Have Your Say

Television and Film

Talk about Christie TV and Film here

Poirot before and after 2002

stylestocurtain 07 Jan 10 at 1:03 p.m. GMT

Although Poirot has been going since 1989 , to me, the turning point was 2003 (for the worse).

The earlier episodes before that year (the last one being Murder in Mesopotamia) were all simply marvellous. They all captured beautifully the 1930s Art Deco era without overstating it, the sets were all magnificent, and the acting was left to speak for itself.

I think the episodes since Five Little Pigs are absolutely awful compared to the previous ones. They might look grand but they don't capture any of Poirot's spirit. The earlier ones had so much humour in them, but were serious at the same time, and above all made much of Poirot's vanity which unless I'm much mistaken is one of the key traits Christie created in him. Now we have a Poirot who is a solemn loner and seems troubled by everything - and now we see so much aggression in him. I particularly dislike the way that Poirot now reveals the endings - he used to be portrayed as cool, calm and collected and would reveal things at his own pace before the big finale of revealing the murderer, proud of his "little grey cells". In these post 2003 episodes he's virtually falling over himself to recount the chain of events as fast as possible, getting all worked up and angry - not like the real Poirot at all! Poirot is supposed to be methodical and orderly, not wildly emotional!

And why have they started introducing murderers who as always break down into tears when accused? The whole series has become some sort of psychological therapy session, with unnecessary added trauma bits which weren't in the original stories. It's no longer enough for the murderer to have done the crime just because he wanted the jewels or the money, but now they write in a troubled past to explain it all! (in the most recent ones Mrs McGinty's Dead and Three Act Tragedy the murderer crumbled in tears and it just seemed not very in keeping.)

The direction of them is totally different from the previous ones as well. Before everything was so much simpler and so much more effective. Now it seems they want to try every camera angle in the book, switch between shots twice as much, zoom in too close on someone's face and have tons of annoying bright lights everywhere. Not to mention they keep overdoing the soft focus, or else they just drain all the colour from the shot altogether!

And the music - it was so effective before! All those suspense-building melodies, with Poirot's famous saxophone theme tune. Now all we get is some random orchestral stuff which they also seem to want to insert 99% of the time when it's not necessary! What happened to his theme tune? And all the other music so brilliantly composed?

And they were so wrong to do away with Japp, Hastings and Lemon. That's not to say they shoudlve been in *every* story, but they weren't in every earlier episode either (Death in the Clouds lacked Hastings, Murder on the Links lacked Japp ...). And to think their absence is supposedly "all in the name of keeping faithful to the books" -w hen they've done no such thing!. I'll never forgive them for ruining Death on the Nile. It was all very lavish, but Peter Ustinovs version where he assembles all the suspects together before revealing it was superb. As it was, Poirot reveals all to the murderer himself - and that certainly doesn't happen even in the book.

Hastings/Japp/Lemon were a brilliant support cast, individually or together, and a little artistic licence could have woven him in somewhere (plenty artistic licence has been taken elsewhere!), but as it is they just keep on introducing random detectives, so there's no continuity between episodes. They also seem to want to make the cast as star-studded as possible, when in the earlier episodes less-famous actors did the job much better.

I think Suchet himself has gone way, way off key with his "new creation" of Poirot. It's the same actor and the same voice but that's where the similarity ends. I miss Poirot's pride in himself and his observations of other characters. Now the episodes are more obsessed with overdoing the sets, special effects, camera work, telling Poirot's own psychological story ... the actors' lines seem almost incidental! Not to mention that a lot of it is hammed up too much.

Truth be told, the new episodes are just so boring and lack the spirit and life of the earlier episodes. They've become far more of a thriller-drama than the whodunnits Christie intended. What a shame they switched from the original format (which is what made Poirot so successful in the first place) and replaced it with this awful new depressing Poirot, full of psychological twists and turns and deep mournful contemplation. The little proud and genius man from the 90s is - sadly - long gone.

Login or register to add posts and reply

54 replies

Reverse order

MissQuin 10 Jun 10 at 2:54 p.m. GMT

In the UK we havent even been shown The Clocks yet! I can't wait for Halloween Party.

I don't recall what Poirot's attitude to Halloween was in the story, as it's a while since I read it. Poirot doesn't strike me as being a really devout Catholic, as we only ever have very brief mentions of his Religion. In taken at the flood, The chocolate box and The Labours of Hercules, we see a more Religous side of him.

But in the latest Poirots his Catholism is something that is really being brought into prominance. Is this a good thing? Does it make his character more dimentional?

I personally think no, that Poirot's getting rather less like Agatha Chrisite's creation. After all Poirot, despite being Catholice had no qualms about holding a seance in Peril at end house! But in the recent adapt of Appointment with Death, we see a very Religious side of him not shown in the story. It doesn't really add anything for me. Mybe it's to make the episode more serious.

shanty_sleuth 06 Jun 10 at 7:28 p.m. GMT

Oh yes, Poirot is certainly very world-weary in these latest adaptations. A perfect instance comes from the adaptation of  Hallowe'en Party, when he is listening to a horror story on the wireless and turns it off in disgust.

GEORGE: Not enjoying it, sir?

POIROT: It is the subject matter, George. It is distasteful. Poirot. he has seen much evil in this world. It should not be the subject of such mockery.

GEORGE: Oh, it's just a bit of fun, sir. I love a good blood-curdler, me. And very appropriate for the time of year.

POIROT: Georges, at this time of year in Belgium, it is the custom to light the candles in memory of the dead. Not to tell the stories macabre.

Little does he know that he'll see much more evil later in the story. Poor Poirot. He rather does need Hastings to cheer him up.

