Agatha Christie Lovers discussion
General
>
Agatha Christie on the Big (and Small) Screen
date
newest »
newest »
Good theme! I really loved the film "Murder on the Orient Express" made in 1974 - lots of big stars, lots of atmosphere, but Albert Finney's Poirot was rather strange. David Suchet's version that I saw on TV one or two years ago was a much better portrayal of the character, and I really liked that Poirot was really very angry that these people had killed another person - it was the morality of their act that angered him.I really liked "4:50 from Paddington", I had to get the book after seeing that on TV. And I saw the original "Witness for the Prosecution" with Charles Laughton and Marlene Dietrich and loved it - it's such a short story so they were able to pad it out nicely to get a full length movie from it.
I've seen lots of other Marples and Poirots but these are my favourite. Ones that I don't like are some of the short stories that put Miss Marple into them even though she doesn't appear in the story (I believe this is the case with "The Blue Geranium".
Lorraine wrote: "Good theme! I really loved the film "Murder on the Orient Express" made in 1974 - lots of big stars, lots of atmosphere, but Albert Finney's Poirot was rather strange. David Suchet's version that..."Lorraine, I absolutely agree with you about Suchet in Orient Express! While both versions end with Poirot stepping off the train, Finney beams benignly at the party of murderers while Suchet is agonized by his decision as only a good Catholic could be!
I love the "padding" in Witness, especially the repartee between Laughton nd his nurse, played by his real life wife, Elsa Lanchester.
"The Blue Geranium" IS a Marple story, but she isn't "in" it. It's told to a group of people, including Marple, as an unsolved mystery.Miss M., of course, solves it! The story is superior to the film!!
I had no idea so many screen versions of Christie’s works existed. I have heard of a few, such as some of the more famous movies, as well as a (relatively) recent Marple TV series (or is that multiple series? I’m not sure). But the only one I have seen is the Poirot TV series starring David Suchet, and that too, not all of the episodes. I really like the series, and I hope I can manage to watch the remaining episodes. IMO, Suchet is an excellent Poirot, and the series is remarkably faithful to the books in most cases (some exceptions noted below). I particularly love how it takes advantage of the audio-visual medium of TV to create an atmosphere that’s not possible in the books – such as the recurring chant of ‘Snap-snapdragon’ that creates an eerie atmosphere in ‘Halloween Party’, or the hazy, brightly-coloured past scenes in ‘Five Little Pigs’ that make the past seem at once more vivid and yet more unreal than the present. Some stories which hinge on deliberately hidden identities – which is harder to do on screen than on page – are sometimes surprisingly well adapted, such as ‘After the Funeral’, and sometimes the hidden identity aspect is dropped summarily, such as in ‘Third Girl’.
On the other hand, there are some cases where personalities, motivations, or even important aspects of the plot have been changed almost beyond recognition. ‘Taken at the Flood’ is the worst offender, IMO. Part of the problem is that the show is firmly set in the 1930s, whereas the source novels were written from the 1910s to the 1960s. So the show has to change a lot of historical context of the books. ‘Taken at the Flood’, for example, is set during and immediately after WWII, and the consequences of that war – both direct ones, such as bombing and rationing, and indirect ones, such as a sense of the world having been turned upside down – form an important part of the background as well as plot. By removing all that context, the story feels unmoored. But there are even further, completely unnecessary changes, such as (view spoiler) It feels like the entire point of the story escaped whoever adapted it for the screen.
Lorraine wrote: "David Suchet’s version that I saw on TV one or two years ago was a much better portrayal of the character, and I really liked that Poirot was really very angry that these people had killed another person - it was the morality of their act that angered him."
Hmm, I had rather the opposite feeling. ‘Murder on the Orient Express’ was the first episode of the TV series I ever saw, and I disliked it so much that I didn’t feel like watching it any more, until a couple of years later, when I caught some earlier episodes of the series and was hooked. My main problem with the ‘MotOE’ adaption was the change in Poirot’s personality. Poirot in the books is generally a genial, even jovial man, who more than anything, wants to see true justice done, and rarely wastes his time sympathizing with unsympathetic murder victims. In the TV version of ‘MotOE’, he suddenly seems far more bad-tempered (I seriously wondered if the actor had a toothache or something while shooting that episode, and couldn’t bring himself to smile), and far more invested in following the letter rather than the spirit of the law.
Brad wrote: "Suchet is agonized by his decision as only a good Catholic could be!"
A good point. The TV episode does emphasize Poirot’s Catholicness more than the book does. However, the TV episode also adds an extra scene, of a woman in Istanbul being stoned to death because she had committed adultery. Poirot takes it in his stride, saying that she deserved to be punished because she had broken the rules of her society. This seems at odds with his attitude towards Ratchett’s murder – surely the same should apply to Ratchett (far more so, in fact, as he had taken a human life).
