Poirot vs. Poirot: Appointment with Death
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 сер 2024
- A comparison of the Agatha Christie novel Appointment with Death to two of its adaptations.
Includes footage from:
-Stephen King's Carrie (1976)
-And Then There Were None (2015)
The religious bit at the end of this masterpiece didn't bother me at all. Poirot was such a keen judge of human beings that he must have known she was the type to be comforted by such a gesture so he offered it, not because of his religion, but because of her nature. He's always kind when he can be.
You are so eloquent!!🌹 That is what I was trying to say in my comment but you have said it best 🤩
I have to agree ,I'm an atheist like the vast majority of people in the UK, this film is based between the wars when people were more religious, secondly I suspect the religious aspect was added to set the ground work for Poirot's internal struggle in the decision he comes to in Murder on the Orient express and Curtain ,I like both versions the Ustinov version has such a fantastic cast , Piper Laurie , Carrie Fisher and Lauren Bacall among others what's not to like
Yeah, i saw a similar situation on "Penny dreadful" series, something like: -"you dont believe in God..." -"No, but you do".
@dianamanzanilla2261 Thank you so much what a lovely thing to say
Ironically, that's a bit like asserting that we cannot know the mind of God/ Poirot. It's a sort of all-purpose excuse.
Er… Excuse me, but David Suchet’s words at the end have stayed with me all these years. I recite those words to myself whenever I feel depressed. When I met David Suchet, I told him how his portrayal of Poirot and his words have helped me throughout these past years. So, whether or not you like those words is neither here nor there for me. Agatha Christie, Poirot and Suchet are my absolute idols… 🙏🏼
7:05 "(Sigh) I miss Lauren Bacall."
We all do Miles. We all do.
David Suchet underwent a religious conversion and his own personal journey greatly influenced his later portrayal. Your own personal religious preference perhaps bars you from the appreciation, but as a Catholic, I have always loved the extra spiritual depth of the films. I've loved the extra dimension it lends to the Orient Express for example. A murder mystery isn't always mere psychology, it concerns the great questions of Life and Death, of Judgement and Redemption. For his character, I have always felt the religious dimension lends beautifully to the gentle and sincere heart of Poirot.
I fully agree.
Amen. This shows how far prejudice can take you. I have always thought that nobody gives more consideration to religion than atheists.
It really seemed like Miles was going to recommend the Suchet version as the better film the whole way. However, despite all the changes the Suchet version made to the source material, having Poirot promote God was the step too far. Really? This is the straw that broke the camel's back? Not the nun involved in slavery? Not the physical abuse of children?
He was so close to saying the Suchet version was the better film and ignoring all the other deviations made.
Yeah, I'm not religious myself but that's the least of my concerns compared to all the other tomfoolery he described. 😂 I think some changes can work with these adaptations, but this sounds like the writers lost their damn minds!
This is the episode where Tim Curry just LEAVES in the middle of Poirot's big wrap-up.
And who knew Tim Curry would turn into Warner Oland in his old age
😂
Just because we've never seen Poirot mention religion, doesn't mean he isn't religious. And as a Christian, I ask you, what's so wrong with it?!
I'm a straight, white, cis-gender male. So you're asking the wrong person.
Please read John 3:16..
Jesus still loves you, no matter what you've done, or how far you've gone.. he will always love you.
@@MysteryMiles What does that even have to do with anything? You outright said the version is bad because a character shows or has some religious words. Why do you refuse to elaborate?
@MysteryMiles what are you on about now?! Seems you just want to criticise religion for no good reason and doing it without any polite consideration of others.
@@MysteryMileshe says he's catholic in murder in mesopotamia
David Suchet is undeniably the best Poirot
He's definitely fun to watch. He isn't like the Poirot in the books, of course. He added so many things, like rampant Catholicism, an inability to be able to dance, and love affairs that never happened. However, he portrayed the character somewhat consistently, and is delightful to see.
