The essence of Miiss Marple is the portrayal of Hickson. There is, in the acting and attention to detail of Hickson,  respect for the aloof and distant Marple. The other two actresses, see the character as being omnipotent and righteous, awaiting the time when each shall reveal all. This visual and spoken haughtiness lessens the reserve of the written character. Hickson has distance and a visual appearance, that disguises the breadth of intelluctalism. Hickson awaits, pnders and reflects. The others, including Ruthefored,  either by design of acting depth, or the direction of the ill-informed director, lack credence and belief. Hickson portrayal and acting arete is disciplined and with maturity that is rare. This comes with respect and honesty of a true thespian..

The never-ending question of who was (is) the best Miss Marple.  Hands down, Joan Hickson.  She was prim and proper with an inquisitve nature - a tight-lipped smile but a kind person and a loyal friend. Geraldine McEwan's portrayal was too silly but  I think Julie McKenzie has potential.  I believe that Joan Hickson must have thoroughly researched the character to portray her so close to Agatha Christie's Marple.  There will be actresses in years to come playing Miss Marple, but Joan Hickson is the quintissential Marple.  Just like David Suchet is the only Poirot.

Joan Hickson portrays Miss Marple exactly how she's described in the books. Geraldine McEwan looks lost while shes playing Marple and acts completely silly, she is making faces like:look people, i know everything and she grins all the time at everyone...its completely unbelievable she was ever casted for the part.

You have put it very well marria, If there is anything to say against Joan Hickson's playing Miss Marple it is that she was perhaps a little too short but that was no fault of hers and didn't detract from her superb portrayal

I find it ironic that Margaret Rutherford's entertaining Miss Marple is all but forgotten in these discussions.

Why is that go_leafs, and why do you think it ironic that the performances of Helen Hayes or Angela Landesbury are forgotten - although I don't thin they are forgotten as everytrime I put a post about Miss Marple I think of all the Actrsses I have seen play her on Television, same with when ever I am on the 'All About Poirot' strand I think of all the Actors I have seen play Poirot, If you mean the Title of the topic should include Misses Rutherford, Hayes and Landesbury I agree with you in the same way that the deabate about who is trhe better Detective should include Tommy and Tuppence aswell as Poirot and Miss Marple.

These discussions always seem to revolve around Hickson, McEwan (those two are practically always there), and now, Mackenzie.

I think Joan Hickson is the quintessential Miss Marple from Agatha Christie's novels. She probably won't be beat by any other performance ever. However, Julia Mackenzie's Marple is really worth watching- while she looks like an elderly, harmless old lady, she conceals a sort of shrewdness that really comes in handy come muder time. Geraldine McEwan perpetually smiles, which actually works. She conveys the impression of the gossiping old woman, and has a touch of shrewdness about her. The trouble with McEwan is that this shrewdness is not concealed-- it would put any killer on his guard.

Helen Hayes was, I find, good, but not too memorable. Angela Lansbury was fantastic, but far too young. (I have problems with the entire production of The Mirror Crack'd, to be honest, which did not live up to its potential.) Margaret Rutherford was extremely entertaining, but her Miss Marple is nothing like the one from the books, dancing the Charleston with Mr. Stringer, riding horses, and going around cleaning houses, while Christie's Miss Marple was at home, gardening.

I agree with a vast majority of your post go_leafs I found Geraldinre McKewan's performance too clumsy, so much so I didn't actually notice the advantages you point out,

I think Helen Hayes was the right choiuce for an American to play Miss Marple as her voice made was suitable for the role, she didn't try to put on a phony accent which would have spoilt the film (I have read one of the books and not the other) I haven't read 'The Mirror Cracked so wont ask what you dislike about the film, I assume the Margaret Rutherford films were made to entertane when we lived in less enlightened times so they did what they were meant to. Britain hasn't seen Julia McKenzie as Miss Marple yet so can't comment on her performance, I can just say I am looking forward to seeing it andmaking up my own mind. 

By comparing the different actresses who have played Miss. Marple, you are only doing them a disservice. Like I have mentioned before each actress brings her own uniqueness to the role. She fleshes out different aspects of the character. We can and should appreciate their portrayals i.e. Joan Hickson without denigrating the portrayal of others i.e. Geraldine McEwan.   