Mitali wrote: "I had no idea so many screen versions of Christie’s works existed. I have heard of a few, such as some of the more famous movies, as well as a (relatively) recent Marple TV series (or is that multi..."You bring up so many interesting points, Mitali! The one I really focused on is the TV series for both Marple and Poirot ignoring the passage of time to keep Poirot firmly in the 30's and Marple in the 50's. I don't think Christie worked particularly well in the 60's and 70's, and her depictions of mod London in Third Girl are sort of embarrassing. I actually thought Third Girl worked better on TV as a period piece. But you are so very right about Taken at the Flood, which is so much about England's reactions during the war. That is sadly one of the weaker entries in the Poirot series, IMO, for the reasons you stated.
I think Christie fared better bringing Miss Marple into modern times, even if she focused mostly on the changes occurring in small villages in England at the time. This is especially well realized in The Mirror Crack'd!
The first Christie adaptations I saw were the ones with David Suchet as Poirot, which pretty much spoilt any other actor trying to impersonate Poirot for me on either big or small screen. That’s a good thing: I absolutely the way Suchet portrays our beloved Belgian detective. Although I think that the 1974 adaptation of “Murder on the Orient Express” in itself is excellent (better than the one with Suchet), I also had difficulties with Albert Finney’s role.
Personally I don’t understand why Peter Ustinov was cast as Poirot for so long. Possibly for lack of alternatives. I haven’t seen all films from that period, but what I did see I never really enjoyed much. Although from what I remember (it has been a while, so I may be wrong) the storylines were solid and close to the books.
About Miss Marple adaptations I feel a little less black and white. Joan Hickson is my favourite Marple actress, but I quite liked the performances of Geraldine McEwan and Julia McKenzie as well. I found Angela Lansbury less suitable, but still enjoyable.
I think that in general in Miss Marple adaptations more liberties are taken compared to the original stories, not always for the better. But even with the changes I always found Miss Marple on screen highly entertaining.
I can’t remember seeing any other adaptations. Obviously a gap in my upbringing. I guess I’ll have some movie-hunting (and watching) to do soon.
Mod
Until I joined this group, I also didn't realize that so much of the TV versions were changed and sometimes in pretty big ways. After learning that, it's made me question so much that I'm watching to the point where I should have the book out and see if they're following the plot. I should just enjoy them but the changes ruined it a little for me.
I watched The Body in the Library last week with Geraldine McEwan. That was the first Miss Marple movie I'd seen and while she was good, she wasn't quite how I had pictured Miss Marple. The story was pretty good until the end. They had changed who the murderers were just so they could add in a lesbian relationship between the two new murderers in the movie. I just wish they would have stuck to the book. I would have enjoyed it a lot more if they had.
Mod
Peter Ustinov was my favourite screen Poirot. I feel he brought out Poirots sense of humour the best and his portrayal follows more the character in the books for me.
I see a lot of you shaking your heads when the recent TV adaptations veer strongly from Christie's original work. I totally agree with you! The example that Renee gave from The Body in the Library is one! Here are a few more that I bemoan:1) Cards on the Table: a number of changes, including MAJOR character switches for Rhoda and Meredith, culminating in a different person dying and a different person getting married; the murderer's motive has to do with sexual shananigans that were not in the book!
2) The Sittaford Mystery - okay, so they put Miss Marple in this one. I understand that we would probably have never seen TSM onscreen if they hadn't done that. But a perfectly great book solution was thrown out and a new murderer substituted for no earthly reason than to mess with true fans.
3) Ordeal by Innocence - a MAJOR character is murdered in the adaptation for no reason but to make Miss Marple (who is not in the book either) mad!
4) The Secret of Chimneys - this is completely overhauled to be turned into a Miss Marple Mystery, with a new plot and murderer; come to think of it, so is Why Didn't They Ask Evans?
5) Nemesis - don't even get me started! This rewrite, with new plot and characters, is a complete mess - avoid it!!! Better yet, watch the Joan Hickson version, which improves upon the book.
6) Easy to Kill - Adds Marple and changes the murderer's motive - NOT for the better!
Toward Zero and The Pale Horse are turned into Marple mysteries, but they manage to retain most of their original plots.
6) The Big Four and The Labours of Hercules - True, these are essentially short story collections, so the writers tried to turn them into manageably coherent 90 minute films. What they managed was a complete rethinking of Christie's original ideas! In the case of The Big Four, it's rather clever but completely subverts what Christie set out to do!
7) The Clocks - this isn't a very good book, and I think the producers tried to "fix" it - it still manages to be pretty mediocre.
Yes, I'm complaining, but really, every other program is done so well, and many of them are masterpieces of adaptation!
Yes, I agree about The Clocks, I listened to the audio book and it was OK, but the TV show was confusing.
