Showing posts with label golden age. Show all posts
Showing posts with label golden age. Show all posts

Saturday, July 13, 2019

Animal Instincts - The Greek Coffin Mystery (1932)

"Work hard in silence, let your success be your noise"
- Frank Ocean

I am tired after reading this little piece of work... In a damn good way, though! It's the first time ever that a book has ever fallen from my hands - I literally was on the John while reading the book and then, when the final revelation came, the book just fell from my hands and I was sitting there shocked down to the bones with my eyes closed for a good 10 minutes until I managed to continue reading, albeit really slowly, with a lot of re-reads of those few pages. How, why, what... Those types of questions filled my mind. Queen really got me this time and I'll be proud to make a post of this novel for my 50th post milestone on this blog.

"Ungentle reader, you now have in your possession all the facts pertinent to the only correct solution of the... problem. ...I say with all good will and a fierce humility: Garde à vous, and a pox on headache!" - One of the greatest lines and works of a Challenge to the Reader that I've ever seen, most certainly; you can theorize to your hearts content, you will be trapped, you will be shocked - and THAT is actually a promise straight from an extremely optimistic and almost arrogant author known as one of the greats from the Golden Age, Ellery Queen, on one of his greatest works: The Greek Coffin Mystery.

I made a review on Ellery Queen's the The Dutch Shoe Mystery earlier this year and found it to be entertaining but not too special in the modern days, although the hospital setting for that story is very intriguing. I definitely understand how much the trick done in that story has inspired and been utilized in modern mysteries all the way to Ace Attorney, Detective Conan, Kindaichi and Danganronpa manga and game franchises.
However for this one we'll be talking about an entirely new kind of beast that you don't see every day as there is no mere one trick here that can be used as a trope to shock the readers, no, this is a one single long story that has been professionally crafted.

To put it simply The Greek Coffin Mystery (1932) - TGCM for short - is a traditional golden age detective novel which is even hyped by the author Ellery Queen, the writer name of one of the greatest known orthodox mystery writers, to be one of Ellery's (the character's) greatest cases - TGCM is a case that deserves to be called a well-written story due to the meticulous amounts of planning put into the story and how everything comes together. While it's not a work of perfect synergy, it does a good job to make it all flow together from the very beginning. The story takes place during Ellery's earlier years so the character Ellery, in the "present" of when the book was published, didn't want to publish the story until the fourth book because he himself felt that it was one of his weaker cases, which is quite opposite from reality. Ellery obviously had later thought of how he saw himself constantly messing up during the case instead of the case itself, basically he saw the trees but not the forest. In the novel he's a novice on the crime scene but he has still managed to make a name for himself, still, he's going to have to put in work in order to make the police and his father, the leading inspector Richard Queen, to accept him as part of the investigation squad. The same policemen and attorneys from the earlier stories are all present as well from the muscular inspector Velie and his squad to the district attorney Sampson.

The story begins with a funeral. The words 'tense atmosphere' are brought up multiple times by the story and characters in the beginning - the tensity is in the air up to the point when the coffin is buried as the funeral goes on, but no one is shedding tears. The presentation of the case in this book seems somewhat more gruesome than usual. by the way. The funeral is due to a man named Khalkis, a rich person who was known to handle art. The Case of Khalkis, a name it's given despite Khalkis dying a supposedly natural death, is due to the fact that during his funeral his new testament was stolen. Although there was only a five minute time frame between when the metal box in which the testament is in was last seen and when it was gone from the safe. The case begins with inspector Velie under Queen investigating every nook and cranny - every person who was in the funeral and even the ones who did not attend were listed and everyone's still in Khalkis's house which' area happens to be locked from outsiders; everyone is known and investigated multiple times, however... The metal box is never found. Due to it being locked and with only one key existing there are not many ways to get rid of the testament (such as flushing down the toilet), so the case is pretty well handled in both its limitations and its ridicilousness due to this metal box disappearing impossibly.
Ellery Queen appears on the scene. The police think of him as more of a nuisance during this time in the past when the case took place, and he makes a deduction: if the person who claimed that the testament was still in the safe between those five minutes, and the testament really was stolen then despite the butler of the house not seeing anyone go to the room, then there is only one place where the testament should be, and that place is...! Well, the coffin of Khalkis. As the coffin is lifted from the grave the police medical worker assistant happens to smell something off. Almost as if there was no embalming used on the corpse? On top of the body of Khalkis they witness as rotten corpse of another person who was strangled to death with some kind of rope, and to Ellery's surprise, there's no metal box to be seen, and that's the basis of the story with many twists to it.

