleak and dark Jason Bourne colors? The way too oversaturated and overanimated Marvel movies? ... Or the vibrant modern shots of Irish countryside in Banshees of Inisherrin? All of these obviously made with modern film equipment and post effects, but varrying _wildly_ in tone and look.
@@BimpytheWimpyShrimpy Yes, Wes Anderson falls under the category of "stubborn arthouse directors." He still uses film, he seems to avoid CGI, etc, etc. I also liked The Lighthouse. I've been meaning to see Roma, actually. I just never heard much about it.
How it's shot is one of the things I love the most about Hunger (McQueen, 2008) - the dialogue between the priest and Bobby Sands is barely edited at all, if i remember correctly, and you can feel the actors finding each other in the scene.
Thank you for bringing attention to the 1974 version. It's a favorite of mine. I watch it regularly. I was hugely disappointed by the remake, and you do a great job of summing up many of my issues.
it's that classic films care deeply more about the actors/actresses' actual *acting talent* in playing their given roles and that's what they're emphasizing in every scene and shot, while modern film cares about showing who are their chosen stars are, and making an aesthetically pleasing shot and delivery so people can use it for any social media. (i don't know if i'm making sense but that's the closest i can explain that thought 😅)
This seems like part of the nature of a remake. The result is often either a. you make a copy and it understandably feels tired or b. you do something different and in doing so lose some of that "je ne sais quoi" that made the original worthy of a remake in the first place. Also, i imagine with the original the tropes were still a little fresh so that you could lead the audience with long shots without necessarily giving things away as much as if you were to have those shots today. The whodunit archetypes are real sharp so you either need to bury things/distract (e.g. quick shots) or give a new spin on the archetypes.
This has always been my major gripe with certain detective mysteries these days. With all the quick pacing and dynamic action, some of these directors opt to obfuscate what the great detectives have deduced and forget that a good case to solve on screen will slowly reveal to you exactly what's going on without letting on what exactly it is it's revealing. If by the midway point, your audience can't make an educated guess or maybe even deduce what happened then you've failed with genre (One of the most prominent examples of this for me is the awful BBC show Sherlock). Great video!
I just adored Ustinov. I was once on a stage mere feet from him when I was a kid. My favorite role of his was in The Sundowners opposite Robert Mitchum.
Lumet's version is on Netflix through the end of January, so I re-watched for the first time in 20 years. I've seen Branaugh's version recently and I even just re-watched this video. It's really incredible to compare the two. The economy of the shots in Lumet's is really incredible, and I enjoy when detective stories give you all the clues, letting you feel clever for noticing something, but letting the detective be more clever by putting it all together. Even if I liked Branaugh's versions of these stories less than I do, I'm still very happy he's making them, and they definitely have their own strengths.
It was only last time I saw this that I noticed the look on Mrs. Hubbard and Pierre’s faces when they meet Poirot, showing their instant concern. I also noticed that that’s the moment Mrs. Hubbard starts putting on her act. Nice minor detail that makes it more interesting on rewatch.
Agree, I call him "Sir Kenny" because he fits Orson Welles description of a movie studio as the greatest toy a boy could have. In "Haunting in Venice" he was forced to restrain himself.
Bought and watched both of these when the modern version came out. The modern one is still good in it's own way of how modern movies work, hyper focusing on a few characters at a time, dialog that is always like a fight scene, attack-riposte-counter, excessive focus on CGI environments and atmosphere. The classic is more like a stage theatre, lots of characters on screen, more casual dialog that eases the viewer into relaxing before ramping up the drama, limitations of physical environments playing into a focus on dialog, props and extras to appear grounded.
I noticed this difference when I was watching the Harry Potter movies. So much movement from the surroundings, you felt way more involved in that place, being part of it. The reactions of others play a huge role in the story, it adds so much to the movie. I miss that style of filmmaking so much. Makes me wonder if that's why I watch movies much less than I used to? I prefer a normal human pace instead of the fast-short-attention-span-style and I'm saying that while I have ADHD lol. Modern movies feel isolated, like a separate group of friends that have main character syndrome and the world evolved around them. I love movies where you can see a world react to life changing events, and I hate it how this is often ignored. My main issue being superhero movies (the Boys not included). Sure they often show people in distress but they never show the poor conditions people live in, permanent struggle or trauma or even loss, the opinions yadda yadda.
ADHD person here as well, commenting on public perception of attention deficit: People think cramming stuff into videos helps retain attention when viewers have ADHD. The opposite happens. It's not that I get bored after 2 seconds of silence. It's that I cannot control what I'm getting distracted by. So if I want to listen to someone talk, I need a video of just them talking. If there's colourful text flashing and frantic gameplay happening and music swelling, I cannot listen to the words, because I'm analyzing the music. Putting more shit into the frame is NOT good for people with ADHD unless there's no story you want them to pay attention to. This is such a common misconception I feel. Fast jump cuts are rather for neurotypical movie-goers who are bored and want a distraction.
A hugely inspiring film for me on a technical level, and in terms of how to use atmosphere well, the claustrophobia, fear, and mystery of the original draws me in and makes me curious and cautious every time. The acting is top notch, and I think the soundtrack is amazing. Love this film. And the video, thanks Danny!
Death on the Nile has the same problem. In the older version they use 6 shots for Jackie to grab the gun, shooting Simon and the gun falling to the ground. The newer version uses more than twice the amount of shots to show us the same actions.
That’s a nice comparison. It reminds me of an NPR piece done back in the early 90s comparing Laurence Olivier’s Henry V (Shakespeare) to Kenneth Branagh’s remake. Olivier’s production was much grander and dependent on hundreds of extras to deliver the full weight of England’s army invading France and doing battle at Agincourt. Branagh’s version was lower in budget and had only 35 actors, so his production was dependent on camera closeups, dramatic use of color, costumes and a soundtrack to bolster his action. Its end result garnered two Oscar nods and a win. So perhaps Branagh had fallen into, what I like to call, the “John Woo trap” where the studio says, “Here’s $$$$$$: go make a simple film.” Of course, Branagh would aim to make a film that isn’t reminiscent of Sydney Lumet, and I can appreciate that. I still found it quite enjoyable, since the story full of characters that lends itself to a healthy dollop of star power-Depp, Coleman, Pfeiffer, Dafoe, Dench … too many to list.
Ross from Accursed Farms brought me here. Great video, man! Love the in deep view and explanation of the cinematography, it's seems at times that the technical leap on the big screen cost the basics of good cinema. I can be wrong, of course. But that is how I view the direction most filmmakers take. ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
It's one of those cases where less turns out to be SO much more. It's just amazing how much only one or two shots used in a single scene can actually reveal more, whereas multiple angles and cuts may add to a faster pace but ultimately distract you from elements essential to the plot and characters.
I feel that the TV show did alot of what you talked about the best. Long episodes that gave you all of the points like in the original novels, and were filmed and acted beautifully. Plus David Suchet did such a good job of playing poirot that reading the books, then watching the episodes were very similar and the character just felt so natural.
@@geckowizard I don’t know if I’d say better, but definitely on par. Watch a couple of episodes and see for yourself, it’s REALLY good imo, the show ran for a long time and the episodes are around movie length with so much effort put into the direction. And I need to reiterate, David Suchet practically IS poirot.
@@tomahawkANDscopZ I've seen most of the episodes, and for me Suchet is the definitive Poirot. The series was certainly well filmed and the acting was first rate. My somewhat flippant remark was more about the growing obsession with blocking, which seems to be taking the place of the long single take. I think this video is a rare example of Cinemastix not seeing the wood for the trees.