I like the Poirot TV adaptation, but find lots of problems with Agatha Christie Marple which I just stared watching recently. I was so excited about it, but was sad to see that the script writers changed several things in some of the stories and seem to read things into relationships that are just not there. They even invent an old love affair for Miss Marple in one. Sleeping Murder is one of the most changed I've seen so far. In the book the young woman is married and is in love. Her husband joins her soon in the book. In the TV show, she's engaged and her fiancé doesn't seem to care like the man helping her who she ends up falling for. Also, the show says that Helen & first wife were the same person. They weren't at all. I know that often they need to change the shows to make something more interesting or whatever, but this is a whole new story!!
The one that I had the biggest problems with was By the Pricking of My Thumbs. Not only did they insert Miss Marple into a Tommy and Tuppence novel that I am particularly fond of, but she worked with Tuppence, while Tommy was away on business. In addition, they suggested that the Beresfords were having marital problems, which were driving Tuppence to drink!It was disappointing to me that the Geraldine McEwan series was the least faithful to the books, because I really like her and thought that she would make a really good Miss Marple. Miss Marple is supposed to be tall and thin, and McEwan is taller than most of the actresses who have played her.
Denise wrote: "The one that I had the biggest problems with was By the Pricking of My Thumbs. Not only did they insert Miss Marple into a Tommy and Tuppence novel that I am particularly fond of, but she worked wi..."You're so right, Denise! Let's say the producers felt that Tommy and Tuppence weren't "commercial" enough to go it alone. Why the marital problems? I assume they thought the central mystery wasn't involved enough, or they wanted to give Greta Scacchi as Tuppence more to play. Still, they did it on the backs of all the true Christie fans that form the greater core of viewers.
BTPOMT is, above all, a rumination on aging, and it's central trick rests on our belief in the harmlessness of little old ladies. This could have worked for Miss Marple alone, and they could have removed Tommy and Tuppence from the mess they made. Better yet, do a stand alone T & T story, and invite Francesca Ennis and James Warwick back!
What a lovely discussion. Thank you to Brad and Caroline for starting this thread. Now, where do I start. Brad has already made some really good points that overlap with what I intended to say. A few more things:
1) The added homosexuality in "A murder was announced" and "Nemesis." I think there are few more that are slipping my memory. (Don't even get me started on Nemesis...I cannot believe the lengths they went to to ruin this book on screen). I'm not a puritan but I do believe the homosexual themes were added to get more viewers.
2) Sleeping murder with Geraldine McEwan: What the HECK was that! Introducing the "Funny Bones" and all their martial and extra martial infidelities did nothing for the plot. As much as I love Dawn French, she was wasted in the episode.
3) Even the older Poirot series are warped from the original short stories. Most of them from "Poirot Investigate"
-Murder at Marsden Manor: The story does not have an inn-keeper who fancies himself as a crime novel writer. There is no secretary. There is no evil talisman or haunted mansion.
-Eastern star/Western star: WAY more convoluted than in the book.
Most of the short stories are 4-5 pages. But the episodes are way more drawn out.
4) I think Five Little Pigs was really well done, and very true to the book.
In the newer Miss Marple shows, they've gone on to add that the show has been "adapted from " Probably a way of saying that they see no harm in diverging from the main story line.
It's been a long time since I saw the adaptation of A Murder is Announced, but I am assuming you are talking about Hinch and Murgatroyd? If so, most people do believe that they were portrayed as lesbians in the novel.
Denise, Steena might be referring to Cards on the Table, where Dr. Roberts' motive becomes an affair he had with a patient's husband. That isn't in the book, just on TV. Hinch and Murgatroyd are pure Christie!
Denise wrote: "It's been a long time since I saw the adaptation of A Murder is Announced, but I am assuming you are talking about Hinch and Murgatroyd? If so, most people do believe that they were portrayed as le..."I *know* that Hinch and Murgatroyd were in the book. I guess I missed the lesbian implication, given Christie's conservative settings.
Carolyn F. wrote: "I don't like when they change a classic like any of Agatha Christie's books. You wouldn't change a Jane Austen so why change a Christie."Several adaptations differ from the original Austen novels--1999 Mansfield Park where Fanny actually questions Sir Thomas Burtram's plantations and the labor ethics of his workers in Antingua. She's pretty outspoken and questioning for Fanny Price.
The Sense and Sensibility TV series that completely omit mentioning Margaret Dashwood.
Brad wrote: "Denise, Steena might be referring to Cards on the Table, where Dr. Roberts' motive becomes an affair he had with a patient's husband. That isn't in the book, just on TV. Hinch and Murgatroyd are p..."The relationship between Adelaide and Josie in "The Body in the Library" is another addition. The ending in the book is different than in the show.