When you look at the story structually, you have a book that contains over 400 pages, has a slightly smaller font than the usual novel and quickly in the pages goes expertly over events that would make a novice writer intentionally write chapters about to fill the pages; in the hands of a bad writer this would easily be over 600 pages. You have such an information packed story planned to such lengths and it only focuses on the important aspects of the case so much that it has to be pointed out. There are actually four answers to this case and it's bound to shock any reader at the very end. A complete opposite of Queen's own Kill as Directed work which was a mediocre-at-best short novel that stretched out every little detail.
As I was reading the story the third answer has an important detail that can only be figured out by people who are in possession of certain equipment - an equipment that many had in the past but barely anyone has anymore - so I was kind of down in the mood due to that fact being the way to expose the culprit, even though I was shocked by that one already, but the book did not disappoint in the end as it went beyond my expectations of how shocking it can be.
This is truly an impressive piece of work but not in a way that everyone can appreciate it, no sir, as it has nothing to relate to - you can't get emotionally attached to the events or the characters; emotional impact is sadly a likened to always be a sign of "good writing" for most people these days despite that not being true, sure you all know the drill. What makes this story so impressive is the plot weaving and handling of more and more raw information one after another.

So. TGCM is a grand murder symphony, it's a tale about a certain stolen painting and the lives that disappear with it. It's a story that - and I will take liberties of coming up with this kind of solution to how this story originated from what Queen mentions of the story and his fans in the Challenge to the Reader page - Queen created specifically for the fans who claimed that they could 'easily' see right through his plot weavings of the previous stories.

Note: It's preferable to read at least one other Queen work before this one though, for multiple reasons that I will not talk about here, not many of them are exactly spoilers but reading at least The Dutch Shoe Mystery before heading to this one is an advice that I will give to all the Ellery Queen fans in the future.

Friday, October 12, 2018

Murder on the Orient Express (2017)

"You tell your lies...
and you think no one will know.
But there are two people who will know.
Yes, two people.
Your god... and Hercule Poirot."

- Hercule Poirot

Murder on the Orient Express is one of the most popular Hercule Poirot stories out there, most likely due to its shocking truth reveal and wrap-up at the end of the story which also showcases a side from Poirot never before seen in the series as he has to face the complexities of what justice truly means, but the title's popularity no doubt also has to do with its ability to create a case and to tell a tale that is powerfully atmospheric. In fact, the first time I personally saw the case, during the TV series' run, I was blown away by the showcased ice-cold atmosphere created by the setting of the story. Murder on the Orient Express is created by the most sold author in our fiction history, Agatha Christie,  and published in 1934 as a novel, and has ever since gotten multiple adaptations; a game adaptation, a TV series adaptation in the 12th season of the 25-year-long Hercule Poirot-series in 2010, and another TV adaptation in 2015 (Japanese), and film adaptations in 1974, 2001 and now finally, in 2017 MotOE was adapted into a 2-hour long film directed by Kenneth Branagh who also starrs as the retired private eye Hercule Poirot (note: The film makes it seem as if Hercule is an active detective on duty and does not mention anything about his retirement, so in this film the watcher can only assume he's on duty). The 2017 film is going to be the adaptation that I will be talking about here.