This is one of my biggest gripes that no one talks about when comparing classic Star Wars with the newer movies: They don’t breathe, it’s all quick cutting between shot/reverse shot
I would not only say that the Sidney Lumet version was the best adaption of the story, i would also add that it improved upon the original source novel as well. And that's a rare achievement indeed.
It didn't feel slow to me. Finney caries it. From the moment his Poirot is introduced I'm hooked. Once the plot truly begins to unfold I'm gripped tightly and don't let go until its resolution. I've come back to watch it several times and will without doubt continue to do so several times more. I watched a few minutes of the remake and never finished it. I most likely never will.
This beautifully summarizes the difference between someone who wants to be a passive view (ie info fed to them by changing camera angles) or an active viewer (someone who wants to solve it before he does lol). My preference is the latter but I also enjoy the occasional passive viewing. However, Albert Finney is not only a LEGEND but read up on the filming of that final scene of his. All his fellow actors were blown away by his ability to capture their attention for so many loooong takes! Brilliantly done 👏🏻
I like both versions but the Lumet version is my favourite for two main reasons. One is Albert Finney's performance; he is such a gross little man, not really interested in the human drama playing out before him, only interested in solving the case. There is one moment where he does a little run down the corridor; I love that moment so much! And the other is the claustrophobia of the train, as Danny points out. The Branagh version opens things up, but what makes a train a great setting for a narrative like this is that you are stuck there. There is no way out as a character or as a viewer. You have to stick it out and get through it, just like a long train journey.
i really don't like the quick cuts specifically for murder mysteries because how am i gonna be a detective when everything i would detect is out of frame!!!
Check out The Last Picture Show (1971) or anything else streaming on MUBI for FREE with an extended 30-day trial: mubi.com/cinemastix
MUBI is awesome! I grew up loving the '74 version (no pun intended) of Murder On The Orient Express with the absolutely stellar cast of film greats so I was perhaps a bit biased against the Kenneth Branagh version upon release thinking it was a John Wick style adaptation of classic Agatha Christie. To @CinemaStix point though I can see that film making AND viewing style has changed in 40 plus years so perhaps I shall give Branagh's version another view with a more open mind. Thank You for the insightful review.
Oh sick another streaming service with a stupid babytalk name 🙄
Im pretty sure modern Directors overuse cuts because they underestimate or even distrust their Camera-Men
Modern Cinema is over-fixated on Directors, when it takes hundreds or even thousands of people to make a Movie
Your vocal fry is dreadful.
Thank you for this amazing video. I learnt a lot about the art of filming movies.
That video is another evidence of the total decadent world we live in, and the anthropological decay. Idiocracy rule the waves.
i find it so odd how films made so long ago were often so heavily detailed and subtle that rewatching them was often the best way of enjoying them, but was during a time when going to the cinema was probably the only way you'd view the film at your leisure, and now that we have a world saturated with on-demand services, all films seem to want to focus on grand set pieces and quick punchy action leaving no room for any subtlety and killing all rewatchability.
And doesn’t that make it all the sadder? If anything, it should be the other way round, because the on demand services mean you can rewatch a film much easier than having to pay to keep going to the cinema over and over.
Shamalamadingdong's "The Village" is not worth a second viewing because once the "grand secret" is revealed (at the end), all the sparkle and shine is gone.
I've stopped watching Modern movies.
As if insipid dreary dialogue
isn't enough.
Why do we have to suffer? - The last time I went to the Cinema was a spy movie with lovely Jennifer Lawrence in the lead. After a relentlessly bleak 90 mins the audience was subjected to the unedifying sight of Miss Laurence having her head bashed in on the side of a bath.
I felt I'll and had to leave the Cinema. I'm never going back.
'Handmaids Tale' is the same.
Who is the audience for this material?
Can you imagine trying to follow everything that happens in "Playtime" in a single viewing? You'd go mad
@@Jeremy-ho3vi The audience is YOUNG and accustomed to speed, spectacle and so on. 90% of all movie goers are younger than 25 years of age. Old movies were made for people of all age classes, that is why they "move" more slowly. It is also a history of camerawork and editiing to consider. Back then they chose different shots than today. Framing was in principle very different than today. You have the same with modern novels, for example. Very different to novels 50 years ago.
I took a mystery and detective literature class in college and it seemed to me that more recent whodunnits were oftentimes harder to solve than older ones, but I could never put my thumb on why. Now I see that an emphasis on cinematography and dramatic flair can come at the cost of dialogue and a fairer chance for the watcher to solve the mystery for themselves; thanks for your insight and eloquence, Danny.
I think it can also be because people got used to the tropes the old ones so directors have to find new ways to keep the suspense
A great exception is Knives Out. What a fanstastic modern take on the genre.
Also because CCTV and cellphones. It's hard to write a whodunit when everyone is constantly connected and being watched
I would also argue that the writing is just “cheaper”. For example- the first Knives Out (which I personally found enjoyable and which kept me guessing) has the line “HUGH did it!” was presented as “YOU did it” as if the word swap were some astounding reveal…. It felt to me then as it feels to me anytime I rewatch it- irksome, irritating, like it’s presume I was not smart enough to appreciate something more nuanced and interesting.
I know studios are making everything idiot-proof if they can, but goddam….
I’ll present everything Jordan Peele has done so far- there’s a reveal without a character going into exposition to make sure us dummies get it…. AND- his films have been incredibly successful. Proof studios really don’t need to dumb it down to be entertaining and moneymaking
@@shanxmonappa870 damn….. say that dude
Fun Fact: For Murder on the Orient Express (1974), the luxury food that is inspected and carried aboard the train had been stolen from the set just before shooting. All of the food had to be bought again, in the middle of the night, on-location in Paris, France.
This might be a good opportunity for me to mention something else fun: at 00:35 in the video, when I mention the film The Verdict, can anyone spot Bruce Willis? He was a background extra in that scene, six years before Die Hard.
@@CinemaStix Behind the man with the red tie
understandable, man was hungry
@@CinemaStix I knew he was an extra before he became big in Hollywood and recognized the scene, it still took me a couple seconds to find him even though I knew he was there
took me a minute or two to spot him to the right of Paul. Ah, what hair! I wonder if he arranged himself so he was in the light?
It's always interesting to see how technical limitations have shaped artistic forms.
I agree, Yang Wen-Li
Budget, as well. Robert Eggers said himself that The Northman having such a big budget affected his artstyle. Look at 300million dollar Indiana Jones where Logan cost 130m by the same director.
@@kitchensarehot8769 the Northman was so good. Not what I expected it to be but I’m kinda glad it wasn’t.
And really pushed/showed actors full potential and limitations, ah...
@@kitchensarehot8769Logan is so good
I far prefer how films used to be shot compared to how they are now. So much less hopping between characters faces and just letting full scenes of people play out instead.
There are still a lot of good movies, without gratuitous 20 second scenes and and ubiquitous DOF that makes everything looking like a bad video game. But they are a little less mainstream.
Try going to the theater then mate.
@@corcoosword
100% agree. What we see at the cinema now is content. It's entertainment primarily and has little substance. There's a place for it. Authentic films made with craftsmanship are few and far between.
Plus when scenes are filmed/edited so that the camera jumps from actor to actor, there’s a very big chance that the actors aren’t even in the same room. They could be filmed days apart, and that’s just something that for me personally feel less human. They often lack the human connection in communication we can often see in, good, ”long shots”. How the chracters seem to react to one another especially when it comes to their body language.