The funny thing is Joan Hickson never read the books and short stories with Miss. Marple. Is she the "quintessential" Miss. Marple? All depends on who you ask. Agatha Christie sketched only a brief outline of Miss. Marple. We know very little about her background. Which is a good thing because it  gives an actress (for the most part) a clean slate to work with. Ergo how can one in all honesty say there is such a thing as the "quintessential" Miss. Marple. Or say Hickson is a "better" Miss. Marple than McEwan for example. It's not fair to either actress. Both were excellent Miss. Marples in their own way because both are fine actors who took pride in their work and gave 100% of themselves to the role. Why not just accept they are different portrayals of Miss. Marple and leave it at that.  

You make a good point, S Sigerson. However, whenever there are multiple versions of the same thing, comparisons are bound to happen. For instance, say two companies sell similar MP3 players. People will compare the quality of the two when deciding between one or the other.

The same goes with Miss Marple (and I apologize in advance for comparing her with a product, but it's what sprang into my mind first). There have been several actresses who have played her, and when people think of thier favourite, comparison to the others is practically unavoidable. It's just human nature, I guess.

You are of course right S Siegerson, by comparing different performances you are doing in (this case the Actresses) a disservice, but I would however say that you say that each Actress brought a different aspects of Miss Marples Character but there were no part of her Character that I recognised from Geraldine McKewan's performance (I am not saying I dislike her as an Actress British people might remember Mulberry with Karl Howman) just there was no part in her portrayal which I thought was part of Miss Marple. I loved your analogy go_leafs using Book Covers might have been bettrer., I agree Comparing performances is unavoidable but I would say Great fun. I am not and never will be an Actor but I in my naive way have always thought it would be great to play a Character who has been played many times, not only because I would know that all that Characters fdans would be forever discussing how I did and where I stood in their list but also  would love to se if I can better who ever was up until then thought the best, also when a season came out of films with that Character pages would be reserved about the list of people who have played the part so I would be in the the worlds Consciuosness (I think that is the right word) 

Depends on the person. Not everyone is going to bother or take the time to make comparisons. I mean really, what's the point? It's after the fact and there is nothing you can do about it. Why not sit back, enjoy the mystery and appreciate the different versions of Miss. Marple. Agatha Christie was quite vague when it came to Miss. Marple's background, so even if you have read the books it doesn't take too much effort on the part of the viewer to envision McEwan, Hickson, or McKenzie as Miss. Marple from the books.      

I don't see a problem with comparing the various actresses who take on a role.  I do think that when comparing, it is good to mention what parts one finds essential in a performance.  It can also be difficult to seperate an actor/actress from the overall production.

I would respectfully disagree with you, S Sigerson, when you say that Christie was vague about Miss Marple's background.  We do not know all the specifics, but we have some reasonable physical descriptions as well as a fair amount of information about her attitudes, from both herself and others.

I will admit that I am a big Hickson fan.  For me, it has always been important to respect the source material, and the Hickson performances do this very well.  I have a hard time seeing anyone describe McEwan as a "rather fluffy old tabby".  The 80's productions also caught the feel of the books very well.  I had been reading Christie for a number of years when those productions came out and they hit the target perfectly.

McEwan's Marple is an engaging character, but she never struck me as Miss Marple.  Once again, the productions themselves affected my opinion, as they were often different stories with Christie's work acting as a mere palimpsest.

I have only seen one of McKenzie's performance (A Pocket Full of Rye) , and it was not bad at all.  I am able to see Miss Marple within her performance, which I was never able to do for McEwan.  The changes to the story did very little damage, and let it fit into the time allotted.

We know precious little about Miss. Marple. We do know Miss. Marple did not condone murder, but who does condone murder. She was a nosy-parker and a gossip. We have no idea her inner-most feelings and attitudes because at the time it was not necessary to have a fully drawn main detective. He or she was there to investigate and nothing more. Their hobbies and family background were irrelevant. As far as a physical description, once again we have a few generalities thrown in here and there, but nothing one could consider as - definitive. Hickson, McEwan and Mckenzie, all to some degree fit the general description in one respect or another of the indelible Miss. Marple from the books. What does a woman described as  "a rather fluffy old tabby" look like anyway?     

All the adaptations utitlize Christie's ingenious plots and that is the only thing that matters. They are the same stories Agatha Christie wrote, just updated to appeal to a modern viewing audience. At the core they are still Agatha Christie.