Everything is true that you say, and it's also true that having a good grasp of the "B.S. bag" will if not help, at least cover the weak writing throughout the "story"
And no one will ever be able to topple his performance ❤️
@kugelweg your kidding. David Suchet IS poirot he studied the books and Poirot is a Catholic in the book
@@kugelweghe says he's catholic in murder in Mesopotamia
Obviously you are an expert in book vs adaptation, film or television... but I disagree with you when you say "don't watch [the David Suchet versoin]" David Suchet should ALWAYS be watched as he is a superior embodiment of Poirot. Even when the versions he is in are showing a comical nature to Poirot, he always maintains his dignity. I can't say the same for Ustinov. He seems to wear silly expressions and bumble a bit. David Suchet's Poirot carries his plump figure in a very particular way which is endearing. Somehow his extra girth doesn't seem like an accident.
Sorry you feel that way about religion. Your loss
Christians are so weird. Why do you always insist that people have an obligation to believe the same stuff you do?
Wow, I’ve so enjoyed this channel, but your speech at the end was very over the top.
Believe it or not, I toned it down.
@@MysteryMiles Oh, I believe it 😂 but you lecture in such a nice way that it is dificult to fault you for it.
Christians are so weird. Why do you always insist that people have an obligation to believe the same stuff you do?
David Suchet is a born again Christian.
Piper Laurie did a good job, but my favorite portrayal of Mrs. Boyington has to be by Hugh Fraser. Before you start thinking I'm nuts, I'll say it was the audio book of 'Appointment With Death'. When he says Mrs. Boyington's lines about never forgetting, it is chilling, filled with hate and menace. I recommend listening to it if the chance arises. We also got to hear Hastings impersonate Poirot. 🙂
Each time, I See Tim Curry, I think of Clue 😃😍
Yes, and Monk. Dale the Whale.
Admittedly, I saw the Suchet adaptation before reading the novel but it's one of my favourites, apart from the nun plotline - that's plain weird
yesss the nun part was so weird it threw me for a loop when I watched it
I was surprised you didn't comment on Poirot's exit in the Suchet film being in the style of Batman where he disappears into thin air. World's greatest detective indeed.
Suchet is the best Poirot! Hands down! He was the only one chosen by Christie's family because he was so dedicated to playing the role exactly like the books. Agatha Christie's daughter said that she was sure her mother would approve and love his performance. Peter Ustinov is my second favorite Poirot. The suchet version I will say was very uncomfortable and disturbing for me to watch with all the flashbacks and physical abuse of kids. So I can't watch it. It was a one and done viewing
YOu see, I thought this POIROT film with David Suchet was very powerful and moving. Yeah, not as good an adaptation, but I in the 1930s to have someone give comfort in terms of faith would hardly be unusual. Nor frankly should it be today, if done sincerely and with kindness. Throwing Poirot's faith into sharper relief seems to me totally fine.
I agree with your observation. Also, considering the nun turned out to be the opposite of a person of faith, I feel that Poirot's attention to that aspect would serve to offer to assist the girl to a restoration of faith.
That ending brings to mind the twist with the Malkovich Poirot
Except it actually works
There is some strange religiosity in the Suchet adaptation that seems to suddenly become intense in some scripts, then disappear. A minor failure of the overall writing. Maybe put there by Brits to make him seem even less British?
Or David Suchet's own faith?
Appointment with Death is by far one of the best Piorot movies….the David Suchet version.
The score in the suchett version is fantastic
The Suchet Appointment with Death is the one episode of Poirot that I utterly refuse to ever watch again.
I think Appointment with Death is an underrated masterpiece of Christie's. It's one time she plays utterly fair with the reader. Yet she still surprises with the ending. I had been waiting years for this adaptation only to see whatever that mess was.
I agree. This has so many social issues - child abuse, sex trafficking, kidnapping - that it is no longer a cozy mystery. Christie writes whodunnits, not psychological thrillers.
And neither movie gets Boynton right. She is terrifying in her control. And when she realizes how small her reach is, she is determined to branch out. That is one scary villain. Yet the ability to control others is fairly common, not to this extent I hope. It makes her recognizable while being a monster. That is what makes her so awful- she could be anyone we know who seems too controling.
