Have Your Say

Television and Film

Talk about Christie TV and Film here

Mrs McGinty's Dead

Marc_Anton 14 Oct 08 at 10:55 a.m. GMT

Last night I saw the new TV version of Mrs McGinty's Dead. My first impressions:

• The adaptation-police can sleep quietly tonight: the TV version follows the story line faithfully, a few characters have been deleted (Diedre Henderson and her mother), other characters have been given a more important part in the plot (Miss Sweetiman), some less so (Dr. and Mrs Rendell). The story has been tidied up a bit but in general this is a faithfull adaptation so everybody can give a sigh of relief.

Most people who have been longer on this Forum know by now I don’t give one hoot about how truthful a film follows a story or a novel. Films and books operate on two different planes and for my only counts the entertainment value and if it is well done. So I don’t really get upset about ‘Nuns’, ‘L*sbians’ (but the editor of this website obviously does, it is a profane word, can this change? It is very silly! I can't publish a text without changing 'naughty' words) or Jazz Musicians. Now that most of the Christie oeuvre has been filmed for TV, it is inevitable that some of the weaker Christie books also get film treatment. And some could do with a real good workover to smooth out the creaks in the original plots (Third Girl, Deadman’s Folly, Halloween Party). And when this does not make everybody happy: in 15 years there will be new Poirots and Marples (how many versions of They Do It With Mirrors does one actually need?) and everybody will get a new chance to admire or to turn away in disgust. Hurray!

 Some points of criticism though. 

• The photography is very ‘creative’. There is a lot of contrast and some light sources (sunlight, lamps) give a very hazy image. Also there is a kind of ‘halo’ around people and objects. The result is that some of the details in the faces of the characters are ‘washed out’, especially with the men (the women wear enough makeup to be distinctive). There is a scene at Mrs Upward’s party where the men (who are dressed alike in dinner jackets) move in and out of the image and it is difficult to see who is who.

• There is a lot of fast editing. The camera only lingers for a few seconds on the faces of some (minor) characters and after seeing the film it is difficult to recollect and remember how people like Major and Mrs Summerhayes actually looked because we had very little time to study their faces and mannerisms. Sometimes I had to freeze the frame to have a longer look at someone. There is quite an important subplot in the novel concerning Dr. Rendell but somehow he gets lost in the TV script and though you see the doctor and his wife during the denouement, they have no text during the last half hour of the film. A pity since Simon Shepperd and Amanda Root are fine and important actors. I did not really ‘get’ it about the mercy killing and their motivations are a bit vague. Also the last scene where Poirot reveals it all (the murderer I mean) is a bit crowded with people who don’t really have a function there: Miss Sweetiman, Mr. and Mrs Burch. They have no text, they only clutter. 

• The pace in the scenes with James Bentley is much more even and slower and he gets quite a lot of screen time. Good actor too. The important scene during the intermission in the theatre is missing. A pity, because it would give Mrs. Oliver more time to develop her dotty character. She also disappears slowly out of the story and we only meet her again at the end. Zoë Wanamaker has little opportunity to shine in this one. Poirot does very little detecting and it is unclear how he arrived at the sollution.

• Production values are excellent. The short scene with the editor of the Sunday Comet does not take place in an office at the newspaper but in a very crowded editor’s room with many people working in the background, it looks like the set of Billy Wilder’s Front Page (must have cost a few bob for a scene of only minutes). And Siân Phillips is deluxe casting as Mrs. Upward. 

So a highly enjoyable one and a half hours. Not one of the best but it has atmosphere and mystery. 

Login or register to add posts and reply

5 replies

Reverse order

steve 24 Oct 08 at 11:31 a.m. GMT

A very thoughtful assessment

Holly 19 Mar 09 at 11:45 a.m. GMT

I watched this yesterday. I was pleased with how true this adaptation is to the book, and I wish the adaptations of some of my favourite Poirots had been that true. I thought James Bentley came across as a bit more likable than he was in the book, but that's okay.

However, I was a bit put off by the camera work - the haziness, the halos, the general "blurred" feel, the way so many scenes were shown from odd angles (e.g. looking through the bushes or around corners). A little bit of that goes a long way, imo, and I found it extremely distracting in this film.

squatty 19 Mar 09 at 7:04 p.m. GMT

Marc Anton has won me round over the last couple of months and I no longer get irritated with changes to the original novel.

My complaints about this adaptation are the dreadful under use of Ariadne Oliver - gret actress - wonderful part and only got a handful of quite inconsequential scenes.

Some of the pacing was very slow. I remember one scene where Eve Carpenter was in her conservetory and it took ages for Poirot to walk from the front of the house and find her.

My biggest annoyance, which I have mentioned in other threads, is the lack of detection from Poirot. The denoument took forever but there was hardly any time given to Poirot explaining how he got from A to B.

devilgal19 20 Mar 09 at 12:30 a.m. GMT

I rather enjoyed it.  Watching David Suchet reprise his role as Poirot is always a treat.  Long as it follows along with the story, I'm looking forward to it.  I'm still looking for Cats Among Pigeon and Third Girl, both which I enjoyed reading.

Also a pleasure to see Sian Phillips on tv as well.

Tommy_A_Jones 30 Mar 09 at 3:41 p.m. GMT

I alsoi enjoyed this one and know that Film Adaptations have to be diffeent to Television Adaptations as more money is spent on them but I don't understand why Television Adaptations have to be different to the book, If you like the book you watch the Adaptation for that reason so why do the Makers make changes. I have said it before and will say it again if a character isn't gay in the Book he or she shouldn't be gay in the Adaptation.

Lastly Marc Anton I dissagree I hope in 15 years time we do have another Miss Marple, Poirot and Tommy and Tuppence. You ask How many versions of 'They Do it With Mirros can we have? Well I would say as long as there is the will and as long as they are 15 years apart I don't think it matters, the more the merrier I say.