After solving a rather normal case which has to do with a police officer being the culprit, Hercule Poirot takes a boat to Istanbul where he meets an old friend of his named Bouc who is a man that talks fast and loves prostitutes. He tells Poirot that he's going to be traveling on the Orient Express soon so there's no time to waste! At the same time Poirot gets news which he already guesses the contents of with his ability to "be able to see the world as how it should be," as he claims in this film; he doesn't even need to read a telegram to be able to tell its contents! - though he does have to ask Bouc for a favour: get Hercule Poirot a room on the Orient Express, as because of the telegram, Poirot's vacation gets cut short and he will be riding on it as well.
From the bird's-eye view, the journey on the Orient Express train from the summery forest area to the icy fields (the story is known in every adaptation to take place covered in snow and ice which is a heavy part of the chilly atmosphere the case creates) looks majestic in this 2017 version, almost fitting for a fantasy type series - the soundtrack sounds almost like it's made for a different genre as well.

On the train there are twelve other characters aside from the victim and Poirot with his friend Bouc. I suggest reading this part here and atleast putting their existence into the backs of your head, it makes the film much easier to digest as the writers don't help you with these when you get to watch the movie:
The Professor
The Butler
The Count
The Assistant 
The Governess
The Missionary
The Widow
The Salesman 
The Maid
The Doctor
The Princess
The Conductor 
The Trailer on IMDB shows these characters and their occupation.

Train is only missing the Dementors
So, the train is filled with a wide variety of personalities; the man-eater Mrs. Hubbard, Princess Dragomiroff, an old lady - who happens to be one of those extremely hard to please type of persons - who wants perfect service constantly and travels with a helper, Ms. Schmidt, and her dog, MacQueen, an overweight man who likes to drink, is the secretary and bank accountant of Mr. Ratchett. Aside from them, many others are on the train. The twist related to the characters is well handled - as it's almost impossible to fail at it considering how well written the source material is. Everything at the heart of the crime, every single character in this story ends up being connected to the case one way or another and it builds up to one of the most memorable reveals in the Poirot series (not saying that this 2017 version is memorable at all - the older and better versions are for me and I  will probably forget this one in a week).

Over at the train's diner, Mr. Ratchett, starred by Johnny Depp, tries to persuade Poirot to do some work on the train. He calls himself a businessman on the art side. As he believes that Italians want their money back for fraudulent items, he knows that someone is out there to get him on the Orient Express. Ratchett knows he's on borrowed time and needs the help of a detective, however Poirot declines as he does not help criminals.
Later on, the train does a quick brake and everyone on it gets forced awake. The Orient Express is now at halt, unable to move due to the bad weather conditions on the icy railroad, and then, in his room Mr. Ratchett is found dead, murdered, with different types of evidence left all over the place mysteriously as well as multiple different types of stab wounds all over his body. It's hard to tell whether they are done with a left or right hand; almost as if the killer kept their eyes closed, and the time of death is hard to pinpoint due to the window being open - the freezing weather affects the rigor mortis.

While watching this movie, the presentations for the characters was really off - as it's a Christie story, there are quite a few characters alright - all equally important to know of. The movie pretty much failed in making the characters memorable and even failed in telling the watcher who they are and what they do. Before watching the movie it's actually recommended that you watch the Official Trailer first, as it has the characters' occupation written next to them. I have added the link to the trailer after the list of character types in this blog post. That part in the trailer should have been in the movie, it could have  easily been presented as "how Poirot's mind sees the world," or something akin to that. It would make the movie much more comprehensible as it is a character-driven story, series and genre.

The motive for the case, the murder of Mr. Ratchett, has to do with a case that happened two years back. Ratchett's true identity is really known as 'Cassetti.'
The Armstrong case happened back then. A pilot, Colonel John Amrstrong and his wife Sonia found their daughter, Daisy, was missing; kidnapped. The Armstrongs paid a ransom, however Daisy was found dead, confirmed to be murdered. The case had no suspects but lead to the deaths of many. Sonia died along with a new baby in her belly due to the shock of what happened to her little Daisy, and John Armstrong sent a letter to Hercule Poirot explaining the case, before he himself did a suicide with a gun.

