Before watching the movie, I specially read this novel by my grandmother, and wrote the following feeling after reading: There is a clear distinction between good and evil, which satisfies everyone's positioning and needs for justice. There is no gray area for us to think about, or even bring up the topic of human nature again for debate. The truth is justice, and justice is the truth. Grandma has drawn the bottom line of most people with her pen.
Actually, this is not my complete idea. After watching the 1974 version and the 2016 version of the movie, I want to add another part of my thoughts. A lot of people's discussions about this novel or movie stay on the legal and moral level, which is certainly not wrong. However, behind these I am more willing to think about a question of loyalty. Loyalty is a virtue of human beings. Whether it is for family, friendship or love, loyalty not only builds a bond of mutual trust between people, but also extends the breadth and depth of human kindness. I believe that the actions of the murderers are not just doubts about the inability of the law to punish evil and promote good, because there are many ways to help them plug the loopholes in the law. Each of the murderers' knife is an understanding and interpretation of loyalty - it cannot be executed on its behalf. Loyalty is the only way to relieve everyone's demons.
Even laws that cannot be perfect are not against loyalty. In ancient China's judicial system, "the prime minister hides from the relatives" is for the maintenance of human relations and social morality. Even under the modern judicial system, it is emphasized that people must make a choice between family affection and justice, and there is no lack of consideration from the perspectives of social order, public interests, civil liberties, and judicial justice. The Western system of "accommodating concealment" is generally the same.
I put the two films together to review, not to compare who is better and who is lower. Although I prefer the somewhat exaggerated and neurotic Poirot in the old version, because he is closer to my definition of a detective - a truth digger, not a judge. In the new version, Poirot just becomes a judge, expanding the scope of rationality that a detective should maintain. I don't like this feeling.
I haven't had time to read my grandmother's autobiography, and I don't know what she thinks of "Murder on the Orient Express". But I believe her original intention should also be to separate truth and justice, so that human nature can be a little more good.
View more about Murder on the Orient Express reviews
