The Blog
Christie Papers
When new articles and information are added to the site we'll give you a taster here ...
Fandom is a strange yet wonderful phenomenon. Some professed “fans” of Agatha Christie are content to read the occasional Christie novel once in a while, when they have the time. Other fans feel compelled to read every book that Christie ever wrote. Still other fans seek out every movie and television adaptation of Christie novels ever filmed. Some fans with the time and money to travel actually visits locations from Christie’s life and novels. Then, there are fans like me, who want to help preserve, perpetuate, and polish Christie’s legacy.
Ever since the first film adaptations of Christie’s work were released, Christie purists (i.e., fans who want movie versions of Christie stories to adhere as closely to the original tales as possible while still being first-class art and entertainment) have found much to irk them. Many changes have made little sense. In 1928, the first Christie movie, based on the first Harley Quin story, added an extra “n” to the enigmatic detective’s name. A trilogy of Poirot movies in the early 1930’s, based on The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, Black Coffee, and Lord Edgware Dies, starred Austin Trevor as Poirot. Trevor declared that he got the role because of his ability to mimic a French accent. The whole Belgian/French confusion notwithstanding, Trevor bore no physical resemblance to Christie’s detective, being in his mid-thirties, tall, and completely devoid of facial hair. The trend has not abated over the years. Over the years, Christie stories have had their locations changed, with characters dropped and added, plots completely gutted, sex and violence inserted, and sometimes even the killer has been changed.
Since its inception, the message board on this website has been continuously buzzing with Christie fans voicing their opinions over recent adaptations. So far, plot transplants, Sapphic subplots, and more overtly sexual subject matter have been particular bones of contention, with some fans crying foul, and others asserting that alterations to the plot are perfectly acceptable as long as the movie is entertaining.
In the interests of full disclosure, I feel like I should make it clear that I am a reactionary purist when it comes to Christie adaptations. I’m a huge fan of those thirty-two-hour adaptations of Dickens novels that replicate every single little detail of the books, and if one tiny little extraneous scene is missing, I get very upset. I hate it when the plot of a Christie adaptation bears no resemblance to the original book. When a story is adapted, I want to see the book come to life, not some radical reworking so loosely based on the source material that I’m surprised that Christie’s name is still on it.
And yes, I know that Christie said that her stories needed simplification when they were adapted for the stage, and I know that she changed her own endings to the stage versions of And Then There Were None, Appointment With Death, and Witness for the Prosecution. But when Christie made the changes that she did, she altered her stories to make them work better on the stage, or to comfort an audience reeling from WWII, or to comment on the self-destructive nature of evil, or emphasize a point about the inevitability of justice. Over the last few years, I get the sense that the screenwriters are making the alterations they do just because they want to see girl-on-girl action.
Now, I can accept changes if they actually work. I loved the addition of Nurse Plimsoll in Witness for the Prosecution, I mostly enjoyed the little original subplots that were tacked onto the one-hour episodes of Poirot, and any time that Hugh Fraser, Philip Jackson, and Pauline Moran want to make an appearance in an adaptation of a story that didn’t originally include Captain Hastings, Chief Inspector Japp, or Miss Lemon is fine by me. I’m a purist, but I’m not unreasonable about it. I don’t mind changes if it makes a better movie, but all too often the modifications don’t interest, entertain, or enlighten me in the least.
The complaints about changed killers, transplanted adult material, and utterly alien plots are well known. In many cases, the changes make the movies more confusing. In a good adaptation of a Christie novel, enough clues should be provided to allow the viewer to be able to deduce the solution, without the killer’s identity being too obvious. Unfortunately, in some of the new Marple mysteries, the clues have been obscured or made ambiguous to the point that it is almost impossible to guess the answer if you don’t know it already (assuming that the original solution has been retained). In the recent adaptation of Cards on the Table, which was a wonderful take on Christie’s work for the first hour, it went off the rails with the radically restructured final act. Several minutes were devoted to adding a fifth suspect– one of the detectives– into the mix. Handled properly, it might be an acceptable change, but in a panning shot before the murder victim is discovered, a knife handle is clearly visible in the dead man’s chest. Since sharp-eyed viewers know that the victim was dead long before any of the detectives came anywhere near him, the time devoted to setting up a motive for the fifth suspect is simply a flat-out waste of time. This could have been prevented by a more judicious camera angle, or a two-second cut at the start of the scene. As it was, the time spent on this subplot meant that intriguing storylines from the book had to be deleted. My point is, if the production team absolutely must make changes, they must take great pains to integrate them into the storyline and make them work.
Having stated the problem, I would like to propound my solutions. I am not a professional screenwriter (although I would love to be involved with any new Christie adaptations that might be released), but as someone who is extremely familiar with Dame Agatha’s work, I know what I would like to see. Instead of gimmicks and shock value, the key to attracting viewers, critical praise, and lasting work, future productions need to work at providing opportunities for incredible acting.