Now that you've pointed it out, I can see how the wide shot is so much better than a bunch of cut up close ups. As the viewer, I feel as if I'm in the room, rather than watching a movie. I've often felt that so much of being an actor is not just about delivering your own lines as it is reacting to the dialogue of others. The wide shot allows me to watch the reaction to the speech as well as the speech itself.
They paid 30m for that actors face so they gonna zoom in on it
Exactly.
Overabundance of wide cuts can also give you impression of sitting in a theatre gallery, watching a play. You're just as removed, just differently.
How do you feel like you’re not watching a movie when the acting sucks as bad as it does?
@@boxonothing4087 Yes, it also gives you the feeling of being in the cheap seats. The editing and the tight shots seem like different issues to me. Sometimes you want to see through one character's eyes rather than feeling like an outside observer and a competent director shouldn't need to get the camera right in the actor's face for a close up.
I was surprised that Branaugh’s decision to have the actors living on the train, which should have added to a feeling of claustrophobia, was not carried into the film because he kept cutting away from the train.
He is not a good director. Every film except possibly Henry V always end up visually convoluted focusing on technicalities rather than letting the story take center stage. And, he has become more involved with this as time has progressed. He has ended up falling victim to changing stories to include inappropriate modern themes that distract and undermine the story’s characters and plot.
@@wordragonFair points. Though I would argue that this isn’t a unique issue to him individually, but the product of
a tidal shift of industry practices that he has inevitably followed in suit. Methods and priorities have changed with time, and not always for the better. A modern director trying to adapt in order to remain successful perhaps can’t help but be influenced by this.
@@nickcara97 -I would agree with you, but there are examples of modern film-making where story and character take center stage while still being dynamic visually. It is his choices which ultimately make his movies terrible. And, let's remember he made Hamlet in an era when you can't blame modern culture.
@@wordragon there are indeed still some people who are willing to entrust the intricacies of a well told story and it’s developments to its audience's understanding. It’s just a shame that they seldom get nearly the same recognition or appreciation for it anymore.
Although, I wouldn’t go as far as to say Branaugh’s movies are terrible now, they’re certainly not the same as they were much earlier is his career. You make a good point about Hamlet. That would be just the example I would refer to as well, still my personal favorite by him.
Dumbed down version...
Old school film took more cues from stage acting / plays. New film takes cues from trailer editing: a bunch of quick cuts to keep people's ever-shortening attention spans.
Exactly, 1974 movie is like a theatrical play.
Cinema used to be held down by theatrical traditions - innovations in filmmaking were all about transcending a "stage play" viewer experience. But now, there is a complete reversal. Absence of any theatrical background is one of the main reasons why modern filmmaking is so bad, with overuse of cuts and bad blocking.
Don't worry, our attention spans aren't getting shorter. We've always been quick thinkers.
That's no surprise considering Sidney Lumet got his start doing Off-Broadway live theater and went on to live television.
He was a completely gifted aficionado that doesn't receive the well-earned adulation he deserves.
@@IDontReallyGiveAShit Nope.
My generation isn't stupid or ADD prone any more than any human before us. We aren't 'Great Communicators!' or 'Problem Solvers!' We're god damn honest normal people. Yeah, no yourself. I hate how you pretend to know better when you don't. I'm not going to talk to you.
only modern people still prefer the old school. "short attention spans" is just an excuse for bad work
Ironically, Branagh’s early films were never afraid to use long takes, with scenes that were often notable for relying on deft blocking over cutting to direct the viewer’s attention. His style seems to have adapted to fashion over time.
I noticed a lot of extremely pretentious framing in these few scenes presented here. Shots from the under carriage of a train, through some weird frosted glass etc etc. It amounts to a very gimmicky look that is below his station in my opinion. The sort of stuff a 20-something film student would think was cool and edgy but is just needless and annoying. It's almost as if he was doing a parody of a Tarantino film, or perhaps trying to emulate one and doing horribly at it.
@@jakeroon somehow this always happens to directors after some decades in the game
"Belfast" is no "Hamlet" but it still is much better directed than those Poirot films. Branagh has seemed more interested in playing Poirot than directing a Poirot film. Or perhaps it's a matter of the right choice of DoP and editor.
He's definitely got better with actors (or maybe can now call upon better actors). Look at Peter's Friends and In the Bleak Mid Winter. Some of the overacting (especially from Jennifer Saunders) makes my toes curl.
Branagh seems like much more of a journeyman director at this point in his career.
Also the dialog in 1974 was captured by an overhead boom mic, the remake used on talent lav mics (and possibly boom mics). The dialog sound is quite different. The 74 film dialog had good audio perspective where the room can be heard like in real life. The remake dialog is all close sounding no matter if the camera is close to talent or farther away.
I've never payed attention to that but it actually bothers me when a character is 20 feet away and you can hear their voice as if they're shouting in your ear
This is a wonderful observation and it's yet another aspect of modern filmmaking that feels alienating to me.
Yep, that and the lighting@@jordancooperlalala
It's weird to call the 2nd movie a remake. It's merely a new adaptation of the novel.
I mean, it's not like anyone called Jackson's LotR a remake of Bakshi's LotR.
that's just modern movie making. old movies sound like garbage
Sidney Lumet has made so many great films. Just staggering amount of great films. "12 Angry Men" is essentially a film school in itself for budding directors to learn "Blocking".
Yup, I rewatched it a couple weeks ago after probably 6 or 7 years when I first watched it. I was fascinated with how much the characters moved around and the camera moved with them and how much the direction was so good that not one second of it was even close to boring. Some action films are more boring than this 2 hour movie that's set in only a very small room.
Yeah, I'd love to see his interpretation of that film.
Don’t forget Prince of the City….
@@MamadNobari Its so good, that even the remake from 1997 coasts on that excellent premise, and is very good. I have heard of an audio only version done with the likes of John de Lancie, Dan Castellaneta, Jeffrey Donovan, Héctor Elizondo, Robert Foxworth, Kevin Kilner, Richard Kind, and Armin Shimmerman. That sounds intriguing.
True.
Your note that Lumet kept the action trapped on the train with the guests is exactly why Scott’s The Martian is a missed opportunity. I’ve always wanted to make a cut that only includes the scenes on Mars. Cutting constantly to the Earth removes the fear, isolation and claustrophobia of the mission.
Imagine when he finally touches hands with another human being? How important that scene would feel after being lost in space for so long.
It doesn't help the earth scenes are pretty boring and poorly acted.
To be fair, at least those scenes were added straight from the book and not invented by the movie crew.
Time to rip the movie and recut it ourselves
You are totaly right , i thought it would be something like that , instead they made movie about guy who listen disco music on Mars..
wrong
in the book they cut to Earth a lot and it's still very effective
Wow the flashback example made my jaw drop. Such cool and thought-out cinematography. To think ahead and shoot both parts, I would assume back-to-back, but with a different lens and lighting/composition is awesome. Such a dramatic shift in the feeling it conveys.
I think of David Suchet as the definitive Hercule Poirot. The 2010 version that he was in might not be what you would call cinematically comparative, but as an actor he embodied that character so perfectly. Since he's the version I grew up with, watching anyone else in that role takes me out of it, regardless of how good they actually are.
I found Branagh's interpretation a complete farce and almost offensive to the character to make him so ostentatious and ridiculous. Suchet embodied Poirot to the point that he is a household name in Belgium and signs autographs on the street when he's there! That's dedication.