Steena wrote: "Brad wrote: "Denise, Steena might be referring to Cards on the Table, where Dr. Roberts' motive becomes an affair he had with a patient's husband. That isn't in the book, just on TV. Hinch and Mur..."Yes, that one annoyed me. I like a good gay relationship as much as any guy, but why tamper with the original story? Steena mentioned trying to grab new viewers. I'm trying to imagine the young person saying, "Hey look, they're showing people having sex in this adaptation of 'Murder at the Vicarage!' I'm going to watch Agatha Christie! Maybe they'll have lesbians!!!" It just doesn't make sense!
Brad wrote: "Steena wrote: "Brad wrote: " "Hey look, they're showing people having sex in this adaptation of 'Murder at the Vicarage!' I'm going to watch Agatha Christie! Maybe they'll have lesbians!!!" It just doesn't make sense! ..."That's not what I meant. Young people are better of watching Pretty Little Liars, etc, according to this chain of reasoning.
Agatha Christie's writing is archaic and most of her reasoning and portrayal of relationships is pretty outdated. The adding of random gay relationships seemed like a way to get more people interested in ancient dramas. Like saying, "Look it's not all ancient. We've explicitly added a tabooed relationship! Let's show those puritans!"
Speaking of adaptations, while she was not my favourite Miss Marple, RIP Geraldine McEwan
I didn't know she had passed away, John. She was a fine actress! I actually liked her Marple in its own right.
Only two days ago, Brad. I liked her, too, but preferred Joan Hickson
Hickson was the perfect Marple in every way!
I loved Dame Angela Lansbury's portrayal of Miss Marple. That and Geraldine McEwan. I'm yet to see Joan Hickson's but I definitely will one day. I do like Julia McKenzie's Marple too.
David Suchet's 'Poirot' cannot be beat. For me, he just embraced that role and just became The Little Belgian. I felt like I was with him, from his agony in "Murder on The Orient Express," to his utter determination to have these culprits found.
Currently watching "Three Act Tragedy," sort of reminds me of "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd," in the sense that we're believed to have sided with the...well..you know.
My first experience watching Agatha Christie was the series of films about Miss Marple starring Margaret Rutherford. I was just a kid, and I enjoyed these movies immensely. Only as an adult did I return to them and realize why Christie herself, despite her fondness for Rutherford as an actress, generally despised these adaptations.
Other early examples of Christie range from the superb (Billy Wilder's Witness for the Prosecution, Philomel Cottage starring Basil Rathbone and called Love from a Stranger, and Rene Clair's And Then There Were None) to the inane (Tony Randall as Hercule Poirot in The Alphabet Murders!). Then came the star-packed adaptations of the 1970's - Murder on the Orient Express, Death on the Nile, Evil Under the Sun, etc.) and some occasional TV series (Tommy and Tuppence's Partners in Crime, Why Didn't They Ask Evans? The Seven Dials Mystery from Great Britain and a few modernized TV movies in America, such as Remembered Death, Easy to Kill, Dead Man's Folly, and Murder with Mirrors and A Caribbean Mystery, the latter two featuring Helen Hayes as Miss Marple.) Angela Lansbury also played Marple, on the big screen, in The Mirror Crack'd. Hayley Mills appeared in a very strange film of Endless Night. Two or three updated versions of Ten Little Indians were made, each successive one dropping more and more of Christie's flavor and period.
Then came what many of us might consider the best of the best - two series that featured brilliant actors in the central roles and, at least at first, very faithful renditions of the novels: Joan Hickson playing Miss Marple and David Suchet starring as Hercule Poirot. Suchet's love of the character of Poirot is well documented, and even when some stories strayed from their original path, Suchet's work was exemplary as he plowed through nearly every novel and story about Poirot that Christie wrote. (The final episode, Curtain, brought a wistful end to this series last year.)
Marple might not have fared as well. First Geraldine McEwan and then Julia Mackenzie have taken on the role in a new series of adaptations that grow looser and looser in their approach to the source material. Some films feature Miss Marple in stories that Miss Marple never appeared in on the printed page, and recently, an "original" Marple story (which combined a couple of short stories) was shown on TV.
That is a loose historical starting point. The stories of Agatha Christie continue to enthrall readers and viewers alike. Many younger fans started with the films and worked their way to the novels. (I'm middle aged, so I did it in reverse! I highly recommend that way!!!) I just read that a new three part adaptation of And Then There Were None is scheduled to run on British TV in 2015, and I lament the lack of information about what happened to the proposed film version of Crooked House that Neil Jordan promised to direct (starring Julie Andrews as Aunt Edith!)
So please - discuss away! What are your favorite or least favorite adaptations? Where do you think they go right? Where do you think they go wrong? What do you hope will come next? Who was the best Marple? Is the "messing around" with old plots a good thing or a bad thing? I look forward to hearing what you all have to say and to joining in periodically.