Christie’s critics have often voiced their opinions that her characters need more depth. I don’t always agree with that, but I think that in the future, stress should be placed on sculpting and crafting great roles for suspects. I want to see scenes where the innocent worry over whether or not they will be forced to spend the rest of their lives under suspicion, I want to see terrific climactic scenes with the murderer, and I want to see fully developed characters interacting, so viewers can pick up on psychological clues as to who’s innocent and who’s guilty. Some of the most recent Poirot adaptations have been criticized for not showing the great detective actually detecting, but instead, his solutions seem to be intuitive rather than deductive. Suchet has managed to keep his portrayal of the Belgian sleuth fresh for two decades, and future installments need to show him interacting with the suspects, subtly crafting psychological profiles of them through seemingly innocuous but actually carefully planned conversations. I want to see Poirot’s humor, righteous rage, and little instances of joie de vivre incorporated into each episode.
And I know that the remaining Poirot adaptations may need some tweaking in order to work properly. Black Coffee may need some reworking and padding, and the plot elements borrowed from The Mysterious Affair at Styles need to be altered. Elephants Can Remember needs to be more than just conversations with people with blurry memories. The Suchet version of Murder on the Orient Express will need to be more than a mere shot-for-shot remake of the fine 1974 version starring Albert Finney, and avoid the pitfalls of the modernized 2001 version starring Alfred Molina.
The production decision to keep the Poirot series in the 1930’s has worked out well for the most part, with the slight awkwardness of amputating the postwar themes of Taken at the Flood and sixties youth culture clashes of Third Girl. I think that Black Coffee should be set in a distinctly WWII-era setting, and perhaps The Big Four, one of the most difficult Christie novels to adapt, ought to be set during WWII, with the villains’ motives tied directly to the war. Curtain, which was originally supposed to be set in the years immediately following the war, rather than in the 1970’s, ought to be set soon after the peace begins, during the still-reeling years of regrouping and rebuilding. With only a handful of Poirot stories remaining ( Dead Man’s Folly, Hallowe’en Party, Murder on the Orient Express, Elephants Can Remember, Three-Act Tragedy, The Clocks, The Big Four, Black Coffee, The Labours of Hercules (twelve stories), “The Lemesurier Inheritance,” and Curtain), it would be nice to see them serve as a shining capstone to a long-running series.
As for new Marple adaptations, at this point every Miss Marple novel has been filmed, some as many as four times. Instead of Miss Marple being shoehorned into mysteries she does not originally appear in, (I worry that Crooked House might be the next one to face the Marple-insertion treatment, since it was once cited by Christie as one of her personal favorite of her own novels, I think that when it is finally filmed, it should adhere as closely as possible to Christie’s original vision), I say that the screenwriters should make the most out of stories they already have. To the best of my knowledge, none of the Miss Marple short stories have ever been filmed. Many of these stories would make for excellent television, especially “Death by Drowning.” A series based on the stories, with a supporting cast consisting of actors playing Miss Marple’s nephew Raymond West, his artist paramour Joyce (Or is it Joan? Christie contradicted herself.), Dolly Bantry, Dr. Haydock, and possibly others, could potentially be very entertaining. Like the one-hour Poirots, if the screenwriters wanted to utilize their fertile imaginations, this would be an ideal place in order to fill out the episodes.
If screenwriters are absolutely determined to film essentially original mysteries under the Christie name, there are much better ways to create them rather than gutting novels. I certainly would not object to a series centered on “adaptations” of Ariadne Oliver’s work, based on the brief descriptions of the Sven Hjerson saga in the real novels. Authors could take the few brief premises, such as numerous chief constables being shot simultaneously, or a politician faking his own murder before being killed for real, and let their imaginations run wild. Also, I would love to see television movies based on Christie and real-life crimes, such as the “Bovington Bug,” where a serial killer poisoned his family and friends, and was only caught because someone investigating the case had read The Pale Horse, and recognized the poisoning symptoms. A fictionalized telling of the story, giving Christie a much more involved role, could be really entertaining, as would tales based on the members of the Detection Club, like Christie, Dorothy L. Sayers, and G.K. Chesterton, collaborating on solving real-life mysteries.
By writing this, I do not mean to antagonize or denigrate the creative teams behind some of the most recent Christie adaptations. I think that the last five years have brought out some of the best– and worst– takes on Christie’s work yet. I would like to see a continuation of the high production values, stellar acting, and style that have made the new adaptations of Five Little Pigs, The Hollow, and After the Funeral among the best yet, and a move away from the unrecognizable storylines that have put off many fans who appreciate Christie for what she is, rather than just light entertainment that can be punched up as necessary in order to mindlessly tickle viewers. My opinion is that of a fan and nothing more, but if I could possibly make future Christie adaptations as great as they can possibly be, I feel that I would be giving back to the legacy of a woman who has brought a great deal of happiness to my life.