 The film looks clean and beautiful as you'd expect from a modern film. Though none of the adaptations seem to contain the essence of the original novel due to being made for a more modern audience - they are darker such as in the case of the 2010 adaptation or the comedic moments seem very off as is the case in this 2017 film adaptation - I do feel that the story works very well in all of the mediums; on the big screen, TV and as novel. The high production quality of all of these very different versions is actually one of the most exceptional aspects of this story.

 The soundtrack for the film is simple and forgettable but it does consist of actual music that is great to listen to such as this; Never Forget by Michelle Pfeiffer. The use of synthetisators for OSTs can sadly be heard in abundance in games, TV series and films these days, so atleast that's more positive than negative for this film.


 And finally the characters. The acting did not seem too unnatural for the series; it is what it is, but neither was it natural enough, some of the actors didn't seem to fit their roles very well. The acting plays like a soap series, the dialogue is forceful and stiff and the characters just couldn't really get any standout scenes to impress during the two hours of the film's run time. However the subtlety of Poirot's true motives for doing what he does in the end is well handled in this film and it gives a little bit of depth to all of the characters - I'm talking about 'why' the gun was empty and 'what' he wanted to gain from doing that. That part is one of those things that the watchers of this film take with them to home and maybe they wake up at night to realize something new about all of the characters' relationships with each other.

Murder on the Orient Express (2017) ends up being yet another okayish to decent adaptation of the original novel with some beautiful cinematography, an okay cast of characters and an okay soundtrack but the way the story itself plays out could be better handled; everything jumps around without being explained or paced well - these scenes are only confusing to the watcher and break the flow of the viewing experience -  and presentation of the characters and the camera angles inside of the train seem badly placed and handled. These things are the worst aspects of this film. The camera work is not that good when it focuses on the characters, which it does do majority of the story.
 *I prefer the melancholic feel and way of presentation of the 2010 adaptation much more compared to this film.

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

A Technically Perfect Ending

I would like to be remembered as someone who did the best she could with the talent she had. J. K. Rowling
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/remembered.htm"
I would like to be remembered as someone who did the best she could with the talent she had.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/jkrowlin454004.html?src=t_remembered
I would like to be remembered as someone who did the best she could with the talent she had.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/jkrowlin454004.html?src=t_remembered
I would like to be remembered as someone who did the best she could with the talent she had.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/jkrowlin454004.html?src=t_remembered
I would like to be remembered as someone who did the best she could with the talent she had.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/jkrowlin454004.html?src=t_remembered
I would like to be remembered as someone who did the best she could with the talent she had.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/remembered.html
I would like to be remembered as someone who did the best she could with the talent she had. J. K. Rowling
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/remembered.html
"I would like to be remembered as someone who did the best she could with the talent she had."
- J.K. Rowling 

Curtain. The final released Poirot novel by Agatha Christie. I already made a somewhat spoilery (the post has a picture with a spoiler) respect post about the book earlier here but now that I've completed the book last month and gathered my thoughts about it, I ofcourse want to write a bit about it. According to Wikipedia, Christie wrote the story ~30 years before the actual ending and had it stored in a bank during World War 2 to keep it safe. Curtain's purpose was to act as a "fitting" end to the series, which it in some ways is and in some ways isn't.