@@Nana-Sheri Mrs Boynton IS many people we know of in the public eye. Think Meghan Markle and what she has done and is doing.
@@dawnklug6986 That's it. Exactly.
@@dawnklug6986 What the hell are you talking about? How is Meghan Markle anything like Mrs Boynton? lmao
I’m not offended by the religious adage. It worked well for that scene………. I added hope after despair…………..
I know I'm late to comment, but I feel that the part of Catholic Poirot in this episode, I think that more than proseletism, it was because of the question of the kidnapping nun and dont make the fate look to bad
Taking an overview of both adaptations and the source material, there wasn't much time to do a deep dive into the Suchet version, soI hope you'll let me share some personal observations.
•Ah Tim Curry, his presence alone in a film is worth the price of admission. This was one of the last high profile, on-camera productions he was in (yes, at the time of writing this, he is still alive, but since his stroke, he might never do anything beyond voice work again), and his scene in the tomb discussing John the Baptist with Poirot is spellbinding.
•Elizabeth McGovern is not Lauren Bacall, but then again, no one is. Despite that, she holds her own in this role and gives a ranged performance. Her speech about the local human element in any destination might be my favorite part in the whole movie. She and Zoe Boyle reunite from their Downton Abbey days; I don't want to say Zoe Boyle is being typecast, but she often plays the victim.
•It's a shame that the motive for the crime was changed so thoroughly. I'd argue the "I've never forgotten anything" line and its meaning was the most interesting element. The callback to the pregnant servant *is* cool, but then they keep the resolution: the murderers Westholme and Gerard kill themselves. This is utterly incongruent with the new motive: "Our darling daughter, we couldn't bear to let the woman who physically scarred you live. So now that that's done, we're going to emotionally scar your by killing ourselves in front of you rather than face life in prison where you could potentially interact with and create a relationship with us. Yep, this is better." What parent would do this to their child?! Let's be real: they weren't motivated by love for Ginevra, they were motivated by revenge against Boynton.
•The second worst thing about this change of motives is that it gives more screen time to John Hannah's Dr. Gerard while a proportional amount is taken away from McGovern's Westholme. Hannah is just not as interesting a character as Westholme is, yet she takes a back seat in the production while he mugs and meanders throughout.
•The other really noteworthy element from the source, Ms. Pierce's suggestibility, is kept in a way in the form of Dr. Gerard drugging Nanny Taylor and then planting the idea that she drown herself. However, it's not as interesting this way.
•The use of music in this version is just spectacular. The Middle Eastern incidental music sets the atmosphere throughout wonderfully and the use of Dido's Lament when the body is found might just be the most dramatic in the whole series!
•Poor Emma Cunniffe's Carol really has nothing to do. When she asks "Is it me?" during the parlor scene, it's like she's begging for attention.
•The Sister Agnieszka plot point is utterly superfluous, but it does play into the importance of religion in this episode. Just as Cassetti was portrayed as a counter to Poirot's views on Christianity in Murder on the Orient Express, here she's representative of the ills and hypocrisy of those who claim to be pious while Poirot is meant to represent the virtues and healing aspects of spirituality.
The one thing that bothers me (beside the whole abuse in the Poirot episode) is why did Dr Gerald and Lady Westholme plan it like that? They could’ve just did the whole wasp thing and let Gerald stab her, *DONE!* No wax of blood needed!
They knew they needed to obscure time of death. By making it seem she was alredy dead by the time they found her, they gave themselves solid alibies.
I don’t know why but the David Suchet series seemed to have changed after series 10. The light comedy mystery drama became serious drama, especially without captain Hastings and miss Lemon.
P prefer the Suchet version over the Ustinov.....yes I have watched both multiple times. As acting goes the big stars only made it theater box office and not necessarily good.
Carrie Fisher is a good actress.
The Suchet version confused me so terribly it literally took this explanation, years later, for me to even understand what was going on. Suchet is for me of course the very best Poirot but that does not reflect on this film at all, it was a confusing mess and I am delighted I found this channel because you explained it all to me!
