797 words
A Haunting in Venice is a Halloween movie and also sees the return of the detective Hercule Poirot to the screen, as most recently played by Kenneth Branagh, who directed this film. The story is lifted from Hallowe’en Party, a 1969 Christie novel set in Britain, although here it is moved to 1949 Venice. Little of the original story remains, although bobbing for apples is retained as the staging of an attempted murder. Since this is Venice, floods rage outside, and a past drowning adds to the haunted setting. It all fits.
Hercule is cynical and resigned, wishing to do no more with the world or solving crimes: a post-war slump wears him down, and he seeks to seclude himself in Venice, left somewhat scruffy but stalwart as groups of American GIs, the latest horde of barbarians, wander about the city, taking in the sites.
Into Hercule’s funk comes Ariadne Oliver (Tina Fey), a murder mystery writer whose sales are slumping, and in an effort to revive her career, asks him to visit Joyce Reynolds (Michelle Yeoh), a spiritualist whom Ariadne wishes to expose as a fraud. The palace where she conducts her seances happens to be the same place where some gruesome murders of children occurred in times past. A reluctant Hercule goes along, and it is child’s play for him to show that Reynolds is not what she claims to be. But when a murder occurs after the seance, Hercule is back in action, with Ariadne as his Watson. The palace is sealed off and a terrific storm outside offers a lot of special effects, water, and tension to the captive guests.
A Haunting in Venice is an old-fashioned whodunit, delivered with impeccable polish by the cast with the usual plot twists and turns. The palace is appropriately spooky, with odd touches such as rats that come out of a gargoyle’s mouth, and a weird cuckoo clock featuring Adam and Eve. It’s a very good film for Branagh, and some critics have noted that h e exhibits some Orson Welles touches — which is not unusual since, as an actor/director, his films seem an echo of Wellesian efforts.
You can buy Trevor Lynch’s Classics of Right-Wing Cinema here.
Unlike the 2022 film See How They Run (which I reviewed here), A Haunting in Venice retains enough of the genre to entertain. There are stabs at studying post-war cynicism and despair, but it is not elaborately done, instead focusing on the plot and a death involving the daughter of opera singer Rowena Drake. But was it only a death and not . . . murder? See the movie.
Branagh angers me since he always likes to plop blacks into his movies, but not this time. Of course, Michelle Yeoh is Asian, but as we know, they’re honorary whites. The Holocaust is likewise omitted, which seems odd given its time and place. Perhaps we are seeing the obeisance to Jewish power of the last two generations beginning to die out. The minority victims in the story are half-siblings who are gypsies (or Romani, given that the film uses the politically-correct term), one very pale young woman, and a swarthy, Arabic/Indian type. There is also a children’s party supervised by nuns where there seem to be a few more black faces than one would expect in 1949 Venice, but that’s all.
Interestingly, the characters are obsessed with escaping to Missouri after watching Meet Me in St. Louis in a displacement camp. Since I live in St. Louis, this got some laughs from the audience. Missouri as a free haven? So it might be. If everything goes down in the next year, be reminded that Missouri is a red state with St. Louis as a blue dot on its border. Plan your flight to freedom accordingly.
The film’s setting is a mix of creepy and oppressive, and is an excellent stage for the story. I won’t say much more lest I divulge the plot, but it is a very watchable commercial film, But since many of you decry today’s cinema — and not without reason — you should enjoy this movie. It has a bleak, overcast atmosphere dominated by interior shadows that mirror Hercule’s post-war despair. His apartment has an flat open roof where he conducts interviews; it is almost a bare stage, which is apt for an actor. Orson Welles would have approved.
I noted the previews shown beforehand as well:: two Marvel films with predominantly black casts as superheroes, and a November film about Napoleon directed by Ridley Scott and starring Joaquin Phoenix which looks very good. and, There are thankfully only ten minutes of previews in the semi-arthouse cinema I attend. I saw Sound of Freedom in a mainstream duplex that showed us 30 minutes of previews, in a theater full of crowds where I was the only man not wearing a T-shirt and shorts,.
Happy moviegoing.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
6 comments
The movie sounds right up my street. But then, I enjoyed Magic in the Moonlight (2014), a romantic comedy from Woody Allen, which the critics weren’t too kind about.
The basic set-up has Colin Firth as a stage magician who specialises in exposing fraudulent mediums. His latest target is celebrated spiritualist Sophie Baker (Emma Stone). Firth is brilliant in the unanticipated denouement.
I have two quibbles with this review, though I note with some pleasure that Mr. Clark does as I do with these Agatha Christie movie adaptations: read (or, as in my case, reread) the novels upon which they’re based prior to viewing the film. Unfortunately, this movie is absolutely nothing like the ‘late Christie’ which inspired it, other than in its recycling of some of the names and characters (while adding others which in no way improve upon the original novel). I agree that the cinematography and sets are excellent (the Orson Welles references are probably to the occasionally askew camera angles), and I enjoyed staying for the end credits as they were flashed onscreen over a camera panning Venice from a high altitude (if anyone sees the movie, do stay for these last few minutes – especially if, like me, you’ve never been to Venice).
Quibble #1 is that of course there was an extended reference to the Holocaust. The Jamie Dornan character (not one from the novel) has a shell-shocked aspect because of his experiences, as he explains with great anguish, having been a doctor in a British unit at the liberation of one of the concentration camps (either Buchenwald or Bergen-Belsen, I forget). He talks at some length about how he accidentally killed some of the “skeletal” inmates by feeding them milk (or something along those lines).
Quibble #2 is that I didn’t think this was a particularly successful film (though lightyears less annoying than the previous Branaugh/Poirot abomination). Why does “Mrs. Reynolds” have to be an Asian? OK, not too big of a deal (like the Romani pair being one very white and one very Hindu looking: even as half-siblings, this is astronomically unlikely genetically, the ulterior purpose of the director being of course to ‘erase race’ as a hard boundary). But the plot twists and clues were, unlike (most of) Christie’s novels, not at all “obvious” if only one were to adopt the correct angle of view. I don’t want to pen spoilers, but the script here “cheats” in ways Christie never did. The result of that cheating was, for me anyway, and along with the mostly boring characters (again not Christie’s originals), a somewhat flat film by the end.
I just watched a matinee showing of this film, and thoroughly enjoyed it.
A few remarks: Lord Shang is correct about his quibble #1. Steven must have skipped out for some popcorn and missed the holocaust harangue.
One of the best things about the movie is the Venice setting. It is perfect. Very atmospheric with the majestic Western architecture – St Marks, Doge’s Palace, Rialto Bridge, etc. That was Branagh’s idea for setting, not Christi’s.
This was also some of the best camera work and art direction I have seen this year. Totally different from Oppenheimer, but equally skilled.
Branagh’s Death on the Nile from a couple years back was such a shameless and awful exercise in mindless negro worship that I’m not sure I can actually sit through another one of his brutal violations of Christie’s work, even if it turns out to be good. I’m so starved for good cinema these days, however, that I’m sure I’ll eventually relent and give this one a try. This review does give me hope.
Richard: I assure you, aside from Michelle Yeoh, everyone is white in the main cast.
Also, lick your lips for the Napoleon movie releasing in November. Looks good and white.
Also, doesn’t it have Joaquin Phoenix in the starring role? While that might not be a predictor of historical accuracy, it certainly does all but guarantee a memorable performance.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.