“I was also drawn to the moral ambiguity of the story. We meet a character at the beginning that says ‘there is right, there is wrong, and nothing in between’ and there is a journey that suggests that maybe there is a lot in between. All that knotty moral positioning lies underneath a story that continues to be a page turner.” - Kenneth Branagh on Murder on the Orient Express
You know the thing about him I noticed that I haven’t seen anyone mention? He’s a sniper with PTSD right? And there’s that scene where he points his rifle at the enemy sniper in the tower and can’t pull the trigger. And usually that would mean that the main character would end up having a conversation with him after which he’d get a ‘second opportunity’ to take that shot and this time wouldn’t flinch.
And we’d be supposed to be proud of him because he ‘overcame his trauma’ by… doing the thing that caused his trauma in the first place?
BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT HAPPENED HERE, instead we get an amazing scene where when Charlie thinks there’s no point in him going with them for their mission Diana smiles at him and tells him that there is: without him they wouldn’t have anyone to sing to them.
And I thought it was just so… in line with the message this movie was sending. And so true to Diana’s character.
Because in her eyes Charlie’s value as a person or a friend doesn’t rest in whether or not he can pull the trigger and kill.
And I though it was important.
I mean this movie was filled with many such small but significant moments that addressed things like sexism and racism and the atrocities of colonization, and I’d mention them all it’s just that this one was one I hadn’t seen someone already discussing.