Uh, Miss Quinton is an archaeologist in the Ustinov film whom Bacall's character befriends so she can push her around. At the end of the film, she & Cope hook up & go off together on a dig. It's free on Tubi.
The David Suchet version is far more superior because it’s so good ❤ I think if it was 💯 faithful to the novel it wouldn’t make any difference though because the Mrs McGinty one was and you still liked the flawed Miss Marple one over it and if you didn’t like this version just because of a comforting comment by Poirot to the girl about God then you have a serious problem.
Quite right as well! The only thing I didn't like with the original was the messy part where the cockroaches died through drinking the poison. Cockroaches in an expensive setting? And no one noticed these insects?
I thought the same thing!
Suchet is, I understand, quite a trenchant Christian (Anglican, I think).
So despite his subject's catholicism, I think that he'd have been very happy with these religious add-ons.
Once again, you deliver an interesting, entertaining, and honest review of the adaptations while using the source material as your guide. You go into these reviews biased only toward Agatha Christie's material, and NOT toward a particular actor, regardless of how many adaptations that actor may have produced. I appreciate your integrity. There are so many people who claim to be fans of Poirot, only because they have seen one particular actor's work, without realizing how inaccurate his portrayal often was. In fact, I belong to a Poirot fan group where someone postulated that all of Suchet's adaptations (and his portrayal), were definitive because they follow the stories (and character) so closely. Appointment with Death was their primary example of how close Poirot and the story were to the source material! They even went so far as to try to prove that the Suchet adaptations were closest to the books by referring to things that Suchet did that only happened in the Suchet adaptations (the romance between Virginie and Poirot and that silly lapel pin), the ridiculous relationship with the countess and him helping her escape, Poirot being Catholic and struggling with his conscience in MOTOE). I've always enjoyed your reviews because you are familiar with the source material, and pull no punches in your descriptions.
Thank you so much! I'm curious about this Poirot fan group.
@@MysteryMiles I refer to a Facebook fan group.
Loved the Ustinov adaptación, watched at the cinema when premiered. Ginevra was my fav character
I love that you enjoy some of these movies outside of their status as adaptations. Even with Poirot getting Jesusy lol
I may be the only one, but I think they really used his faith well in the Suchet Orient Express Adaptation.
BTW, have you seen the Haunting in Venice trailer yet?
Agree, It worked for me dramatically. Not sure how Poirot could have a 'crisis of faith' (in Orient Express) without giving him a 'faith'...
Yes they did........as to show his moral abhorrence to what the others did and to try to give him a separation from that group when he had to make the choice of one life lost vs that of the group.
Yeah, I've always preferred the Ustinov version. The one they wrote for Suchet was too weird and yucky... and it wasted Tim Curry.
Great video, Appointment with Death is one of the Agatha Christie novels I've tried to read a couple of times but never managed to read the whole book. I think Nemesis was the first Marple novel I read, which is a bit of a shame as it spoiled parts of A Caribbean Mystery for me!
what a stupid reason to not watch the Suchet adaptation ....i will watch it
Will you do one for Death on the Nile? This was excellent!
Thank you! Someday definitely!
Love Suchet
Me too ❤❤❤
David Suchet was so brilliantly perfect as Poirot, seeing anyone else in the role just makes me say, "That iddn't right!" In most cases, the David Suchet TV version of the story is better than the Ustinov theatrical version. The exception is Evil Under the Sun, but that is mostly due to Maggie Smith and Diana Rigg playing diva vs diva. Add in Roddy McDowel at his most waspish, and it's diva vs diva vs diva. Poirot is almost a comical character and to silly to take seriously as the possessor of those famous little gray cells.
5:02 - *NOBODY* is as believable in the role of Poirot as David Suchet!
Um, no, Ustinov's Poirot is an abomination. Admittedly, he isn't as bad as Kenneth Branagh, but still.
An abomination is Suchet's religious bigotry perverting the character of Poirot.
@@karlkarlos3545Why?
The ending of the video alone makes it worth watching 👍
David Soul was in 2 Poirot productions, as was Lauren Bacall.