THANK YOU! Came here for this comment. Suchet’s mix of wit, charisma and compassion gave his take on the character such presence.
yup, no one can beat him
I concur wholeheartedly with this. Suchet’s Poirot is the definitive interpretation IMHO. Also, the theme music to that TV show is stuck in my mind for eternity. And that’s not a bad thing at all.
such a great TV series, i grew up with it, if i remember it was on Sunday night ITV, anyway just re-watched it recently and hadn't seen the later episode. It's strange as i don't live that far away from the apartment block they used as his home.
apartment very american, however calling that beautiful art deco building a block of flats seems off :)
Ever since Every Frame A Painting went dark, I've longed for someone who could provide the same level of complex and thoughtful analysis to movies. This channel, hands down, is it. Every video essay is well-paced, well thought-out, and thought-provoking. I can't wait to see more!
I actually found this channel a couple days ago while watching "when the director reallyyyy respects the audience…" from Scene It. They're both really good.
@MamadNobari Yeah, Jack’s fantastic. I highly recommend his stuff.
@@CinemaStixyes! All three channels are so phenomenal
@@MamadNobari I saw that nod from there to here. So nice when creators do that.
That's very high praise, but absolutely warranted!
The 2010 version starting David Suchet is a masterpiece. While they added scenes before Poirot got on the train that highlight his struggle at the end between what is right and what is just, it truly hits home how difficult his decision is at the end. The scene before the murder where Poirot is praying for guidance while Ratchett is praying for deliverance on opposite sides of the same wall is brilliant and the final shot of Poirot walking away from the rest of the passengers clutching his rosary beads while shaking and crying is devastating.
Yep, that one is the best version
David Suchet IS Poirot to me
@@brutusvonmanhammer Indeed! Although my first encounters with the character were Peter Ustinov and Albert Finney respectively. David Suchet has enormous shoes to fill when it comes to Poirot. Much like the Sherlock Holmes of my heart will always be Jeremy Brett. ❤️
@Charles78 Jeremy Brett IS Sherlock Holmes as well 🤣
Poirot? PRAYING? I don't remember him being religious at all in the books.
In the original you can see the efficiency of having so many of the actors in the shot. You can get all the reactions in real time and with the right rehearsal and the actors doing good work you discover things in the scene rather than it being force fed to you “see this, feel this”. Plus I can imagine a producer thinking, we have a loaded cast that we’re paying a lot of money too. We better get them all on screen as much as possible!…lol
I love older noir movies in the way they often had scenes that showed most of the room, rarely close up unless for an actual purpose and you would see all the actors in the shot. You could see them using their bodies, props, using the space of the room and it was still fun and energetic because you had great dialog being delivered by great actors. All the money spent on production design, costumes and FX in new movies and most of it is just closeups and bland singles and doubles and two shots. They think they satisfy you with every now and then throwing in a grand CGI shot of size but then it’s back to the same ol’ same ol’.
I agree. Single-shot scenes are not inherently better than multille-shot ones but you have to know when to use each.
Modern films are so enamoured with their own supposed beauty they forget about where's the substance of the scene. They are usually so pretentious, they only care about looking good at the cost of effectiveness, ending up losing so fake and artificial.
It happens to me usually that I see modern films that instead of filming something within the story that tries to cause a specific feeling the film, they try to cause it without the origin. I remember in Dune, EEAAO and Oppenheimer that the music went super loud and the direction of the scene, with the editing, the shots and the actors seem to say "how incredible is that!", yet I couldn't find what was what they were trying to tell.
It happened a lot to me with Oppenheimer that the film seemed to be running, always focusing somewhere else, on the future, never in the present. The whole film seemed to be a buildup for something that would never come.
Wes Anderson would have done incredible job with this remake. He loves to innovate in restricted frames and brings appealing characters to life quite easily while unfolding the narrative.
Yes! Oh how much I'd pay to see that!
Or David Lynch? 😂
What I really would have liked to see , would be a Wong Kar-Wai adaptation. He also knows how to make movies in restricted space and frames.
Wes Anderson would've made it so everyone was always in the exact middle of the frame with lots of space around them, looking directly at the camera. Would've been riveting.
@@drinkdriveundertheinfluencehave you actually seen a Wes Anderson film? Or only the AI generated "homages"?
@@peacorptv6502 several, in fact
9:30 Exactly, it invites the viewer to be their own detective, because they always will try to solve the mystery before the movie reveals it. Just like every mystery story does in every medium, it's what holds people in. Not to mention the credit it gives to the actors because it makes the audience aware of how every potential reaction and expression might hold the key information that will solve the plot. This is what cinema should be all about.
Yes, totally with you. I think the problem is that our age is obsessed about the technical aspect of cinema, less of the performance part. Acting is the key, the technical aspect secondary. That is not the case nowadays. Now it is cutting, editing and CGI.
The secret to modern commercially successful cinema is that it tells the viewer exactly what to think through dynamic edits while creating the illusion that the viewer is making up their own mind. There's a reason a lot of successful directors working today cut their teeth making commercials. The lingering shots of older movies may feel plodding and more artificial, but they actually open up the viewer's mind to greater interpretations. So-called boring or unexciting cinema is, in a way, more liberating.
Barry Lyndon agrees.
As a theatre goer, I say, well, go to the theatres. Support your local artists.
@@DizzyBusyAlso support indie creators!
Like the rise of Indie Animation on RUclips or the Analog Horror community. I’m obsessed with both of those genres and they are amazing amd inspiring.
The 70's version feels more like a play, compact, intimate and told in a kind of real time, the new version is very 'Marvel'y' in it's approach.
I definitely can see what you're saying. The movie relies on the action to maintain interest rather than the plot itself.
nailed it!
Indeed!!
Marvel-y: "Relying on flashy gimmicks over actual content"
That seems to be what most big budget movies do now....
@@yankeesgamingyankeesgaming7403 the modern one represents the creators, who are just as shallow, uninspired, and unintelligent.
THANK YOU for making a 10 minute video about both films without throwing any spoilers. You're talented! I feel like watching them after your analysis but almost paused the video in fear of spoiling the plot.
Can't help but notice how natural the 70s version hair looked and how stiff and glossy the newer versions hair is.
Yep! Now they use bad wigs and so much product the curls and waves look like a frozen sculpture…. Instead of the natural frizz the hair has….. DON’T GET ME STARTED ON 80s and 90s hair on present day “nostalgia” …. Way worse!
Would love to see a comparison between Branagh's death on the Nile with the David Suchet one, especially in the opening ballroom scene which in Suchet's is a brilliant scene that tells you everyone's motive and character whereas Branagh's is mostly violent dry humping.
A Death on the Nile is one of my favorite Christie books, and I loved the original one. The remake was such a disappointment. I give Branagh credit(or maybe all credit to the cinematographer?) for the beautiful shots along the Nile.
my favorite scene on the original film was the entrances. they all looked impossibly glamorous with their fur coats
Without fail, I feel compelled to immediately watch the film you talk about. Thank you for such wonderful essays.
Thank you for watching them! And don’t worry if you try watching the 74 version and don’t feel compelled by it. It’s not for everybody. But at least you’ll hopefully be able to appreciate it a bit for what it achieves on a technical level, if nothing else.
:)
-Danny
I actually remember watching it as a kid and have very positive memories of it. I'll have to watch it again; I'm curious to see how my perspective has changed.
@@CinemaStixnot bad kiddo. I suppose you do these before bed, seeing as you have school in morning
I think the remake is like "watching a movie about the story", wheras the older one puts you *in the story*, as another invisible passenger.
Both are pretty good. But it's akin to two different chefs making a steak. the core is the same, but the fixings are completely different.
"watching a movie about the story" is probably the best explanation for the modern day viewing experience I've ever read...