The setting and certain resurfacing ideas used in the book's story are, some more than others, symbolistic. The very first case and setting of the Hercule Poirot series is brought back in this final book as Hercule's old friend, captain Arthur Hastings, stars as the main character of the story. Hastings's purpose according to Poirot is to work as Poirot's five senses for trying to solve the case of the mysterious culprit "X," a person who Hercule Poirot says is his most formidable foe yet (X's presence was not presented as well as it could have been, though, for this to be all too true), who had "killed" multiple people in the past and is now hunting for more. Since the beginning Poirot knows everything of X, while Hastings knows practically nothing (well Poirot told him his few potential victims - as to hint at X's murder methods) and is looking for the culprit X and his murder methods in that way, while knowing nothing. In other words Poirot is missing clues for the culprit's methods as he can't prove X's part in the killings, and he is also looking for X's next victims, so he wants Hastings to look at the people of the newly remodeled Styles's Court building construct (from the first Poirot case) from inside-the-box point of view, and he wants Hastings to report everything he sees to Poirot himself.

Chavenage House (near Tetbury, Gloucestershire). Inspiration for Styles Court
Styles's Court is now a place for for people in need of extra help to continue their lives with help to live in, also with some extra guests that just come to relax there and spend some time. In other words the mansion has been turned into a nursing home.

The premise of the story is the usual; it has a place and a case. Arthur Hastings gets a letter from Hercule Poirot in which he wants Hastings to come to meet Poirot for old time's sake. One of Hastings's daughters, Judith, and a slew of other people are already waiting for him (well not really but they're there), and Hastings really wants to meet Poirot once more. Hastings's memories and nostalgia - the shared history with Poirot - is brought up multiple times. The cast of characters in the story is nothing spectacular but Christie does a well enough job in bringing the characters up multiple times for the reader to get used to who most of  them are. When I began to read the book at first, I felt very lost on who is who, but thinking back to the previous chapters made it easier to get into the flow of the story. The story itself is very basic, in fact so much so that it felt disappointing. It didn't take much (while reading I didn't mind it at all) from my enjoyment but I did think that the setting - a mansion in which a group of people are in, locked room murder and multiple other murders - and other such things were terribly uninspired and from that front not the best way for the curtain to fall. In this case I think Christie saw very far into the future (if the "writing 30 years before the actual ending" thing is true) when she wrote Curtain, as it was the perfect soft-boiled setting and the premise of the story with Poirot's age etc. being brought up for the case. However these things were too perfect for their own good as nowadays these are rather overused ideas to say the least.


Characters? They were okay. No one really outstanding, but Hastings's thoughts and personal motivations were well handled in this. Poirot's moments were pretty nice in a good and bad sense, I believe, while thinking back. There was a a particularly powerful line about dropping the curtain which Poirot himself made that sticks with me still. Dr John Franklin stood out in his slightly sudden character development ways also and Boyd Carrington was interesting. I guess Judith's attitude and the way the true culprit was handled in the backgrounds was impressive, very much so. I didn't think the story was as well thought out until the bomb was dropped in the end. Some may see it as a psychological babble but I believe that Christie simply didn't know how to put the methods the culprit used into better words (the murder method was put in very simplistic ways during the explanation), but, as far as mystery/detective fiction, instead of sci-fi, goes, it was handled better than in the story I'll be writing a review about after this - a story in which there's a therapist and suicide talk, alot.

The story repeats an old-to-new type of writing where Hastings and other characters compare past to
Past and present overlap with each other.
present, in more ways than one, probably on purpose to reflect on their journey. Despite Hercule Poirot's bad and near-death condition, he keeps telling Hastings that his brain works as fast as always. Hastings questions this couple of times: "maybe Poirot has gone senile and is only making up this story of X?" You could tell where the story was going. It was to be the final Poirot book, Poirot's condition, and ofcourse getting to know the culprit etc. by the end was also a given, but how the story unfolds is another thing. In the end Poirot had to send a letter after all to explain everything, which was disappointing despite the somewhat emotional open-ended ending which came before it. Had the book told more in the epilogue, it could have turned out to be better. It feels like the ending part was added on random to avoid backlash.

And finally, you'll probably not guess the culprit on your own. they're the one I least suspected. they weren't brought up that often. The hints were low in count but the hints that exist in the story were really subtle.