Hi Miles
First time commenter. Have you seen the trailer for A Haunting in Venice, the next Kenneth Branagh, Hercule Poirot film. It's supposedly an adaption of Hallowe'en Party, but after watching the trailer, my first thought was WTF did I just watch. Any opinions?
Hello! I have seen the trailer. I couldn't really tell what was going on, so I don't have any opinions yet, but the séance elements made me wonder if the script was influenced by two other AC stories, "The Last Séance" and "Motive v. Opportunity."
@@MysteryMiles Now that you have mentioned them, I can see the influences, but the way the trailer was cut made it look like a horror film. I didn't even know it was a Hercule Poirot mystery until 1 min 20 secs in and I saw Kenneth with and the return of the moustaches. They even did the cliched reflection in the mirror but no one is really here. I'm not feeling confident. I almost wish he had adapted The Big Four.
I love your videos! Keep up the amazing work! 😊
Of the 3 feature films with Ustinov, this is probably my "least favorite", and i like them all. If "Nemesis" is next, I prefer the Joan Hickson version. I would be curious as to your thoughts on who might be the next Miss Marple if they were to do new adaptations of her novels. And please don't say Tina Fey, please. LOL
I heard a rumor that Jennifer Garner was slated to play her, which I hope is false. I'd have to think about who I'd cast.
@@MysteryMiles Oh God. Why don't they have Lady Gaga as Miss Lemon and be done with it?
Although Joan Hickson’s version is undoubtedly closer to Christie’s work, I must admit that I prefer the Geraldine McEwan version. I will say that I do tend to like the Marple series over the Miss Marple series, so I’m sure that I’m biased. I love both series, though. Joan Hickson, Geraldine McEwan, and Julia McKenzie all bring different aspects of Miss Marple to life in their portrayals, and absolutely adore them all.
I know it’s probably heresy to say so, but I also love that some non-Marple mysteries have been adapted into ones for Miss Marple as well, since it means I get to see more of her. I’d have to say that The Pale Horse has to be my favorite non-Marple turned Marple mystery. (I know! Please, don’t come for me, Christie purists!)
I know you didn’t ask me, but can you image a Miss Marple played by Maggie Smith? 😮 Or decades from now, an elderly Natalie Dormer or Emma Watson could be cool. (Again, please don’t come for me! Lol)
I really enjoy the catholizism parts tho 😊
DAVID SUCHET IS THE ONLY POIROT...PERIOD
I totally disagree with this review. Both adaptations are good e2e. And in the many episodes of the Suchet version of Poirot his religious side is brought up quite frequently. This was deliberately done to round out the character more and give a foundation to his pursuit for justice. And his religious side is touched upon in the books. Not overtly but he goes to church and occasionally invokes le bon dieu. That scene at the end of the Suchet version is his character offering comfort to a grieving young woman from the same source that he finds comfort. He's not a TV evangelist after her giving him money. And frankly I dislike people virtually ordering me not to watch something because a few seconds of someone mentioning something like God, or some other topic riles them. That scene was intended to show up Poirot's compassion and to expose character motivation. To go at it like a bull to a red rag is really over the top. The reviewer sounds unnecessarily overheated. Their rant made me feel slightly uncomfortable.
I also disagree that Suchet's Poirot is less warm than Ustinov's. He is frequently charming. His Papa Poirot side often coming out.
I definitely prefer the Suchet version. The acting is better (some of the actors and actresses involved, famous though they, are don't make much effort to be believable), the visuals and the storytelling are better. And I would argue that the Ustinov version varies from the book so much in relation to red herrings and relationships that it is no more faithful to the book than the Suchet version.
Agreed 😉
Great work as always!
