May I chime in, too?  As a Christie fan from way back, I read many of her books before seeing any films adaptations, so my envisioning of Miss Marple came from Dame Agatha's own descriptions, "tall, elderly", old-fashioned, Victorian, taken as a bit gossipy by other characters in the books.  So with that alone, MM reminded me of my beloved grandmother.  My grandmother was tall, but in her old age, she slumped a bit, but she was energetic, and talky, and always everyone's "aunt", kind-hearted and moral, not to mention a churchgoer.  Rutherford was the first J. Marple I'd even seen onscreen (the films were fairly new at the time!), but nothing like my grandmother or my idea of Jane Marple, but fun nonetheless. I liked Helen Hayes because I've always liked the actress.  Angela Landesbury wasn't "quite" the real deal.

Joan Hickson is the closest J. Marple I've ever seen.  She resembles my grandmother in stature, as well as my vision of MM, and she was up for anything.  I was impressed when watching her traipse across a very unclean beach without missing a beat - and she was well up in age by that time!  Her Miss Marple was seriously against crime, and although the Inspectors and the townspeople may have considered her just a nosy, gossipy old lady, I don't get that.  I believe she plays the gossip factor as her detection modus operandi and never anything less.  She's serious but kind, and loved by many.  It's just her nature to listen and notice.  To me, that's the real Jane Marple.  She was never truly a gossiping old biddy.

McEwan and McKenzie are fine in their own right, but neither is tall enough, nor have been any of the others, with the exception of Ms Hickson.  Sadly, the latest round of stories have been butchered to the point where I easily lose interest.  So I consider Rutherford for fun and Hickson for the true portrayal of the world's most famous eldery sleuth.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2OB6D9P58USNZ?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview

This person made some astute points about Miss. Marple series 1 & 3 with Geraldine McEwan.

I respect your opinion Toon and your right to express it but I dissagree, I read an Interview on Teletext where Geraldine MKewan said that the Series tried to convey things that wasn't in the books (That was the gist anyway even if it wasn't put like that) but surely if it isn't in the Books it shouldn't have been in the Episodes, I personally felt McKewan's portrayal wasn't layered at all, I liked 'A Murder Is Announced' except for Alexander Armstrong and 'By The Pricking Of My Thumb' was very entertaining even if Miss Marple shouldn't have been in it so It wasn't all bad.

To cut in on a side note, briefly - I personally feel that Geraldine McEwan is the only Miss Marple I could genuinely believe was "the worst cat in the village".  She's also the only one I can readily accept insinuating her way into situations and confronting murderers the way MM does.  Joan Hickson was great at conveying the more reserved, conservative side of MM, but it was just one side - I've found McEwan's portrayal a lot more layered.

Having seen Julia McKenzie in "Murder in Easy" online, I think she looks physically a lot more like the illustrations of MM, but in terms of performance she just seems constantly confused and flushed.  It's a balance between Hickson and McEwan for me.

Less said about the film Marples, the better, in my opinion.

These are mysteries after all. One does expect - well - a few surprises. Agatha Christie was a genius when it came to misdirection and coming up with solutions that sometimes shocked the public. Take The Murder of Roger Ackroyd for example, the book caused quite a scandal in its day. Agatha Christie could be unconventional at times. Maybe whoever wrote the script for The Sittaford Mystery wanted to follow in Agatha Christie's footsteps and cause a little excitement? Once again these are mysteries and should be fun and enjoyable. Or better still perhaps you are seeing something that is not there. Maybe the two ladies in question were just simply going on holiday. Friends (who are not romantically involved) do on occasion go places with one another and even take a holiday together.   

S_Sigerson

Goleafs, you mentioned “the jarring and out of place” when you were discussing The Sittaford Mystery and not when you were discussing Taken at the Flood.

Whoops, my mistake. But the lesbian romance at the end really did feel just thrown in for the heck of it-- no development or anything was done during the film to reach that point. It's as if Producer X decided "we need to be fair; everyone has had affairs of all kind, so toss in some lesbians here to make it even". It's out of place. It's stupid. It's not Agatha Christie.

We know Miss. Marple had a strong sense of justice i.e. her strong dislike of murder, but Agatha Christie was quite vague on what other things Miss. Marple approved of or in this case disapproved of.  

Goleafs, you mentioned “the jarring and out of place” when you were discussing The Sittaford Mystery and not when you were discussing Taken at the Flood.

One reason that her description of Miss Marple could be vague is so that it would be difficult for her to be portrayed on screen, I think it unlikely that Miss Marple had an Affair because as her 1st Husband did she would know what pain it causes, Anyway I like to think of MM as free of shame in this respect.

When I said "jarring", I didn't mean in terms of anachronisms, but in terms of mood. If a movie has been a serious drama for the first hour, and then turns into a great big overblown comedy for the final act, the transition will be jarring. So when Taken at the Flood went from faithful in plot and tone to dumbed-down, predictable nonsense, the transition was jarring.

I do see your point about being vague but it has its advantages. The character in general is sketched in, but it leaves enough to the reader's imagination to "colour in" the picture.

I agree w/ you both, Go leafs & S Sigerson in regards to MM having an affair w/ a married man. I just have some points to make on both sides:

On one hand like you said SS (may I call you SS?), MM I think was capable of having an affair w/ a married man (even though the books, as far as I know, never referred to it). The reason: she never seem phased by crimes or the fact that she had interacted w/ culprits. So she probably wouldn't be too scandalized by just an affair. And even though MM is 'fluffy' & dainty in appearance - she has proven that she is witty & highly intelligent. Just b/c she is elderly shouldn't exclude her younger years: she might have had an affair.

But I see go leafs point too. MM does have a strong sense of justice, & she has a lot of compassion (she must not have gotten that just from growing older) so she may have disapproved of immoral behavior, & it might not be the act itself she might have felt sorry for the person who was cheated on.

It's an interesting topic...

As far as something jarring or out of place, an example would be Miss. Marple circa 1950's talking on a cell phone since cell phones had not been invented yet. I have yet to experience this jarring feeling with either Miss. Marple or Poirot.

S_Sigerson

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.

Miss Marple would've disapproved over anyone having an affair with a married man-- she wouldn't have excluded herself from this preconception, shall we say, of hers.

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.

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. 

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.

(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.

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.

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.