top of page

By:

Minal Sancheti

2 May 2026 at 12:26:53 pm

Freedom of expression over says artist Jain Kamal

Mumbai: Veteran artist Jain Kamal believes that his fraternity lacks freedom of speech in today’s time. While speaking to ‘The Perfect Voice’, he said, “Freedom for the artists no longer exists. Now, we are living in the times of dictatorship. If we don’t have freedom of expression, then it will be very difficult for the artists to survive. There should be purity in the expression of the artists, saints, scientists, and thinkers so that there is more positivity in society.” Jain is going to...

Freedom of expression over says artist Jain Kamal

Mumbai: Veteran artist Jain Kamal believes that his fraternity lacks freedom of speech in today’s time. While speaking to ‘The Perfect Voice’, he said, “Freedom for the artists no longer exists. Now, we are living in the times of dictatorship. If we don’t have freedom of expression, then it will be very difficult for the artists to survive. There should be purity in the expression of the artists, saints, scientists, and thinkers so that there is more positivity in society.” Jain is going to exhibit his 50 years of work at the Jehangir Art Gallery from May 26 to June 1. The exhibition, ‘Retrospective’, will be inaugurated by Dattatreya Hosabale, General Secretary of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. The paintings are a translation of the Jain religious chanting of the Navkar Mantra. Jain said, “I have been working on these paintings for the past 50 years and have put in a great effort to convey to the world the message of peace and harmony using the Jainism chanting. Like a mother makes delicious food for her child, I have used words to create beautiful art for the people.” When asked what inspired him, he said, “I wanted to do something with words. So I thought why not use Gayatri mantra or Hanuman Chalisa but then I chose Navkar mantra which is a Jain mantra. I used the five lines of the mantras in my paintings. In the exhibition, you will get to see a ‘Picchi’ (a broom used as a symbol of non-violence and which the Jain monks use to brush away any small insect that comes in their way.)” Jain added, “Half of the threads attached to the Picchi are in Brahmi, and half of the Picchi are in Devanagari. I have combined the time of Jain God Rishabdev with today’s generation by using both languages. I have also painted ants dancing to show nonviolence preached by the religion.” The words are formed like a chain in concentric circles in one of the key paintings. Some paintings consist of lakhs of words depicting the Jain mantras. “In these paintings, you can find the entire world through the written mantras. They convey that everything is made by God and there lies nothing in the material world. We should not be proud of our possessions, as everything in the world belongs to Khuda. So be peaceful and spread peace.” He added, “I did not talk about religion, but the philosophy of peace that I want to spread to everyone. I planted the seed of a mantra and thoughts into my artwork, which is why it is unique and different.”

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