This is one of the few Christie books I didn't like because of the fact that Lady Westholme was even remotely connected to a prison was withheld until the last 50 pages or so. I prefer Christie's own adaptation for the stage--which has Emily Boynton commit suicide and then hide the needle in her hollow cane, thereby making it seem like she was murdered {TRIVIA note: in the 1945 stage version Joan Hickson played one of the characters (Miss Pryce). Christie was so enthused by her performance that she said "someday I'd love you to play Miss Marple". Well, in 1984 Hickson did and went on to become the Marple of choice by most Christie fans). I liked the film version but preferred some of the other Ustinov Poirot films over it. And it has not been commercially released in the USA on dvd (only NON-USA format), only on VHS !! I didn't like the Suchet version (as an adaptation) all that much, but seeing this, Miles, I will go back and watch it since Cora from DOWNTON ABBEY is in it. Thanks as always for your insight. Looking forward to the next one.
Poirot has disappeared from UA-cam! Send help
If you mean UA-cam blocked some of my videos, I know. I'm working on new edits so I can re-upload them without getting blocked again.
@@MysteryMiles I mean I can't find any Poirot on UA-cam as of a day ago! Best wishes
Please the same thing with 13 at Dinner 😊😅
After Suchet's Murder on the Orient Express I'm inclined to dislike any version of his anyway - and given the ridiculous amount of changes to the characters etc, I'm just discarding it right off. Hard nope.
Ustinov, however....I mean, he's *physically* nothing at all like Poirot, but oh my gosh is he brilliant. He makes him so much more likeable and delightful. His little one liners are so sharp and witty. So his version automatically wins. =D.
In the Poirot adaptation, that I went into *BLIND!* They added some things, one of the most things that makes it my least favourite is that *LADY BOYNTON LITERALLY ABUSED HER CHILDREN!* Me and my mother saw and we *WISH* we could unsee all the tragic flashbacks!
I agree. That has no place in Agatha Christie!!
@@Nana-Sheri I mean, the books are PG-13, it has a little cussing, a little blood but abuse doesn’t fit anywhere! I bet if the scriptwriter wrote “Hercule Poirot’s Christmas”, they’d make it far more horrible than just old man cutting out his children out of the will!
Suchet is the better Poirot, in this one and the rest of the adaptations. But the story changes made in his version of Appointment with Death are just bad. I can watch Ustinov's version anytime, Suchet's only once in a blue moon.
Oh, Poirot's catholicism. This is not the last Suchet adaptation youd freakin ruin (glares at Suchet's Orient Express).
And speaking of Orient Express, can we take a minute to appreciate the God Queen?! At any stage of her life or career, Lauren Becall is the PERFECT actress for these kind of movies. Likable enough so you almost trust her, but savvy enough so you never stop suspecting her. One of my favorite performers of all time and the main reason Orient 74 is still the best Poirot adaptation. No, I will not be taking questions at this time.
Agree with you there about Poirot's Catholicism in Orient Express.
Not once in any of the books or short stories does Christie ever have Poirot going to mass, observing Lent, going to Confession, etc. I've always said it's like Christie made him Catholic because that fit his origin of a French speaking Belgian (as opposed to a German or Dutch speaking one) and then ignored the Catholic part entirely. Because saying "mon Dieu" isn't a specifically Catholic thing. So other than some occasional mentions of Poirot saying he's Catholic, we never see Poirot being a Catholic.
@@margaretalbrecht4650 I don't mind adaptations making him more religious, it fits with some aspects of the character, but in orient it was just STUPID.
@@margaretalbrecht4650 I fully understand and respect your opinion on this subject. I also can appreciate Miles discomfort with the Suchet version's ending and Poirot (doing what could be interpreted as) proselytizing. I hope you'll give me a few minutes and permit me to humbly offer a counterpoint.
I really think your interpretation of Christie's motives is accurate. Unless I'm mistaken, she chose Poirot to be a Belgian for no better reason than it made him an outsider (and of course because of the Belgian refugee population in England following WWI). Similarly, Christie seemed to treat his religion and a few other of his features as de facto without doing any proper research into those aspects. In my opinion, she approaches them with an outsiders perspective; I'd equate it to creating a character from Mexico and deciding, "Well his favorite music is Mariachi, obviously, look where he's from." I cite her well-known frustration with Poirot's popularity (and thus her need to write more stories about him), and her resentment of arbitrarily choosing Poirot's nation as Belgium, a culture she obviously wasn't an expert on.