Best way to describe it imo. Both films are incredible in their own ways and had different takes on how to shoot it. I appreciate that the newer one did things different since we'll always have the older one to watch so it's not more of the same. Now you get two versions of the same story to enjoy in different ways.
I think this comparison here is relevant for performance and directing now in general. Now, actors are taught to tone down everything, be nonchalant, even in cases when it would be better to be more theatrical. And as for directing, simplicity and repetition are concepts very far from the minds of blockbuster filmmakers.
Over the last twenty or so years there seems to have been a weird, unspoken rule that if something is "stagey" or theatrical then audiences will reject it. I've seen no evidence to support this rule.
but that's clearly not the case for this particular example of Brannagh's Orient Express....
The same toning down has happened with the background scoring, where the old-fashioned leitmotific style has been largely supplanted with the droning ”sonic wallpaper” approach. This modern approach is imagined as being ”less emotionally manipulative”, but on the contrary, it robs the music of any ability to provide commentary or subtext on the events we are watching (see for example how the whole Debbie-is-actually-Ethan’s-daughter subtext in THE SEARCHERS (1956) is entirely communicated through the musical architecture of Max Steiner’s score)
I believe it all depends on the director. We have so many people nowadays from all over making movies with diverse cast. I love actors that can do minimal action cause it's harder than it looks and I also love the theatrics.
The “irreverence = cool” mind virus really broke a generation
lauren bacall's voice / accent / manner of speech in tandem with her persona is just so f*cking awesome.
Thank you. Just yesterday I was thinking how MotOE 1974 was, essentially, the last movie I felt joy in figuring out the solution (well- guessing it was a plausible solution while watching); and how Usual Suspects started me thinking modern mystery plots are mostly comprised of grammatical tricks. You've given words to something I've lamented for decades.
Yeah. These days it’s largely about distraction and disorientation. Which are valid tactics. But I think it shows a lot of confidence when other methods are used, and more information is given.
I’m glad you brought up the characters’ intros. The way it was done in the modern adaptation gave me whip-lash from how quick it was and I think in the end it made it harder to remember/distinguish them (which ironically I think the director was trying to avoid by making them more varied). I think getting them all in on one shot makes it easier to tell them apart and remember who is who, which is essential when you have such a big cast of suspects.
Thank you for articulating so well what many of us feel when watching movies nowadays. Back in the day, camera cuts and angles where there mostly to situate us, the viewers, in the scene and help us follow the story.
The colors in the original film are so beautiful. The haze and the full range of colors are just so wonderful. Modern color grading just feels so..... why. The outdoor scenes with Daisy Ridley for example look the best because they're the most natural. Everything else is just so green and bronze.
Because people love escapism
This got me thinking about how a lot of movies seem to look very gray and lifeless to me. But they're not in black and white, they still have color. But if you want to remove the color from the film to make it feel "more real," why not go all the way? A serious movie can still have color in it, it's nothing to be afraid of. Granted, I'm not a filmmaker, so who am I to say?
@@Damon_BlueYou're definitely onto something. I've noticed as well a lot of recent movies (especially when they treat topics like war) are very washed out in colours. As if they applied a shade of grey onto the film ; it's such a shame because brighter colours can absolutely work for a movie dealing with more grounded subjects. A bleak subject doesn't mean it has to look bleak or dread in terms of colours. I'm thinking movies like Full Metal Jacket, where the tones really pop out and are an absolute part of the cinematography, they serve to make the shots more memorable, and in my opinion, more real. The greens of the jungle, the more red tones of the faces... no need for things to look grey to be considered more serious.
Digital cameras. Film, particularly in the late 80s to the early 2000s, the Zenith of the technology and technical understanding of it, always look better and is natively 8k since it's a real physical object.
@@tobyjohnson9136 You can have digital look like anything you want, the information is there. We're at a point that digital is on par with or better than 35mm film in both resolution and dynamic range. But the look is done in post production and that's the point where the color scheme is decided: you can have it look like Saving Private Ryan or like an Oled TV demo. Or you can have it emulate the look of a certain film stock. The main reason for most people to shoot on film is because of the inherent imperfections and the limitations of the medium.
Splendid analysis. One of favourites of the seventies. This is one of the challenges of filming a Agatha Christie mystery that Sidney Lumet and company faced with grace and aplomb, and that is you must allow the story to unfold and breathe, so that we the audience know where we are at all times and still want to know what's next. In his book Making Movies, he described the pre-production process of MOTOE and the rehearsal process of blocking out these scenes with all of these great stage and screen actors. Taping the floor out to replicate the trains they were going to shoot on and directing and aiding all of their performances through the lens of this great cast cumulative experience. All of this anchored by Albert Finney's titan performance of Hercule Poirot. He had so much to do and say in this movie, Mr. Finney deserved his Oscar and BAFTA nomination that year.
I haven't seen either version but the fact that the remake seemingly takes every opportunity to leave the train, in a story about people trapped on a train, is probably telling
Great video.
I recently saw A Haunting in Venice, and while I enjoyed it a good deal, I did pick up on the different approach to the source material. It’s not really trying to be a mystery story, more a psychological thriller about a detective.
1:08 IT OBSERVES. That's such a key thing that modern films are missing
In other words, the Branagh version is enamoured with its own complexity, but the Lumet shows that simplicity is real complexity.
Well put. I think Branagh could have modernized the movie and kept it somewhat confident and old fashioned, its an old story after all
Branagh also made the most pretentious Hamlet of all time. It never feels genuine, it's "look how great of an actor I am". All the fancy costumes and sets and it can't hold a candle to Gregory Doran's simple, modernish-timeless staging (and this comes from a Regietheater hater).
Seeing how he interpreted Poirot I come to the conclusion that he either hates Christie or never read her books.
I like your point about minimal camera angles & cuts, focusing on clear story telling. I wonder if this was also due to the developmetn of cinematic technology. it is so much easier to cut, or use multiple camera anglers nowadays due to the ease and access we have with cameras. Back when films were made in the 70s cameras were limited and a lot more expensive for films.
It's also an example of the limited technology available for it's time we're not constraints when the focus was storytelling through script and performances. Not relying heavily on stylism as the sole throughline to engage your audience because you think that's what makes you stand out.
Highly recommend reading Sidney Lumet's Making Movies, full of great stories and insight into that era of filmmaking
there's another version that I like even better : the episode from the Poirot serie. This one assumed that the story's so well known by then that there was no point in dwelling too much on the mystery solving. Instead, it gave the characters lot of time to discuss the moral aspects of the crime, and for Poirot to decide what he would do with his conclusions. I don't know whether it was particularly well filmed, but nobody went out of the wagon until the Brod police showed up.
The singular of "series" is "series," not "serie."
i love the comparison made here between the two movies not necessarily pointing out that one is better but more that Danny's personal taste leans him towards the different style of filmmaking, I also love the point about how these are made in two different eras of Hollywood really demonstrates how audience can play a role in the type of film your making. Love it Danny keep it up ;)
:D
Yeah but, one is definitely better and doesn't have trash filmmaking.
one is definitely better
It's simple, now it's all about making pretty cool pictures while before it was about telling a story
So true.
I remember watching Dune and thinking that the film was so obsessed with looking good it felt fake and they lost the focus on story.
It happens usually that films, instead of creating something in the story that causes a spefici feeling, they try to directly cause it without the origin. And it feels so pretentious and ridiculous. I think that happened with Oppenheimer and EEAAO a lot. That's not good direction.
