There are tons of Suchet episodes for free on Youtube, and I recommend a look.
---
Well, I keep making a list of all the movies and TV that I HAVEN'T seen that I SHOULD see, and I must admit that in my readings, I'm always reading "Suchet is the best." So...I will give this go. To YouTube!
For most of my time, i"ve gone to movies, and I've preferred movies to TV. The "Peak TV of today" (Sopranos, Mad Men, Breaking Bad) is worthwhile, but I think I just lost track of where Suchet could be FOUND. In the US. PBS?
Anyway, YouTube will get the job done.
---
--
What can I say, he IS the character I always saw in my mind's eye when I read the books, and the series is loaded with the spirit of Agatha Christie. My only criticisms are petty - all the stories are set in the 1920s or 1930s, when Poirot actually kept detecting through the 1970s, and Poirot's London flat never seemed to be decorated with the sort of taste a Poirot would have. I mean, talk about a nitpick!
---
Well, if you know the character, nitpck away!....and that's right , Agatha Christie stayed alive and writing into the 70's, didn't she? Sort of like Alfred Hitchcock kept making movies in the 70's.
---
CONT
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
2 years ago
As for Finney, well, he couldn't really let any of his typical persona or real self show in the role of a fussy little genius, could he? I do respect him for taking on a role that would be that big a challenge, to play Poirot he'd have to stifle his own personality, keep any of his natural coarseness and sex appeal from showing, and play a role where he couldn't use his usual strengths while under fierce competition for the audience's attention. IMHO the result was good rather than great, he doesn't embarrass himself the way Brannaugh did, but he lets the level of effort show.
---
Well, I wont back off my preference for Finney(among the movie guys) but if there is a "downside" to the Finney performance it is that his Poirot is so "buried" in make-up and muffled vocals that I suppose he doesn't really capture Poirot as much of the character, does he? I've always found the original Murder on the Orient Express to have TWO gimmicks: (1) American and British stars of decades in one place and (2) a major star totally transformed so you can't even see or hear him.
Indeed, I recall when reading that Finney would play Poirot, I couldn't picture it, and I think the studio kept all photos of him as Poirot "under wraps" til the movie came out. It was a big surprise to see THAT face with the words "Albert Finney as Hercule Poirot."
reply
share
Otter (24464)
2 years ago
Finney did try too hard, but he really had to! I suppose that was an example of "stunt casting" having Poirot played by the butchest Brit actor of his time, instead of Alec Guiness or Ralph Richardson - although I think Richardson might have had a blast with the part. And while I think Finney was okay, he was still rather blown off the screen by Lauren Bacall of all people, in a horde of name actors fighting for our attention she managed to walk away with the film at the end!
I do like Ustinov in the role, he wasn't quite Christie's Poirot the way Suchet was, but he was more fun to watch than Finnney. And why didn't Finney want to return for the excellent sequels, BTW? Was playing a fussy little genius just too much of an effort?
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
2 years ago
Finney did try too hard, but he really had to! I suppose that was an example of "stunt casting" having Poirot played by the butchest Brit actor of his time, instead of Alec Guiness or Ralph Richardson - although I think Richardson might have had a blast with the part.
---
I went over to the imdb Trivia section and learned:
Finney was the THIRD choice for the role.
First, indeed was Alec Guinness.
Second was Paul Scofield.
Both were unavailable. Still one can see Lumet's and the producers interest in a "prestige Poirot." Finney was only 37 at the time.
---
And while I think Finney was okay, he was still rather blown off the screen by Lauren Bacall of all people, in a horde of name actors fighting for our attention she managed to walk away with the film at the end!
---
I noticed that when I saw it the first time. Bacall was the "dynamo" of the film, the fun one. Ingrid Bergman won the Oscar for her timid, mopey mouse of a character, but Bacall had more fun. (per IMdb, Bergman turned down the Countess role for the mousier one. Wendy Hiller took The Countess after the studio nixed Marlene Dietrich!) Note in passing: An aged Michelle Pffeiffer in the remake ALMOST did Bacall's work proud, and I suppose the same decades had passed between youthful beauty and mature looks.
--
CONT
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
2 years ago
I do like Ustinov in the role, he wasn't quite Christie's Poirot the way Suchet was, but he was more fun to watch than Finney.
--
I enjoyed Ustinov too. I ALWAYS enjoyed Ustinov. On screen, he always seemed to be somehow intelligent and bit buffoonish at the same time, roly poly but actually rather handsome. He is great in Spartacus, making the journey from disinterested villain to committed hero. He was the original choice for Inspector Clouseau in The Pink Panther, and had to pull out. Imagine film history had he stayed!
Note: Ustinov's Death on the Nile is a LOT better than Branaugh's. Better guest stars for one(Bette Davis! Maggie Smith! Angela Lansbury! David Niven!...Jack Warden and George Kennedy!). And the remake was against a CGI Egypt and filled with side stories of no relevance.
--
And why didn't Finney want to return for the excellent sequels, BTW? Was playing a fussy little genius just too much of an effort?
---
Pretty much...and more. Per imdb, when Finney first did the role, he was also doing a play at night, so would SLEEP in an "ambulance" that drove him to the studio in the morning while hours of make-up were applied. He just didn't want to go through that grueling prep again. Funny thing: Peter Ustinov did little to his face at all -- just the moustache and hairstyle.
reply
share
Otter (24464)
2 years ago
Actually, and actor of 37 would have been closer to the mark age-wise than Guiness or Scofield, we are never told Poirot's age in the books, but let's see. The book was published in 1934, Poirot first appeared in 1920, and I don't believe characters started referring to his obviously dyed hair and pending retirement until the 1950s or 1960s. So the Poirot of 1934 may have been close to forty... and Finney was a *rough* 37.
And I LOVED Lauren Bacall in this movie, and HATED Michelle Pfeiffer in the same role... or rather, I hated the way Brannaugh wrote the character. Okay, I also hate that Pfeiffer looked as 1930-ish as I do now, but mainly I hate that Brannaugh [POTENTIAL SPOILER ALERT] wanted his character to finish the movie with more of a triumph than he'd had in the original story and the 1974 movie. Brannaugh didn't just want Poirot to be right, he wanted Poirot to be right and rub it in until someone broke down. Screw him, and not in a way he likes.
reply
share