In my mind, Christie squandered an opportunity. For all Poirot's talk of psychology, she never examined the role Poirot's religious beliefs could play on his sense of right and wrong. Perhaps, you may argue, it didn't and he was either able to separate the two or he just didn't practice actively. There were certainly lapsed Catholics back in the 30s just as there are now, and there were certainly people who practiced their Christianity more quietly back in the past (Agatha Christie for example). However, it cannot be denied that the presence of the Catholic church was more significant than it is in 2023.
Christie was a practicing Anglican, and the two denominations share some commonalities of practice, but also some fundamental differences in theology. I reiterate that Christie viewed Catholicism with an outsider's perspective. I won't argue that she held anti-Catholic beliefs as so many of her generation did (in fact, her 2nd husband was Catholic, although she didn't practice with him), but when she famously leant her support for the optional continued use of the Tridentine rite (practicing Catholic mass in Latin instead of English) in Post-Vatican II Britain, her reasoning contains slight hints of Orientalism. She didn't defend the old rite because of a theological preference, but rather because of the dramatic influence it'd had on art, literature, and culture. Her support came from aesthetics, not personal understanding.
The Suchet adaptations on the other hand, bear an insider's perspective. Speaking as a Catholic, there's so much in that adaptation of Orient Express I recognize from my upbringing. The contrast of prayers between Poirot (giving thanks and reflecting his actions as being an extension of God's will) and Cassetti (asking for protection and forgiveness without having demonstrated sincere penitence for his crimes), Poirot's grappling with the suspects' violation of dogmatic law against the righteousness of their cause, and in the end his own struggle to maintain faith and not pass judgement. I love the 1974 Orient Express, it might actually be my favorite movie of all time, but it makes clear that because of their motives, we're supposed to side with the murderers even though they've now murdered. I respect the Suchet version for taking a more morally grey viewpoint and showing a somewhat deeper look at the internal turmoil of our protagonist as he rationalizes his final decision and deals with its spiritual ramifications on his soul.
I can't say I'd blame you if you don't enjoy the extent to which Poirot is depicted actively practicing his Catholicism in the Suchet version. But Poirot is a Catholic in the early 20th century and in this adaptation, he's shown reflecting the attitudes and stances a man of his time might. I'm not going to defend his well-meaning but patronizing attitudes towards gay people or abortion shown in "Cards on the Table" and "Taken at the Flood;" as a citizen of the 21st century I reject those takes (and while we're on it, I don't like evangelizing either, though I'd make the case that's not what Poirot is doing at the end of Appointment with Death). Personally though, I think the choice to bring Poirot's religion to the forefront both makes sense to me and, in certain ways, it speaks to me. It's a struggle to maintain faith when there's so much hypocrisy in the world and even in the Church itself, but I thought it was comforting how Poirot's moral compass was depicted with his religious beliefs being one component of that compass. When so many other "period dramas" shy away from depicting religion in their main cast (cough, Downton Abbey, cough) out of fear of alienating a modern, more secular audience, I appreciate that the Suchet version gives a more unvarnished, true to history approach and explores a side of Poirot that even Agatha Christie couldn't from a place of authenticity.
@@margaretalbrecht4650if i not wrong, in one two buckle my shoe, Poirot is in a mass, and then he finally realizes who is the killer
(even so, it is true that christe never seriously touches on poirot's religiosity)
In the end, all of the plots are absurd, so the authenticity seems mostly orthogonal to the entertainment value. I watch the Poirot versions for the performances (David Suchet, Zoë Wannamaker, Pauline Moran, et al.), sets, costumes, etc. I try to ignore or endure the risible plots.
(I feel similarly about Grenada's remarkable productions of Sherlock Holmes with Jeremy Brett.)
While Suchet is definitely, overall, the definitive Poirot, I've always loved Ustinov, too. You're totally right that he's warmer and funnier than the other versions, but that's one reason I really like him. Part of the very essence of Poirot is that he is really a very ridiculous person, and that is part of the reason he's a great detective: people often don't take him seriously. It's much the same as Miss Marple, who, as an old, doddering-seeming spinster, is overlooked and underestimated.
