Today I had the pleasure of going to the theatre with my sister and naturally we chose an Agatha Christie. This is the third one we have seen together, with other two being And Then There Were None and The Mousetrap. The production of Murder on the Orient Express that we saw was adapted for the stage by Ken Ludwig and was directed by Lucy Bailey.
I was a little perplexed while waiting for the performance to begin, as the curtain for the stage was up and you could see an empty black space, with markings on the floor. It didn’t look very prepossessing. However, these qualms were soon allayed. The opening was different to what I expected. The suspects moved in a huddle, anxiously across the black stage, with train noises and steam in the background. They appeared frightened and on edge. On a projection curtain we see a young child, Daisy. We heard her childish laughter and fun transformed into terror, a cycle used to represent her kidnapping and murder. It also operated like a memory which the suspects reacted to. On the whole I felt this opening was being used to present the collective trauma that they went through when Daisy was taken and killed. As this comes to an end, Poirot ploughs through them from the back of the stage and they are recoiled. Alone on the stage Poirot addressed the audience, commenting on himself and his experiences on the Orient Express, remembering the case. I wasn’t sure about this, but I think it worked overall, encouraging the audience to engage with Poirot as a person and I also feel this section did not run on too long. In addition, it bookended with the closing moments when Poirot remarked on his angst over the decision he made.
The majority of the story, as many of you will know, takes place on a train and I think the stage designers did themselves proud with the train they created for this production. Going horizontally across the stage there were three sections of a vintage train. These sections could be moved up and down and off the stage, some rotated (aided by the floor circle which rotated in the centre of the stage) and the larger middle section could be divided again into smaller segments, such as during the scene in which Samuel Ratchett’s body is discovered. The middle section had an outer side with windows and blinds and a side which showed the interior of the train. The stagehands were dressed mostly in black and due to the stage being in the dark except for where the play was taking place, they were able to unobtrusively keep the scenes changing. This really contributed to the play having a feeling of movement and travel. It didn’t feel like we were just stuck in one room or that the story was static. Furthermore, a projection curtain was used to facilitate other aspects of the plot such as train wheels moving, snow falling and even the revealing of the phrase “remember Daisy Armstrong” which Poirot retrieved from a burnt piece of paper. I hope this description has made some sense, as it is a hard one to describe, but below I have found a couple of photos online which may aid understanding.
I know I am not the greatest when it comes to adaptations having to make changes to a story. However, I think this play proves that I am not against them entirely. That and the fact I feel the changes that occurred here made sense and stayed true to the soul of the story. They weren’t doing something annoying by giving Poirot an STI or completely changing the solution. They did streamline the plot which was sensible as this is a dialogue and interview heavy mystery. We would have been there all day if they reenacted each conversation in full. In fact, I felt they added a great deal of energy and action to the tale, whilst reminding the audience of the claustrophobic-like nature of being stuck on a train in the snow.
This production also reduced the number of characters, which was probably a wise move. They removed Dr Constantine (his medical role being taken on by one of the suspects), Count Andrenyi, Antonia Foscarelli, Edward Henry Masterman, Cyrus Hardman, and Hildegarde Schmidt. As the characters are boarding the train we are told that Schmidt is said to be requiring medical treatment for a hernia, and Greta Ohlsson takes on the role of helping Princess Dragomiroff in exchange for getting her train ticket paid by the princess. Looking at this list it is a lot of names, yet I have to admit I really didn’t notice the full extent of the absences when watching the play. Poor Cyrus only got remembered when I looked at a character list to write this review. But I think this shows that the story does function with fewer characters, and importantly it means we get to spend more time with the suspects that do remain. Next line in ROT13 code, to reduce spoilers: Gurer ner bayl unir 8 xvyyref engure guna 12 (gurerol erzbivat gur whel zrgncube), ohg V fgvyy sryg vg jbexrq.
Another key change involves a shooting, which closes act one and it is not the killing of Ratchett. I don’t want to say too much in case other people go to see the performance, but I felt they used this plot deviation well. It replaced some other pieces of evidence for the theory that there was a stranger on the train. It also provided a much-needed climax and shock for the closing of act one. There was many a gasp in the audience and I did jump a little, not expecting a gun shooting in this play. Yet this addition did not derail or convolute the plot, and it is woven into the resolution well.
The finale in which Poirot reveals the truth is quite a long one in the book, with a lot of conversation. But I felt the play did a good job of handling this as when Poirot unfolds his theory of events, his conversation pauses for the pertinent character in question to repeat a snatch of dialogue or to repeat a key action. You could say this was akin to a flashback or a memory, but it was not as formal as that, and everything flowed effectively.
For me the stars of the show were Hercule Poirot (played by Michael Maloney), no surprises there, and Monsieur Bouc (played by Bob Barrett). When recounting the experience to family members afterwards, it was the moments involving Poirot and Bouc, or just Bouc, which first sprung to mind. Bouc is a brilliantly comical character, and he even at times stole the spotlight a little – not that I minded. Bouc is not comic in an arch or self-conscious manner, nor is he sarcastic. What he says is often hilarious, but what makes it all the funnier is the character’s sincerity in what he is saying. He perhaps veers more towards verbally bumbling comedy, but without being slapstick. Returning to Poirot, I think Maloney pitched his interpretation of the detective well, picking up on his passion for the truth and order (without letting this latter aspect take over), as well as his healthy self-esteem. Yet we are turned off by his confidence. Remembering the friendship of Bouc and Poirot brings a smile to my face and I could happily watch more of those two in a different story. Their friendship had some great comedy chemistry.
I think the only character portrayal which jarred or didn’t quite work entirely for me was Princess Dragomiroff. She switched from frail to agile quite a bit, and certain actions didn’t feel fitting such as when she swigs from her hip flash at the Istanbul train station. I felt like she lacked refinement.
But that is only a minor quibble. Both my sister and I had a thoroughly enjoyable time and would both recommend it. I am not sure how much of the tour there is left to go, but if it is appearing near you and there happens to be tickets left, then I would strongly suggest going!
See also: I have also reviewed Agatha Christie’s original novel here.