@@r.c.c.10 Hmm no those are good movies. But I agree on EEAAO a lot, there is no meanings, only a lot of noise and feelings for ADHD kids.
@@ggadams639 They are good movies, yes, but I believe they have some important flaws.
@@r.c.c.10 We can find flaws in almost all movies but the most important thing is what the movie tries to convey and did it success at it. For Dune it's a bit early to say it's good or not as it will depend on the other movies, but I really liked the effort and maturity put into it, it's a rare movie. There is flaws maybe in Openeimer while I'm not sure if it's not also an artistic choice, but it doesn't mean that's a bad movie at all. Finding flaws don't make them bad, there is a also a lot of flawed movies that are very good, even LOTR movies have flaws and it's the best series ever made.
The 1974 film also starred a number of film legends.
The equivalent of hundreds of years of film experience in one movie.
You could easily say the same thing about the newer film
@@misterscottintheway yeah, daisy ridley film legend haha
@@kieranl5249 "a number of film legends" implies some countable number of film legends likely more than two. With just Judi Dench, Willem Dafoe, and Johnny Depp I would say that qualifies even if you don't include any of the rest of the cast. It would be interesting to do the math and see which film has more years of experience considering that was the main point of OPs comment.
The 1974 version is one of my favorite movies of all time, I don't go 6 months without watching it. I love David Suchet's Poirot and I'm very fond of Peter Ustinov's, but Finney's is my absolute favorite.
Lumet's ability to juggle all these incredible stars still delights me, and the summation is, in my opinion, the best ever put to screen.
I went to see the new one and I didn't find it very engaging, it was just okay.
Thank you for your video, :)
Thank you for highlighting this. So well presented. Incredible. Mainstream films were still willing to create this feeling of "being the observer" in many 90s movies. Sometimes the world of older films feel so much more lived-in than nearly anything I'm seeing today. Even when it's the same director 20+ years between projects, they abandon the style.
I believe that the 1974 version (and Lumet's approach as a whole) has it's own strong benefit for the modern audiences. We live in the age of not only rapidness but also in the age of the obsession with reactions. The 'someone reacts to the content' genre is as valuable as the content itself.
And Lumet, being as you said an actor's director, does provide this by paying a lot of attention to his characters reactions. Take '12 angly men' for instance. Now, when watching movies clip by clip on TikTok is trending, this movie fits the trend perfectly and does have millions of views on the platform.
So probably 1974 verison doesn't look as outdated as someone might think.
your analysis and video is so good that there isnt a single bump in the timeline of the video, everyone watched it start to end, no skipping or hopping to a different part of the video.
The train is almost its own character in the 1974 version. Majestic and strong at the start, more mysterious and intriguing as time goes by.
I love watching Columbo sometimes because the shots are always long and personal and every line feels naturally delivered because of it. There are like 7 minute scenes with no cuts
"Stage play" delivery, the lost art among modern directors.
There are NO 7minute scene in Columbo without cuts. Not even 2 minutes. What a bunch of nonsense.
And yes, Columbo is magic.
Side-stepping the question of why make Murder on the Orient Express in 2017 in the first place, I think Branagh did a commendable job of trying a different angle, especially when the definitive whodunnit version has already been made by the great Lumet. Lumet's version has a sense of claustrophobia that Branagh's lacks, but Branagh's has a sense of isolation that Lumet's lacks. In the Branagh version, the characters can leave the train but they are still trapped, just as they have been trapped by the tragedy that unites them. In the Last Supper dénouement, the suspects sit with the darkness of the tunnel behind them and light ahead of them, with Poirot as the arbiter of what will happen to them. For better or worse, Branagh's movie is really about Poirot, and we see the trope of gathering the suspects as a product of Poirot's ego. He wants an audience and a stage for his explanation, he wants them to know he solved the murder before letting them move on. He could have sat them in a carriage, or next to the train, but we get the most theatrical setting*. Poirot's ego is in the books and the film & TV portrayals (esp. Ustinov's), but I think Branagh is having fun making it the driving force of the classic format and it's theatrical nature.
Christie wrote that Poirot wanted everything in structured and ordered, and the chaotic, fast-cutting nature of the characters arriving in the train station and boarding the train is a counterpoint to this - they come from a different world to his.
I'm not claiming that Branagh is in the same league as Lumet, but he does strike me as a director that wants to explore ideas and techniques (such as the 70's gothic movie camera angles in A Haunting in Venice).
Just to finish: My definitive Poirot is David Suchet, with Ustinov a close second.
*We also see this sense of theatricality in the film's opening by the Wailing Wall, there's chaos until Poirot sets up his stage to unmask the perpetrator and, performance over, the stage is dismantled and chaos returns.
This is a brilliant observation. I think what made this film so compelling is that it's clearly personal. Branagh's Poirot is very much a self-portrait, centering the character's theatricality, as well as his inflated ego. And what better metaphor than that grandiose mustache? As soon as I saw it, I could tell where Branagh was going.
Also, your insight about the film's sense of isolation is spot-on. The exterior shots really emphasize this, placing the characters between an insurmountable wall and a bottomless drop, unable to move forward or back. I think it's every bit as compelling as the claustrophobia of the original film. Personally, I found Branagh's version captured the dark, rich romance of the train itself much better. Lumet's washed out whites don't quite capture it.
As I said in my own comment, I think the key element of the film is the contrast between Poirot's returning the world to order in the opening scene, and being profoundly humbled by the irredeemable chaos at the end. That's absolutely not a part of the original story, or the film. To my mind, that's what makes this a truly worthy remake. I think there's an assumption around beloved pop culture characters that there's some platonic ideal version that everyone should attempt to live up to. But that's not why the characters are beloved. Some writer on The Onion pointed out a long time ago that every Batman fan has their own unique version of the character in their heads, constructed of their personal favorite aspects of their favorite Batman stories. This personal head-canon Batman doesn't quite match any one version in any official story, or in anyone else's head. Yet everyone has an opinion why each new official incarnation is wrong in some way.
It's a mistake to think your head-canon version of a character is the "right" one, because there is no right one. These characters have lasted so long because they shift and evolve over the years. Suchey's Poirot isn't quite the same as the book version, or Finney's or Ustinov's. That's the point of casting new actors. And what Poirot means now is different than what he meant when he was written, because society has a different relationship to right and wrong, crime and criminals, ego and righteousness. Kenneth Branagh's Poirot is the right version for our times. The traditional arrogant little egotist who's always right would have been been a truly sour note in this modern world being torn apart by grandiose egos.
I don't believe in "definitive" versions of characters. I think what makes them last is their adaptability as much as their universality. They stay in the social zeitgeist because they evolve with the times. So each new version has something new to add to the character's legacy. That's my take on it.
@@rottensquid No, you are completely wrong. Everything you just said is the dumbest thing I have ever heard, or read.
Fair points but, for me, the key difference in directorial storytelling is that the 1974 version is telling me (exposing) the information while the 2017 version makes me feel as I am discovering it. Long shots are nice but quick shots allow for more dynamic engagement. One makes me feel like I'm watching the moment unfold from the other side of the room. The other makes me feel like I'm actually part of the conversation. Both approaches have their strengths.
I always remember growing up the types of movie scenes where it made you feel like you were right there in the conversation with someone only from the position and length of the shot. I can usually catch them in movies or shows lately because they're not used as much.
Great video!! Saw you on my home page. Subscribed and going to watch some more!
The woman smoking is such a nice touch and creates a great scene. That shot could be a painting
Holy moly this video has changed names more times than the original orient Express changed camera angles.