I also just love the Ustinov movies for their lush travelogue, 30s style. They just ooze glamour. And for the Ustinov Appointment with Death, I also admit simple shallow reasons, too, in that I just find John Terlesky really, really hot (and I think him and the actress who played Dr. King ended up married, so I wasn't the only one).
The Suchet version is definitely another one where I was like "WHAT?!" and "But... WHY?" throughout. What on earth was a sex-trafficking nun to do with anything? What did it add? And just the nanny and the child abuse and all. I'm not constitutionally against the trend of "darkening" Christie adaptations, but sometimes it really doesn't work, and it really didn't in this one. It ends up being neither an actual adaptation, nor a movie I want to watch.
Poirot's Catholicism is an interesting angle to explore his own "psychology." And I think as presented SOMETIMES, it really does make sense, even if it's not something Christie herself put much thought or word count into. But as with the "darkening," it really doesn't work or fit in some of the adaptations, and does come off as Poirot being a big pious, proselytizing prig. As a commie pinko half-atheist homosexual, I'm with you, Miles, is often finding it off-putting, and I also find myself a little uncomfortable with it, sensing that it's introduction isn't really a story thing so much as David Suchet's own growing Catholicism in the latter years of his life. I have a particular aversion to the phenomenon of a star's religious views getting pushed into their show. My go-to example of that, and how bad it can make a show, is Kevin Sorbo. Both Hercules and Andromeda get weirdly more Christian as they go along, and it's obviously because Sorbo pushed for it. And while neither show was "good" to begin with, they lose all sense of fun with the change, and just get weirdly off-putting. (Hercules's turn also affected the far superior Xena as that show went along as well, for which I will never forgive Sorbo. Among many other reasons.)
This comment is exactly perfect. You have thought through your reply wonderfully. However, I want to point out while Suchet did force his religious preferences into the role of Poirot, Suchet is not Catholic. He is Anglican. That doesn't make too much of a difference in the long run, since his personal, religious views should have been kept out of the Poirot adaptations. To be honest, many things should have been kept out of the Suchet adaptations, but that's a story for another time.
I love rewatching Christie movies. I recently watched a 1945 And Then There Were None.
But I will Never watch this Suchet version again. The changes are so convoluted, the story makes no sense. But the child abuse goes too far. I cannot watch that PTSD again. It is no longer a cozy mystery. It is no longer a Christie story.
really, the Poirot ultra Catholic is imposible, if sou read Agatha you know that this is a lie...
This was a real mess of an adaptation... although I enjoyed the exotic mood it created. But it highlights the problem I had with most of the later Poirot adaptations with David Suchet - manipulating and changing Christie's original stories to the point of mutilation. And why? To appeal to an "edgier" audience? Bah.
He used Poirot to propagate his own religious beliefs.
Thank you for pointing out that the added religious aspect has no place here. I ADORE Suchet as Poirot, and the series usually gives me great comfort. However. The religious under and over tones they added, and most especially that horrendous anti abortion message they added to the one everyone should just skip altogether really brings down the overall score for me several steps. Keep that out of our Poirot. I doubt Christie would have approved, being a woman herself, but then I'm no expert on her political, moral, ethical and religious beliefs. I find it hard to imagine she'd not be pro equality for women as a woman in a surely male dominated profession.
Anyway. Rant over :) Excellent work as always.
It says Poirot is Catholic in the novels. And this isn’t about women’s rights. This is about what’s morally right and in the 1930s most people knew that murdering innocent babies in the womb was morally wrong.
Pope Poirot lololol
He does refer to himself as a father confessor in some of his written stories
As an athiest I usually turn off at that point.
AWD 2008 just made me sick to my stomach. Far too many changes, not at all a Christie work of fiction. I did like (to a certain extent) Suchet's performance here, but overall the film was a complete mess. By far the worst ever starring DS.
Apology not accepted Go and sin no more
you are in a cult. seek help.