top of page

By:

Quaid Najmi

4 January 2025 at 3:26:24 pm

President takes prompt cognizance

Mumbai: President Droupadi Murmu has taken immediate cognizance of a plea pointing at grave insults to the Indian Tricolour (Tiranga) in pubs and hotels, violations to the Flag Code of India, 2002, in the name of celebrating Republic Day and Independence Day. Pune businessman-cum-activist Prafful Sarda had shot off a complaint to the President on Jan. 26 but was surprised to receive a response from her office in less than 72 hours. Under Secretary Lakshmi Maharabooshanam in the President’s...

President takes prompt cognizance

Mumbai: President Droupadi Murmu has taken immediate cognizance of a plea pointing at grave insults to the Indian Tricolour (Tiranga) in pubs and hotels, violations to the Flag Code of India, 2002, in the name of celebrating Republic Day and Independence Day. Pune businessman-cum-activist Prafful Sarda had shot off a complaint to the President on Jan. 26 but was surprised to receive a response from her office in less than 72 hours. Under Secretary Lakshmi Maharabooshanam in the President’s Secretariat at Rashtrapati Bhavan, replied to Sarda on forwarding his complaint to the Ministry of Home Affairs for necessary action. It further stated that action taken in the matter must be conveyed directly to Sarda. “It’s a pleasant surprise indeed that the President has taken serious note of the issue of insults to the National Flag at night-clubs, pubs, lounges, sports bars and other places all over the country. The blatant mishandling of the National Flag also violates the specially laid-down provisions of the Flag Code of India,” said Sarda. He pointed out that the Tricolor is a sacred symbol and not a ‘commercial prop’ for entertainment purposes to be used by artists without disregard for the rules. “There are multiple videos, reels or photos available on social media… It's painful to view how the National Flag is being grossly misused, disrespected and even displayed at late nights or early morning hours, flouting the rules,” Sarda said. The more worrisome aspect is that such transgressions are occurring openly, repeatedly and apparently without any apprehensions for the potential consequences. This indicates serious lapses in the enforcement and supervision, but such unchecked abuse could portend dangerous signals that national symbols can be ‘trivialized and traded for profits’. He urged the President to direct the issue of stringent written guidelines with circular to all such private or commercial outlets on mandatory compliance with the Flag Code of India, conduct special awareness drives, surprise checks on such venues and regular inspections to curb the misuse of the Tricolour. Flag Code of India, 2002 Perturbed over the “perceptible lack of awareness” not only among the masses but also governmental agencies with regard to the laws, practices and conventions for displaying the National Flag as per the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 and the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, the centre had brought out the detailed 25-page Flag Code of India, 2002. The Flag Code of India has minute guidelines on the display of the Tricolour, the happy occasions when it flies high, or the sad times when it is at half-mast, the privileged dignitaries who are entitled to display it on their vehicles, etc. Certain violations attract hefty fines and/or imprisonment till three years.

Why 1974’s Murder on the Orient Express is the finest Agatha film

Updated: Jan 2, 2025

Murder on the Orient Express

1974 was a banner year for cinema, a time when screens were graced with films of exceptional variety and brilliance, from ‘The Godfather Part II’ to ‘Chinatown.’ Nestled among titans was Sidney Lumet’s adaptation of Agatha Christie’s ‘Murder on the Orient Express,’ a film that stands not just as a masterclass in storytelling but as a shining beacon among Christie adaptations.


At the heart of this triumph is Albert Finney, delivering a performance as Hercule Poirot that reportedly won Christie’s rare seal of approval. Finney’s Poirot is simultaneously larger than life and grounded in meticulous realism. His accent, mannerisms and obsessive quirks leap off the screen with a vivacity that feels tailor-made for the character. Where other portrayals might lean into caricature, Finney’s approach ensures Poirot is both absurdly comic and deeply human - a detective whose “little grey cells” pulsate with energy and purpose.


Lumet, renowned for his dexterity across genres, helms the film with an assured touch, marshalling one of the most dazzling (and suspicious) casts ever assembled and ensuring every player is given a moment to shine.


And what a cast it is: Vanessa Redgrave exudes elegance and warmth; Sean Connery brings his trademark gravitas; Wendy Hiller’s regal air commands attention. Sir John Gielgud’s butler is pitch-perfect, while Lauren Bacall’s brash and haughty performance brims with charisma. Ingrid Bergman, in an Oscar-winning turn, imbues her role with a poignant yet crafty ‘simplicity’ that lingers long after her brief scenes. Add to this Anthony Perkins’s shifty nervousness, Martin Balsam’s dependable solidity, and Jean-Pierre Cassel’s understated charm, and the train feels populated not just with characters but with a vibrant cross-section of humanity. At the core of this ensemble lies Richard Widmark’s sinister Ratchett, whose murder sets the plot in motion and whose presence haunts every frame.


One of the most striking aspects of the 1974 version is its meticulous attention to detail. From the luxurious, claustrophobic train compartments to the haunting snowscapes of the Balkans of the 1930s, the film’s setting is an active participant in the drama. Paul Dehn’s literate screenplay and Geoffrey Unsworth’s sumptuous cinematography immerses the viewer in a world where every clue feels tangible, every gesture significant.


The film is further elevated by Richard Rodney Bennett’s exquisite score which is a haunting, evocative mix of melancholy and intrigue, particularly while underscoring the Baby Armstrong kidnapping case. It is a score that lingers in memory, as integral to the film’s atmosphere as the locomotive’s whistle or the crunch of snow underfoot.


Contrast Lumet’s version to Kenneth Branagh’s 2017 all-star remake, which falls short on nearly every front. Where Lumet’s sumptuous version feels timeless and organic, Branagh’s feels sterile and hollow, a pale echo of its predecessor with the talented Branagh no match for Finney.


While many actors have stepped into Poirot’s patent leather shoes, few have managed to leave a lasting impression. David Suchet’s portrayal in the ITV series remains the definitive interpretation - a Poirot so finely realized that he has become synonymous with the character. However, the Suchet-led ‘Murder on the Orient Express’ utterly lacks the cinematic flair and ensemble dynamism that make the 1974 film so unforgettable.


The 1974 Orient Express also casts a long shadow over subsequent Christie adaptations for cinema. Peter Ustinov’s outings as Poirot, though entertaining in their own right, fail to capture the gravitas and finesse of Finney’s Poirot or the tight orchestration of Lumet’s direction. Death on the Nile (1978), while passable, lacks the tension and narrative drive of ‘Orient Express,’ and Evil Under the Sun (1982) leans too heavily on camp at the expense of mystery.


Ultimately, what sets the 1974 version apart is its ability to balance reverence for Christie’s work with the demands of cinematic storytelling. Lumet, Finney, and the ensemble cast create a world that is as intricate and compelling as the novel itself. It is a rare adaptation that not only honours its source material but transcends it, becoming a classic in its own right.


In a year crowded with cinematic masterpieces, ‘Murder on the Orient Express’ carved out its own niche — not by chasing trends or reinventing the wheel, but by embracing the timeless allure of a well-told story.

Comments


bottom of page