I agree the only thing that matters is that the Adaptions utilize Agatha Christies Plots I would however suggest that she herself describes herself as Nosy and in doing so she is being generous to the person she is talking to in order to feel embarraced at feeling that she is interfering. I would suggest that she is without verbalizing it saying 'I am here if you want my help' Finally I would like very much like to say I could recognise Miss Marple in GMs portrayal but sadly I can't and as Britain hasn't seen JM in the role yet JH remains for me the best.

S_Sigerson

All the adaptations utitlize Christie's ingenious plots and that is the only thing that matters. They are the same stories Agatha Christie wrote, just updated to appeal to a modern viewing audience. At the core they are still Agatha Christie.

I respectufully disagree. Many recent adaptations have lost the spirit of Christie, far more than a mere "updating". The time period is the same, but the characters and plots have been dumbed down for audiences that are used to big, loud Hollywood blockbusters. The producers, therefore, decide that in order to maximize profits, they need to make the production as much like that as possible. Taken at the Flood, for instance (a Poirot, I know, but bear with me), starts off fantastic, with the same tone as Agatha Christie's novel. But in the final half hour, the tone suddenly shifts. It's now big and dumb, as the audience is spoonfed the solution to the mystery, which has drastically been changed.

Another example is The Sittaford Mystery. The original mystery delved into the supernatural; it was dark and creepy and suspenseful. The film is neither. It introduces completely random, convoluted subplots (such as an Egyptian curse, a favourite in Hollywood-- see the "Mummy" series), "mushy" and implausible romances (and a lesbian couple at the end for the sake of political correctedness, I gather-- it is completely out of place and feels jarring), changes, deletes, and adds characters at whim. This is not Agatha Christie at all.

On the other hand, By the Pricking of My Thumbs brilliantly recreates the book's menacing atmosphere, despite its many plot changes.

So, to conclude, your argument applies only some of the time. Lately, Agatha Christie has been cheapened for profits' sake, wherein the characters are not recognizable.

(comment continued)

And one more thing: Christie may not have been the most detailed when describing Miss Marple, but nonetheless, the reader gets a clear mental picture of her personality throughout the books. For one thing, she's very Victorian and old-fashioned; she has arthritis that progressively gets worse; she loves gardening and gossip; she's rather religious; she learned the "language of the flowers" as a young girl (ie red roses mean this, while yellow ones mean that)... the list goes on.

Since the first Miss Marple I had ever seen portrayed was McEwan, which then led to my first Miss Marple book, I just always pictured McEwan as her. I have seen Rutherford as her; although she was a great actress, the role of Marple never fitted her. For one she didn't look like her, and two the role was too comical. I've seen the Lansbury version but I always pictured her as Ms. Otterborne & Jessica Fletcher, so.... I've never seen Hickson as MM but in her pictures she doesn't appear light hearted enough for MM. But I'm sure her acting was great.

But after seeing McKenzie as MM I would have to say that she is the best thus far. Go leafs said in his post: "...while she looks like an elderly, harmless old lady, she conceals a sort of shrewdness that really comes in handy come murder time." I think that this is an exceptionally accurate statement.I would like to add that she represents the more charming & nurturing side of MM.

The first Miss Marplew book I ever read was 4.50 From Paddington and the lady I pictured in my head was nothing like any of the Actresses I have seen portray her so you are probably thinking that this means I have been hypocritical in previous posts but I would say that there is more than just physical appearances to consider there are mannerisms and and tones of voice etc and I think Joan Hickson comes nearest to my mind, perhaps when it comes to appearance perhaps it is Angela Lansbury as the 3 Actresses I would have liked to see play Miss Marple come closer in appearance to her.

I was surprised go_leaf that you didn't mention Nemesis and Sleeping Murder when mentioning adaptations which are not faithful, The appalling Theatre troop in Sleeping Murder did anything but justice to the Book and the Adaptation of Nemesis (Which I am currently enjoying immensely) did have a 'Murder on the Coach' feel to it and I can only assume you came to the pragmatic decission that you can criticise the Cards On The Table' Adaptation so many times before it becomes pointless. 

You should have said "the reader infers" because what you said is based on a person's impression (in this case yours) and not necessarily based on fact. And sometimes people see something that is not there. I might add, the stereotype of a typical Victorian lady or any other stereotype for that matter is most of the time - inaccurate. You can't put everyone in the same pigeon hole because people are individuals. Could Miss. Marple have had a married lover who died in World War 1? Of course, she could have. There is nothing that says otherwise.