Okay, I watched the movie again last night, and Poirot said he saw Linda Arden twice, not once, but not date. Given an age of 50, and Bacall looked older than that, his trips to the theater would have been, at a guess, 10-25 years earlier. And I'm not going to back down on saying that Poirot had trouble recognizing this woman he'd seen in a wig and stage makeup 10-25 years ago, from a distance, and who had been disguising her personal mannerisms. It would be natural for even the most acute person to fail recognize someone who looked and acted so different after a period of years, and who had been in a sort of disguise at the time, and well. She was playing the part of the kind of loud, vulgar, pushy woman that nobody takes seriously and that Poirot did his best to avoid. He was absolutely, positively fooled... at first.
And yeah, saw the film again last night, and Bacall had a couple of brilliant little moments. When Poirot is being finagled onto the train and introduced to the conductor Mrs. Hubbard sweeps past and when she hears Poirot's name, she turns around and gives him the most acute look... which means nothing the first time you see the film but which speaks volumes when you know what the character is up to. And then, when she gets on the train she comes out of her cabin and pauses briefly before starting to complain about everything like a proper Ugly American. That moment is an actress preparing to launch into the greatest role of her career...
reply
share
roreyking (558)
3 years ago
You actually spent 2 hours of your life rewatching this movie b/c of a Moviechat post? And those are your ideas of "brilliant" moments? Oh please.
reply
share
Otter (24464)
3 years ago
Not because of you, dumpling!
Actually, it was because of a good discussion about this movie on another site, which led me to see if there was anything of interest on this little board. And I watch this movie every few year anyway, why not. It's a bloody good movie and it's fun to watch the actorsw competing with each other for my attention.
reply
share
roreyking (558)
3 years ago
ROTFL!!! Lady Macbeth doesn’t require an actor to be heavily made up or wigged. And you don’t forget what an actor you respect, that you’ve seen in live performance, looks like. Besides, the internationally renowned “greatest tragic actress of her day” would’ve had her photos in the papers often, in and out of makeup. Considering how much Poirot knew about the family, he’d have been exposed to them often - especially after the kidnapping, just 5 years earlier.
reply
share
Otter (24464)
3 years ago
Don't be silly! If you see an actor playing Lady MacBeth as a Scots noblewoman in a stage costume and probably a wig, and years later you see some obnoxious middle-class American who reminds you off that Lady MacBeth, you don't think "Why it's Linda Arden!". You think "That mouthy cow looks a bit like Linda Arden, doesn't she.". But then, Linda Arden didn't necessarily look much like Linda Arden while performing on stage, the audience doesnt see theater actors up close to they're free to alter their appearance with heavy makeup and stage lights, and yes, wigs.
FYI stage actors wear wigs even in situations where it's not absolutely necessary. If a historical character would have long hair and theirs is short they'll wear a wig, if they think the character should have a different hair color than their own they may decide to use a wig rather than dye their hair, if their own hair isn't thick enough for the style the director wants, they'll use a wig, etc.
reply
share
roreyking (558)
3 years ago
There Otter goes again - and again, ROTFL!!! You can't refute anything I write, so you just elaborate on the baseless point you've already made about a wig and "heavy makeup" and add ludicrous projections about what Poirot thought - as if you knew! How many Lady Macbeths have you even seen? I've seen 4 - most recently Anne-Marie Duff's at the National. None required any wigs or makeup that would prevent one from recognizing the actress off-stage - not to mention my point about Poirot's exposure to Hubbard's image in the media, which you can't even speak to.
I know a pathetic idiot like you has a childish need to get the last word. Go ahead - have at it. I won't waste any time reading it.
reply
share
[deleted]
a year ago
The poster made a very astute and good observance and you are compelled to argue at length over the minor flub in a nearly 50 year old movie.
One would hope with all your 'ROFL-ing' you could manage to roll off the face of the earth. Probably searching for reason.
Of course there is the high probability you two are the same person stroking your ego.
reply
share