A Haunting in Venice

Cards on the table, this has been one of my most anticipated of the year. Ever since first seeing the teaser, which didn’t even let on that it was a Poirot movie until 3/4 of the way through, I was in. A detective story that doubles as a horror flick? Perfect. Add to it my love of Branagh’s Murder on the Orient Express, and I was pumped (let’s pretend Death on the Nile didn’t happen).

A Haunting in Venice finds Kenneth Branagh once again reprising his role as the mustachioed sleuth. This time, he’s retired and living in Venice, when old friend and mystery writer Ariadne Oliver (Tina Fey) shows up with a challenge: accompany her to a seance and debunk the medium Joyce Reynolds (Michelle Yeoh). Surely this is simple enough for the great Poirot, no? But when strange events continue after his initial reveal of her fraud, and she ends up dead shortly after an attempt is made on Poirot’s life, it becomes clear more treachery is afoot.

The plot structure is much as you’d expect from a detective flick. After the death, Poirot resolves to solve the case before morning, despite enjoying his retirement and employing an ex-cop to ward off those who wish to bring him mysteries. He sets about interviewing the cast of characters who were present at the seance, granting us more access to their past, as well as the deadly history of the house. Most importantly, the tale of Alicia Drake (Rowan Robinson), who is the daughter of the home’s owner Rowena (Kelly Reilly) and he intended subject of the seance. After falling ill and complaining of torment at the hands of otherworldly spirits, she flung herself off a balcony to her death at their behest. Were the spirits she saw and heard real? Did they cause her to jump? And did the same fate befall Ms. Reynolds?

As this is a Poirot story, we know the answer is not supernatural. Much like Sherlock or Scooby-Doo, the promise of his genius is that he will reveal the world to not be full of magic, but rather full of clever yet clumsy people, whose secrets will be given up if you just look closely enough. And so the film must make the occurrences seem as supernatural as it can, while still making the reveal of how it worked feel satisfying. By keeping us in Poirot’s perspective the whole time while showing a bunch of seemingly supernatural events and images, Branagh made this a lot harder on himself, and makes the ultimate realization work that much better.

The characters are relatively standard for such a story. The mother, the ex-fiance, the detective’s old friend, an ex-cop, a child, a doctor, a caretaker, and a couple of foreigners who were assistants to the recently deceased. Their backstories manage to keep them compelling (some more than others), but again, they’re nothing too new. It’s just well done, so it works. The pacing could be improved a bit, as there are long stretches where Poirot learns little new for certain, instead just listening to what they have to say for themselves. But the clues come frequently enough to keep your apatite whet.

Because as with any good mystery, you can figure this one out before Poirot. Lord knows I didn’t. But when he conveyed the solution, and pointed at a bunch of clues, almost all of them I had picked up as noteworthy as they happened. I couldn’t put them together, but then, I’m not a detective. There was one metatextual clue which may trip you up, but as it’s reasonable that Poirot knew it, it didn’t bother me.

So far, I’ve talked about the mystery itself. It was good! Nothing special, but good. And yet, I said I loved this movie. So what elevated it? Simple: cinematographer Haris Zambarloukos.

This is one of the most interestingly and dynamically shot mainstream movies I’ve seen in quite some time. In almost every single scene, Zambarloukos and Branagh looked at how it would be done normally, and asked how they could make it standout, making it harder on themselves in the process. This begins almost immediately. For example when Ariadne comes to Poirot as he eats breakfast, we see him centered between some posts, a postcard shot of the city in the background, looking straight out of a Wes Anderson movie. That meticulousness pays off big time when we get to the Drake house. Immediately, a slew of shot selections make everything feel…off. Something ephemeral is just not right about this house and its inhabitants. We see Dr. Leslie Ferrier (Jamie Dornan) sitting bent over, looking panicked and distorted, lost in his thoughts. It feels wrong for reasons we can’t put our finger on. But when his son Leopold (Jude Hill) beckons him, the camera follows as he sits up, and the proportions snap back to normal. Which is a microcosm of the movie: on the surface, something is wrong and inexplicable, but there’s a simple explanation that makes all right again.

This use of the camera to create an unsettling vibe and to tell the story is present throughout in a way not many movies pull off. There are overhead shots, canted and unorthodox angles, locked down shots, strangely blocked close-ups, the camera locked to Poirot’s face while everything around him jitters, looking through grates and doors, and more. Many times, we’re looking down at Poirot from behind him at a high angle, as if we’re a spirit observing his investigation. We get half shots of his face, great usage of shadows and lighting, and so, so much more. In one memorable shot near the end, Poirot walks down a hallway, and the camera shakily but slowly catches up to him, as if a ghost wants to make sure everything is okay. While many of these techniques are old hat, few films use so many of them in such concert and maintain the feeling that each was a carefully considered choice. Zambarloukos did not just throw everything at the wall to see what would stick: all are well suited to the situation in which they’re used. And they combine for an incredibly creepy experience. This 1000% deserves a nomination for Best Cinematography.

If I had one complaint to levy at this film, it’s that the opening is a bit weak. Really, up until the seance. Tonally, it doesn’t know what to do while we follow Poirot out in the real world. It meanders and has a seeming seriousness while nothing happens. Then, when we get to the Halloween party pre-seance, we have this darker visual tone but the score isn’t on the same page. It’s so strange, as if they felt the need to do all this setup for the real story, but then rushed it? I don’t know, maybe I’ll feel different on a re-watch. At least it’s not a super long section, just maybe the first ten or fifteen minutes.

In any case, I could barely be happier with how this film turned out. True, my favorite films are ones which clearly have a lot on their mind, a lot to say, and spend the runtime mulling those ideas over and over and injecting nuance. This…doesn’t. It’s “just” a self-contained mystery. But that’s all it was ever trying to be, and all I want from a detective movie. Combine that with the unexpected artistry on display, and the well woven mystery, and this is well worth your time. It’s definitely my favorite Branagh Poirot, and I cannot wait for the next one!