Usually when I want to spend a night or a weekend watching films, instead of watching all the new stuff, I ended up re-watching films by Hitchcock, Coppola, Kubrick, or Kurosawa. Lumet's are great too. They are beautifully crafted; the frame, the story, the editing, the music. Feels like lots of thoughts put into it.
I've been doing the same. I've even gotten into Silent films. Modern cinema just doesn't compell me like it used to.
@@terragthegreat175 You're probably not watching the right ones, then
Sidney Lumet is the director of one, if not the, best movie I've ever seen: 12 angry men. He can keep you on the edge of your seat with just a room and a few real, oh so real, characters. His cinematography is insane.
I love how this style evolved into what speilberg does. There's this one scene in the sugarland express where a policeman is talking through a police radio. It's so masterfully shot that the blocking itself gives me chills
that's a great way to look at a Mystery Movie:
the idea that a long, wide shot gives US the opportunity to watch the people WE find suspect. we get to be our own little detectives in the audience.
active audience participation! what a concept.
I often argue with a friend who is adamant that modern filmmaking is the peak of perfection and you can't watch old movies anymore. I on the other hand, can't watch many MODERN movies. Sooooo.....you speak from my heart. Thank you. Take care
That's because movies used to be made on a budget which allowed them to cater to a select demographic. Now, every movie has to make ALL the money. Not some of it, ALL of it. If a movie doesn't cross the $1 billion threshold, it's seen as a colossal bomb. As a result, everything has to have gunfights and third act sky beams to make sure the lowest common denominator and the all-important Chinese market turns out to see it.
Let’s hope “Clue” doesn’t get remade for the same reasons this films’ original is so well perceived.
Fantastic breakdown for a presentation that is only 11 minutes long. You're far from the first person to do side-by-side comparisons but in this case, it is very effective.
Thank you! I honestly spent a long time debating how much of an actual “comparison” I wanted to do between the two movies, and how much I wanted to just use the 2017 version as a reference. I guess it sort of ended up somewhere in the middle.
:)
-Danny
It definitely shows the different aspects of classic and modern film. Rapid cutting, moving shots versus static, close up to gauge one reaction or to capture the subtleties of a room. Bite size breakdowns are very east and enjoyable to absorb. @@CinemaStix
Thank you so much for summarising so succinctly why I prefer Lumet's version over Branagh's and why Lumet's is one of my favourite films.
The fact the Lumet version is slower is a bonus is my eyes; it's perfect for enjoying on a rainy afternoon.
This was excellent. As somebody who can barely stand any new movies, this really puts into words things that I have struggled to articulate. Old films just feel more confident, intelligent, and better composed. The film just...looks so much nicer. I still have trouble explaining it.
_Barely stand any new movies?_ Either you have seen a _remarkably_ small scope of new movies, or your taste is so biased it's not even funny.
I see tons of new movies. I enjoy some of them (probably more than was implied by my comment) but I mostly leave them feeling disappointed, and this video really elaborated on why. I dislike many modern filmmaking techniques, whether we're talking about CGI, digital cameras, color aesthetics, modern writing, or even modern sound aesthetics. It's extremely difficult to find films that don't employ these techniques outside of some stubborn arthouse directors. If you'd like to suggest some excellent new movies, go for it.
@@jordancooperlalala Ah, I see, originally I read it as more of a condemnation of new movies almost on principle alone. Good to see that there's some leeway there!
Hmm, trying to think about recent-ish movies in older styles. How about _Roma_ (2018)? Black and white, long steady panoramic shots with chaotic scenes, borderline meandering camera movement from time.
Personally, I'm a big fan of _The Lighthouse_ (2019), but it might be a bit art-housey for some viewers.
Oh, perhaps my favorite of all time: _The Grand Budapest Hotel_ (2014), by Wes Anderson! Hell, _most_ movies by Wes Anderson :P
Edit: If you want more recent, I think the last movie I enjoyed might've been _Banshees of Inisherrin_ (2022). Been watching Martin McDonagh-movies for a long while, and think he's really found his voice in that one.
I must profess though, it's a bit hard to recommend, without knowing genre prefference, and considering some of those limitations you mentioned are a bit _vague._ Like, what even is "modern color aesthetics"?
Is it the overly bleak and dark Jason Bourne colors?
The way too oversaturated and overanimated Marvel movies?
... Or the vibrant modern shots of Irish countryside in Banshees of Inisherrin?
All of these obviously made with modern film equipment and post effects, but varrying _wildly_ in tone and look.
@@BimpytheWimpyShrimpy Yes, Wes Anderson falls under the category of "stubborn arthouse directors." He still uses film, he seems to avoid CGI, etc, etc. I also liked The Lighthouse. I've been meaning to see Roma, actually. I just never heard much about it.
How it's shot is one of the things I love the most about Hunger (McQueen, 2008) - the dialogue between the priest and Bobby Sands is barely edited at all, if i remember correctly, and you can feel the actors finding each other in the scene.
The original adaptation looks so good, I’m gonna watch it right now!
I might be very wrong, but I think the 74 version harks back to the theatre and its audience. So it feels, to me, like a play more than a film.
Thank you for bringing attention to the 1974 version. It's a favorite of mine. I watch it regularly. I was hugely disappointed by the remake, and you do a great job of summing up many of my issues.
it's that classic films care deeply more about the actors/actresses' actual *acting talent* in playing their given roles and that's what they're emphasizing in every scene and shot, while modern film cares about showing who are their chosen stars are, and making an aesthetically pleasing shot and delivery so people can use it for any social media. (i don't know if i'm making sense but that's the closest i can explain that thought 😅)
This seems like part of the nature of a remake. The result is often either a. you make a copy and it understandably feels tired or b. you do something different and in doing so lose some of that "je ne sais quoi" that made the original worthy of a remake in the first place. Also, i imagine with the original the tropes were still a little fresh so that you could lead the audience with long shots without necessarily giving things away as much as if you were to have those shots today. The whodunit archetypes are real sharp so you either need to bury things/distract (e.g. quick shots) or give a new spin on the archetypes.
This has always been my major gripe with certain detective mysteries these days. With all the quick pacing and dynamic action, some of these directors opt to obfuscate what the great detectives have deduced and forget that a good case to solve on screen will slowly reveal to you exactly what's going on without letting on what exactly it is it's revealing. If by the midway point, your audience can't make an educated guess or maybe even deduce what happened then you've failed with genre (One of the most prominent examples of this for me is the awful BBC show Sherlock).
Great video!
What a pity Peter Ustinov didn't do a version of Murder on the Orient Express. It would've surpassed all others, in my opinion
I just adored Ustinov. I was once on a stage mere feet from him when I was a kid.
My favorite role of his was in The Sundowners opposite Robert Mitchum.
@@rosezingleman5007 Wow, what a privilege. I imagine that's one of the best memories to have
Yeah I liked Nile way more than Orient and most of it probably was because of him. Also the story was better and more exciting imo.
I loved Ustinov, but he was nothing like the Poirot of the books. He played himself with a Belgique accent, which was fine because he was great!
He played it with a superiority complex which was perfect for the movie. Mia Farrow was also wonderful. @@deborahcustance2754
Lumet's version is on Netflix through the end of January, so I re-watched for the first time in 20 years. I've seen Branaugh's version recently and I even just re-watched this video. It's really incredible to compare the two. The economy of the shots in Lumet's is really incredible, and I enjoy when detective stories give you all the clues, letting you feel clever for noticing something, but letting the detective be more clever by putting it all together. Even if I liked Branaugh's versions of these stories less than I do, I'm still very happy he's making them, and they definitely have their own strengths.
