Curtains Up Winnipeg

Murder on the Orient Express was originally a detective novel by Agatha Christie; it isn’t so much a murder mystery as one of the classics that defined the genre. There is a reason why it has been turned into multiple movies over the years. It gives you our favourite tropes of the 1930’s detective story: set in the milieu of the impossibly privileged classes, you have the wealthy declassé American tourist, the stoic former military man, the governess who aspires to more, the foreign nobility fallen on hard times… I don’t need to list them all because we know them – they have symbolic power in part because of Agatha Christie’s classic works. This production anchors itself beautifully in this created world, and the production is satisfying in the same way as the books that made these stock characters into the classics that they are.

A quick synopsis for those who don’t know the story: Hercule Poirot, a fussy Belgian detective, has finished a case in Istanbul when he runs into an old friend Constantine Bouc who runs the luxury train company the Orient Express. Bouc convinces him to take the train back home with the assurance that it will be nothing but relaxation and luxury – no need to think about crimes. As he meets the other first class guests, Poirot quickly becomes aware that not all is as it seems. He is proved right, because what fun would detective stories be if the detective was actually fallible in any real sense? Ah ha! A JOLLY GOOD MURDER! (As my father would say). Who is responsible ? Who is hiding what? What are the motives? What passions are hidden from view? Come and find out!

This is a very enjoyable show, let me say that from the start. It is beautiful, with set and costumes perfectly capturing the 1930’s aesthetic. It is a show that benefits from high production values, because the world that it inhabits is so over the top. In this version the train feels like another character, sometimes indulging the guests, and other times offering a claustrophobic trap for those who can no longer escape their own pasts or deep emotions. The actors did a great job of conveying this sense of being restricted, helped by an absolutely incredible set that framed them visually as small players in monumental events.

We have to talk about the set. Quite simply, it stole the show. A rotating stage allowed them to shift between locations such as the back deck, cabins and the dining car. Other productions have rotating stages, but I have never seen it used so effectively. For one, the rhythm of the scene changes was beautiful to watch and actually contributed to the feeling of being in motion on a train. Also, every individual set was absolutely perfect, but the transitions were even better. The feeling of shifting from one place to another added to the feeling of this being a puzzle. There is a game called Room I play on my iphone in which you interact with elements on the screen, needing to flip your perspective in order to undo a box and reach at the core secret. This set felt a lot like that. Hats off to designer Brian Perchaluk. I have never been so impressed and taken aback by a set before.

Actor Alex Poch Goldin’s Hercule Poirot carries the show. His version shows the influence of David Suchot’s TV rendition, while also being a sharper and more rigid who accepts neither nonsense or threads left unpulled. This works well with this particular storyline in which he is forced to react to revelations. I did sometimes feel as though it left the impression that Poirot lacked a little empathy in his rush to uncover secrets. It’s not a bad choice, but personally I did feel like I wanted a little more softness. To be fair, this could be based on the fact that I’ve read a ridiculous amount of Hercule Poirot books and have my own feelings about the character.

On the whole, the cast delivered solid performances, hitting the right lines for laughs and playing off of each other well in a way that is absolutely essential for this particular script. One thing I did find was that the characters on stage didn’t give me the feeling of curiousity, of wondering who these characters had been before they jumped on the stage. The exception was Constantine Bouc, played by Ray Strachan. Something about the way he approached that role left me believing that there was a whole other rich backstory to that character which could be revealed given half an opportunity and would be worth a play of its own. This could also be because this play’s emphasis on plot and revelation gave less focus to character development. The drive towards wanting to know what they were hiding kept the emphasis away from learning who the character was. Completely understandable, but it was a limitation.

The staging used for the famous denouement was fabulous. It repeated just enough information without being repetitive, and the lighting and motion perfectly complemented the dramatic nature of the reveal. I almost wonder if it would have been effective to use some of those techniques throughout the story to make the tension increase. For example, would it have been interested to get momentary flashes of what Poirot is thinking throughout the story presented to the audience?

This is a really good murder mystery play. I love murder mystery plays -they are very enjoyable. There is a reason why they are so popular. If you like murder mysteries, you will almost definitely enjoy this one. At the end of the day, this is the message its worth taking away from my review.

There are things that I wonder about, but it’s hard to tell if my criticisms are for the production, or the limitations of the genre. For example, there is a moral question asked throughout the play. I can’t repeat it without giving too much away, but it has to do with a question Poirot tackles at the beginning and at the end. To me, questions like this one are a bit of a Chekhov’s gun: you have to answer, or at least address it, by the end of the play. In this show, Poirot repeats his question, but to me it lacked depth. I feel like ideally, when a show gives me a question like that to think over, I want to leave the theatre still mulling it over, probably even deeply conflicted about what it means. This was not that experience, which is ok, because it was still a really enjoyable one. However, it does leave me longing for a theatrical experience that really leaves me thinking. At the same time, theatre is a little bit like food: you can enjoy different things at different times and still have your individual preferences. Not everyone likes asparagus or puppets. Even if the puppet haters are actually objectively wrong.

So is it worth seeing? Absolutely. This is the right kind of show to see with people who aren’t theatre nerds to introduce them to the artform. This is what you take your mother or grandmother to for a special occasion. Or go to with coworkers so that you can chat about it afterwards over drinks. It is accessible theatre, and there is a huge value to making things accessible.

Also, once again, kudos to the set design.