It's a long time since I read the book, and I'm happy to take your word for it that those characters are also over the top there. But in the film, they could have been less over the top, and for me it would have made for a better film, because I think it's preferable for these characters to be more believable as the others tend to be. Besides which, were I in Poirot's well-polished shoes, I doubt I'd be inclined to think that Mrs Hubbard/Arden, or the princess, or whoever, couldn't possibly have done it simply because they're behaving in a rather ludicrous way. Rather, I'd wonder why they were behaving in this ludicrous way. As to the princess, the problem isn't a haughty attitude per se but rather the way this caricature performance cannot be taken seriously. I see no good reason why the princess should be acting like this when no-one else is, save Linda Arden, who has the doubtful excuse of being an actress anyway. It's like a not-very-good Edith Evans 'Handbag!' impression that goes on rather a long time. Of course this may have been for all I know more a matter of direction than acting abilities. ("Wendy honey, I want you to give me Fake and Weird, okay? The more the better.") I incline toward this view when I recollect Wendy Hiller in Separate Tables, for example.
reply
share
Jimmy-128
13 years ago
You're in luck; I just reread it over the weekend! The things you'll do when a hurricane coops you up inside...
At any rate, even if Poirot takes Mrs. Hubbard at face value at first, he certainly doesn't by the time he notices the inconsistency about the sponge bag that Bouc and Constantine miss. But someone like Japp, Hastings, and the average Yugoslavian or Italian police inspector WOULD take her at face value, and dismiss her as just an old American lady who couldn't possibly have killed Ratchett. That's what makes him Hercule Poirot and them not.
As far as Princess Dragomiroff, you have to remember when this takes place--the early 1930s. A Russian princess in exile still commanded enormous respect, particularly when she was loaded. The second half of that hasn't changed all that much even in the present day; to quote the late, great Claudia Banks, the very rich "often permit themselves to behave very badly."
reply
share
rrb
13 years ago
Lighten up. The film is a romp, not a police procedural. All the characters are 2-dimensional but filled out by some remarkable actors having great fun. I love Hiller's princess. Yes, she's over the top, and that's what so enjoyable about her.
How can you take MOTOE seriously enough to complain that the characters aren't "believable"? How believable is Poirot, with his patent leather hair, who puts on a mustache mask and plastic gloves to go to sleep? Did you complain about Johnny Depp not being "believable" as Jack Sparrow too?
reply
share
karaladh
11 years ago
After all, they are Agatha Christie characters. They are meant to be excessively excentric. They're characters in the purest sense of the word, but paradoxically, they're not so much characters as misleading elements in what should truly interest the viewer, which is the mystery, the killing. This film respected Agatha's fondness for exaggeration like none other.
The room's a wreck, but her napkin is folded.
reply
share
Harold_Robbins
11 years ago
"After all, they are Agatha Christie characters. They are meant to be excessively eccentric. They're characters in the purest sense of the word"
Christie usually sketched her characters with a broad brush (they often ran from typical to archetypical). And this is what has given so many wonderful character actors the opportunity to give so many wonderful performances - call them 'star turns' if you like - in so many Christie adaptations, starting with AND THEN THERE WERE NONE (1945). MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS is certainly another fine example - imagine trying to assemble such an all-star cast today(the TV remake proved what a dismal prospect that is).
"In my case, self-absorption is completely justified."
reply
share