Still one of the best film channels
It was only last time I saw this that I noticed the look on Mrs. Hubbard and Pierre’s faces when they meet Poirot, showing their instant concern. I also noticed that that’s the moment Mrs. Hubbard starts putting on her act. Nice minor detail that makes it more interesting on rewatch.
sometimes it's really hard for directors/etc to NOT use technology. Just because you can doesn't mean you should
Agree, I call him "Sir Kenny" because he fits Orson Welles description of a movie studio as the greatest toy a boy could have. In "Haunting in Venice" he was forced to restrain himself.
Bought and watched both of these when the modern version came out. The modern one is still good in it's own way of how modern movies work, hyper focusing on a few characters at a time, dialog that is always like a fight scene, attack-riposte-counter, excessive focus on CGI environments and atmosphere. The classic is more like a stage theatre, lots of characters on screen, more casual dialog that eases the viewer into relaxing before ramping up the drama, limitations of physical environments playing into a focus on dialog, props and extras to appear grounded.
I noticed this difference when I was watching the Harry Potter movies. So much movement from the surroundings, you felt way more involved in that place, being part of it. The reactions of others play a huge role in the story, it adds so much to the movie. I miss that style of filmmaking so much. Makes me wonder if that's why I watch movies much less than I used to? I prefer a normal human pace instead of the fast-short-attention-span-style and I'm saying that while I have ADHD lol. Modern movies feel isolated, like a separate group of friends that have main character syndrome and the world evolved around them. I love movies where you can see a world react to life changing events, and I hate it how this is often ignored. My main issue being superhero movies (the Boys not included). Sure they often show people in distress but they never show the poor conditions people live in, permanent struggle or trauma or even loss, the opinions yadda yadda.
ADHD person here as well, commenting on public perception of attention deficit:
People think cramming stuff into videos helps retain attention when viewers have ADHD. The opposite happens.
It's not that I get bored after 2 seconds of silence. It's that I cannot control what I'm getting distracted by.
So if I want to listen to someone talk, I need a video of just them talking. If there's colourful text flashing and frantic gameplay happening and music swelling, I cannot listen to the words, because I'm analyzing the music.
Putting more shit into the frame is NOT good for people with ADHD unless there's no story you want them to pay attention to. This is such a common misconception I feel. Fast jump cuts are rather for neurotypical movie-goers who are bored and want a distraction.
Great video. One of the best I’ve seen on film, as it’s so useful to have these two vastly different takes. Almost a film school in two movies.
God, I miss that glow in the 70s and 80s films, too. The lighting always looks otherworldly. It always elevates it to a sense of heightened reality.
A hugely inspiring film for me on a technical level, and in terms of how to use atmosphere well, the claustrophobia, fear, and mystery of the original draws me in and makes me curious and cautious every time. The acting is top notch, and I think the soundtrack is amazing. Love this film. And the video, thanks Danny!
Love your content! I can tell this is going to be a great video just as the others
:)
Death on the Nile has the same problem. In the older version they use 6 shots for Jackie to grab the gun, shooting Simon and the gun falling to the ground. The newer version uses more than twice the amount of shots to show us the same actions.
That’s a nice comparison. It reminds me of an NPR piece done back in the early 90s comparing Laurence Olivier’s Henry V (Shakespeare) to Kenneth Branagh’s remake. Olivier’s production was much grander and dependent on hundreds of extras to deliver the full weight of England’s army invading France and doing battle at Agincourt. Branagh’s version was lower in budget and had only 35 actors, so his production was dependent on camera closeups, dramatic use of color, costumes and a soundtrack to bolster his action. Its end result garnered two Oscar nods and a win.
So perhaps Branagh had fallen into, what I like to call, the “John Woo trap” where the studio says, “Here’s $$$$$$: go make a simple film.”
Of course, Branagh would aim to make a film that isn’t reminiscent of Sydney Lumet, and I can appreciate that. I still found it quite enjoyable, since the story full of characters that lends itself to a healthy dollop of star power-Depp, Coleman, Pfeiffer, Dafoe, Dench … too many to list.
Ross from Accursed Farms brought me here. Great video, man!
Love the in deep view and explanation of the cinematography, it's seems at times that the technical leap on the big screen cost the basics of good cinema. I can be wrong, of course. But that is how I view the direction most filmmakers take.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
It's one of those cases where less turns out to be SO much more. It's just amazing how much only one or two shots used in a single scene can actually reveal more, whereas multiple angles and cuts may add to a faster pace but ultimately distract you from elements essential to the plot and characters.
Thank you. I've always struggled to watch old movies. This has given a different perspective and makes me want to try again.
I feel that the TV show did alot of what you talked about the best. Long episodes that gave you all of the points like in the original novels, and were filmed and acted beautifully. Plus David Suchet did such a good job of playing poirot that reading the books, then watching the episodes were very similar and the character just felt so natural.
But was the blocking as good as Lumet?
@@geckowizard I don’t know if I’d say better, but definitely on par. Watch a couple of episodes and see for yourself, it’s REALLY good imo, the show ran for a long time and the episodes are around movie length with so much effort put into the direction. And I need to reiterate, David Suchet practically IS poirot.
@@tomahawkANDscopZ I've seen most of the episodes, and for me Suchet is the definitive Poirot. The series was certainly well filmed and the acting was first rate. My somewhat flippant remark was more about the growing obsession with blocking, which seems to be taking the place of the long single take. I think this video is a rare example of Cinemastix not seeing the wood for the trees.
@@geckowizard Ahh I get you. I thought you was being serious lol. Yeah I would 100% agree with you on that one.
This is one of my biggest gripes that no one talks about when comparing classic Star Wars with the newer movies: They don’t breathe, it’s all quick cutting between shot/reverse shot
I always liked the BBC version of the Orient Express from 2010 more. Felt like a noir in a blizzard and very character driven
Yes, it's not the most faithful adaptation (nor the least one either), but it's certainly the most atmospheric.
I would not only say that the Sidney Lumet version was the best adaption of the story, i would also add that it improved upon the original source novel as well. And that's a rare achievement indeed.
It didn't feel slow to me. Finney caries it. From the moment his Poirot is introduced I'm hooked. Once the plot truly begins to unfold I'm gripped tightly and don't let go until its resolution. I've come back to watch it several times and will without doubt continue to do so several times more. I watched a few minutes of the remake and never finished it. I most likely never will.
This beautifully summarizes the difference between someone who wants to be a passive view (ie info fed to them by changing camera angles) or an active viewer (someone who wants to solve it before he does lol). My preference is the latter but I also enjoy the occasional passive viewing. However, Albert Finney is not only a LEGEND but read up on the filming of that final scene of his. All his fellow actors were blown away by his ability to capture their attention for so many loooong takes! Brilliantly done 👏🏻
I like both versions but the Lumet version is my favourite for two main reasons. One is Albert Finney's performance; he is such a gross little man, not really interested in the human drama playing out before him, only interested in solving the case. There is one moment where he does a little run down the corridor; I love that moment so much! And the other is the claustrophobia of the train, as Danny points out. The Branagh version opens things up, but what makes a train a great setting for a narrative like this is that you are stuck there. There is no way out as a character or as a viewer. You have to stick it out and get through it, just like a long train journey.
I watched The Outfit a few days ago. Modern film, but adhered to more of the principles of the 70s film you highlight here. I loved it.
When your favorite channel posts a new video >>>>>>
i really don't like the quick cuts specifically for murder mysteries because how am i gonna be a detective when everything i would detect is out of frame!!!