Explore:
- Posted 2 September 2009 at 1:45p.m. GMT
- 13 comments
Comments
I just read the book And Then There Were None, and I thought it was outstanding. I would recommend this book to anybody over the age of 12. Does anybody recommend any other Agatha Christie book?
What a splendid article - I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head! Whilst I would not consider myself a 'Christie purist' I simply cannot accept changes which are not real attempts to enhance the story, but transparent attempts to titillate and (as you yourself put it) 'mindlessly tickle' the viewer. The recent adaptation of 'Nemesis' bordered on the unrecognisable: as though the script-writer read the synopsis of the book and then just flipped to the end to find out who the murderer was. In the end what we, the viewer, were left with was an utterly non-descript murderer, who appeared to be just a one-dimensional nutcase. And a nun. Perhaps the script-writer was in the mood for a mindless attack on religion, as being a nun was about the closest we ever got to finding out the killer's motive! A pity, as the killer's motive in the book was (in my opinion) one of the most psychologically fascinating motives Christie ever devised.
Like I said - a fantastic article: which refrained from merely bashing the recent adaptations, but instead carefully (and powerfully) argued the case for more faithful adaptaions in future.
Hobbit
Hear! Hear! What an absolutely splendid culmination of how we all feel. This should be required reading for all would be screen writers who would make adaptations of Christie's works.
I especially would be thrilled to see your treatment of increased character exploration and deductive development applied to the Tuesday Club Murders. That would be a wealth of plot lines and episodes.
Excellent article. Catch that type-o in paragraph ten, line three and publish this piece.
Thank you Chris for bringing it all together for us.
uh Chris thanks for that, it gave me shivers.
yes, yes, yes and YES to that!
The main problem is, now that most of the best novels of Poirot have been canned, there are some not so good novels out there which have to be polished a little. Yes, and some have to be rewritten in big parts. I did not read most of them, but as i heard from people they arent really the big MOTOEs.
As i stated previously here, the fanbase has to be heard and some chaps like you (or me :D) have to make their statements and have to talk to the production crew. i am outraged by some of the changes that were made, and yes Kevin, you overdid it sometimes.
We need this - just for example - give the MOTOE Script to Chris, he will review it, tell you whats good about it and whats not.
Hear what people have to say about the Marple Shortstories, it is no good advice to let someone make a script, get okay by the Family and ITV, and can it.
Process the Script. Pass it throu people who really know Agatha Christie. Let them make the chances or undo the changes and then let the Scriptwriter Re-Write it again and again.
For example, Kevin did the "Rye" Script with a too hot needle, it was much too rushed and too many characters in it. and then you leave the best character out of it???? Oh Kev what have you done by DEL Rex's sister-in-law from his first marriage?
Yes we all know from the snoringfest Hickson Adaptation that the story is waaaaaaaaaay to long but do not leave out creepy scenes like the maid on the line. Thats like redoing Psycho with a bath tub.
We Fans will always feel betrayed and cheated.
Get in Mark Gatiss for at least two episodes! He did a brilliant job on the script for Pigeons.
At least the previous Season of Poirot didnt went in the same direction as the Marple Season with G McE. And yes, i did like Appointment very much - even if it was changed alot.
Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! What a brilliant artical, I agree with all of it (Although if you had meant to antagonize the Screenwriters it wouldn't have been a bad thing), the only point I would add is that you make no mention of the writers insistance to make Characters gay who aren't like one of the suspects in Cards On The Table as well as the Policeman and Changing two of the characters in that Adaptation which I thought was a silly idea (Can we never have another Actor playing Supt Battle? Is he so hard to cast) I am with you totally about everything else you said including Ariadne's Detective Sven Thankyou very much, Common sense thinking at last, btw, I too would love to be a screenwriter.
Thank you for writing this. You have summed up the majority opinion of all real Christie fans.
Just a few of your most apt observations, Mr. Chan, go to the fact that other Christie creations can be filmed - where it would be okay to add on drama. The Sven Hjerson stories are a wonderfully clever idea. Along with a film about Agatha and other mystery writers. And for quite some time it has bothered me that the Miss Marple short stories have not been done for the series. Also, why don't they film the Mary Westmacott novels? I can definitely see "Absent in the Spring" being great as a full length or television movie.
A lot of Christie's work is not being portrayed accurately and what's equally pathetic is the fact that these changes are not more entertaining than her novels. And if the producers are trying to cater to viewers who are not familiar with many of her books than that is wrong of them, because it may discourage TV Christie watchers from wanting to read her books because of the cheap and overly dramatic plots they have done thus far, in the Marple series. Or if they do so happen to see a fairly decent adaptation i.e. "A Pocket Full of Rye" and they read her other books they will be left feeling confused as to why it wasn't the same on screen.
There have been quite a few badly and unfaithfully adapted Marple's so far but I've noticed that "Why Didn't They Ask Evans?", though not quite the worse one ever filmed, it has nevertheless, sparked up more conversations about these new MM adapts than ever before on the forums. This, I think, is because the middle through the ending in "Evans" was so outlandish, and so unlike anything Christie had ever written, that this one is the straw that broke the camels back.
Clearly visible? I am referring to the knife or to be more precise the stiletto used in Cards on the Table. The stiletto is dainty (it is not a 10” hunting knife). I would judge it to be about 4” to 6” in length with a round ornate head that had a diameter of approximately ½” to ¾” (about the same size as a fob) with a silver/gold shiny reflective surface. It stuck out of the victim’s body about ½” to ¾”. The victim is wearing an intricate outfit and the head of the stiletto blended in with the clothes. A casual viewer might miss it all together. I for one did not notice it the first time I watched Cards on the Table. And even if you do notice the stiletto sticking out of the body, as the story progresses and the clues and motives appear you would start to wonder if somehow this person somehow did manage to commit the murder after all. I find this type of situation pure Agatha Christie, comparable to Death on the Nile when the person who could not have possibly committed the murder actually did commit the murder. Or perhaps the writer wanted people to see the stiletto for misdirection. The resulting ransacking of Shaitana’s house is connected with this subplot and is effective in directing the viewer away from the actual murderer. Agatha Christie is well known for her expertise at misleading the reader with these types of subplots, so there is no difference in what Nick Dear did in Cards on the Table and what Agatha Christie did herself in her books. Poirot’s parting words to one of the characters is exceptionally poignant and shows the ignorance and ugliness of bigotry. Aside from being an enjoyable and clever mystery from start to finish there is a lesson on morality as well.
I loved the article. How true. It is frustrating when you love a character so much that she becomes a person, or even family member to you and then you see a completly different person on the t.v. when you have been waiting so impaticently for so long. Thanks too about Raymond's wife. I have been agonizing for years and years over whether I made up the difference between Joyce and Joan or if Christie did make a mistake so to speak
Well written essay!
I agree whole heartedly with Chris concerning the changing of murderers and the addition of subplots to AC's works in the adaptations filmed for TV.
I am not a screen writer either, but I do write stage plays.
It is more difficult than it seems to create an adaption that is both faithful to the original and yet has that spark that distinguishes it and bring it to the forefront.
I think I remember reading that Christie disliked many of the films made which were based on her books because they tried to be too literal to the original.
For the past two years I have played around with adapting MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS to the stage--and failed.
A well made film (or stage) adaptation goes further than just taking sections of Christie's prose and putting it down to be spoken by the actors. The medium of film has the ability to open up a story that can only be hinted at on the page, but does opening up a story give poetic license to changing plot, characters, and motive?
A friend of mine recently directed AND THEN THERE WERE NONE. He added a terrific second layer by having the ghosts of each of the dead people who had been murdered appear. This was an intelligent addition, and greatly added to the eeriness of the piece.
Adaptations are a tricky thing.
I don't mind some changes (I, too liked "Five Little Pigs" and "The Hollow", and they did change some stuff a bit, esp. "The Hollow").
But often the changes are just unnecessary, or miss the point. Adding Marple or Poirot where they don't belong falls under that category.
I wasn't aware they had ever added Poirot where he didn't belong.
Mr. Chan,
I LOVED your article! As a devoted Christie fan, I, too, have been frustrated with most of the adaptations. I loved Five Little Pigs and Death on the Nile (despite the homosexual undercurrent which wasn't included in the original novel), and I actually prefer PBS's adaptation of Third Girl (I didn't particularly enjoy the novel), although I do agree that it is better suited to the 'sixties. I feel that some of the themes were blurred in Taken at the Flood and After the Funeral by moving the 'forties/'fifties setting to the 'twenties/'thirties--namely, the post-war era, reconstruction, etc. I enjoyed some of the later adaptations--even Appointment with Death, which strayed considerably from the original novel. I heard that PBS is currently filming The Clocks and Three Act Tragedy, with Murder on the Orient Express and Hallowe'en Party also planned. I agree that there will probably be some difficulties in filming Elephants Can Remember and The Big Four. It should be interesting to see how things play out.
They adapted the Agatha Christie stories to make an anime, too. It features Miss Marple's niece Mabel West as a new character who becomes Poirot's assistant. And worst of all, she brings a duck with her wharever she goes. A DUCK. It's called Oliver. The show sticks closely to the plot, apart from "Strange Jest", which couldn't work in Japanese. Some of the TV adaptations here are RIDICULOUS, like Nemesis with the nuns. I want to assault the person who decides to defile the classics like this!
Login or Register to post a comment