MissQuin 06 Jun 10 at 6:19 p.m. GMT

Most of the Third Girl epsiode was gloomy, then when there was a happy ending, Poirot went all tearful. He iddn't even like David Baker in the book. I can see the producers might want to give Poirot's charcater more dimenstion. But it does feel distinctly unpoirotish to have him as so emotional.

It was like in Death On The Nile, when Poirot gives his love speach to Jackie. It's like their portraying Poirot as a sad, lonely bachelor who missed out on love and marriage. I don't really get that feel myself when I read the books. I think Poirot's married to his detective work.

The Labours Of Hercules has yet to be filmed, thats a fun lighthearted book. So maybe the Countess will come back, chee him up and Poirot can keep his pecker up

Oh and good to see you Styles!

Lone_Wolf 06 Jun 10 at 1:18 p.m. GMT

Poirot weeping in the end of "Third Girl" was more sentimentality then gloom, IMO.

MissQuin 06 Jun 10 at 11:53 a.m. GMT

Yes, at the end of Third Girl Poirot was in tears. Aww, so sad, he looked like he needed cheering up. Poirot has seemed to have lost his spark.

In a simular case it seems in the recent adapt of Secret of Chimneys, i read Bundle has lost her joie de vivre. She has been replaced with a world weaay middle aged women. What are these producers thinking off? Do they think it's more entertaining to have gloomy, sad lonely figures, because it isnt! Rant over! 

stylestocurtain 06 Jun 10 at 10:54 a.m. GMT

I agree MissQuin, he is very world-weary ... and although I admit he is ageing, he wasn't exactly youthful to begin with. GKCfan is right, Poirot has his support network that he can puff himself up in front of!!

Oh where did that vain little Belgian go!!

GKCfan 06 Jun 10 at 12:11 a.m. GMT

Plus, Poirot is largely missing his support network.  In the books, whenever Poirot despairs, he thinks of Hastings's innocence and good nature, and he remembers that not all of humanity is venial and cruel.  I think Poirot needs more reminders of that in some recent cases...

i_heart_mysteries 05 Jun 10 at 11:56 p.m. GMT

I agree with you, Styles, but one must reallize that Poirot is aging. Currently they're working on the final (film) installment, Curtain. Poirot, along with normal people, age, and therfore certain things change about him such as his chartacter traits and the way he reveals the murderer(s).

MissQuin 01 Jun 10 at 2:53 p.m. GMT

Mr_Lansquenet

Hi guys!

I'll have my say.

 Am i the only one who noticed a different AC charachterization of Poirot between the short-stories and the full-novels?

Ive watched some of the early feature legth Poirot's, but I can see a difference with him and the later ones. For instance take Hickory Dickory Dock, Poirot reveals the solution, he's in his element! Calm, pleased at himself and proud of his little grey cells. The later ones Poirot seem to me  rather world weary, disgusted at the crimes and angry. But maybe that's just my view.

Oh yes, Tommy I can see some simularites in J&W and Poirot. Maybe that's why I love the early Poirot's so much, as I love Jeeves and Wooster too.

Tommy_A_Jones 01 Jun 10 at 1:42 p.m. GMT

The reeason the early ones remind you of Jeeves and Wooster is because the same man was involved and am I right in thinking Brtian Eastman was also involved with both series' I think it was Exton who didn't relish the idea of doing something else with a Manservent so asked Rosalind if he could make Miss Lemon's role bigger, that is why George hasn't appeared until Cards On The Table (I think that is the one) I miss the loss of opening Graphics and Musuic.

Mr_Lansquenet 31 May 10 at 9:57 p.m. GMT

Hi guys!

I'll have my say.

I've been a huge AC fan for almost 20 years and have read almost all her novels. My opinion is that there are some differences between the early years and the new movies because the first ones have been taken from short stories and the last ones from novels. Am i the only one who noticed a different AC charachterization of Poirot between the short-stories and the full-novels?

MissQuin 31 May 10 at 4:28 p.m. GMT

Ive been watching the some of the Poirot's on ITV3 and I think there's a marked difference in the early and new Poirot's. The early ones remind me at times of Jeeves and Wooster. . Suchet's Poirot was to me, how Poirot is the books. He see's the unveiling of the murderer a threatrical experience, he's cool and calm and unemotional. The later Poirot's have had him more upset. I can see that they'd might want to make Poirot more human, but it's not how he is in the books.

I think alot of the later Poirot books are indeed more serious in tone, But there's often a light hearted moment here and there. But I do enjoy the early ones more, as they had more warmth. Styles has so eloquently summed it up.

I was thinking about Marples. The McKenzie Marple's are thore serious than the McEwans. That's a good thing, but also they must keep some comic moments. A little old lady solving crimes should never be too serious! But I suspect they'll want to bring in what they consider a darker tone.

Tommy_A_Jones 16 Jan 10 at 4:18 p.m. GMT

I don't want them to look dark in the hopes they will attract a wider Audience, I want them to look 'Dark' If the book needs it and not if it isn'ty appropriate. 

jimmymac 16 Jan 10 at 3:39 p.m. GMT

I like the newer adaptations and think their "darker" feel is appropriate as Poirot ages. I understand some people would prefer a return to the lighter days, but the direction the series is taking seems more realistic.

HOWEVER - and it's a big however - for me this increased realism is ruined by an inability of the producers to let the series escape the 1930s. It's gone from making no sense to becoming a real barrier to enjoyment.

While I understand that the series can't mirror "real time" and have Poirot in the 1960s/1970s, it seems very odd to adapt books such as Taken at the Flood and force them into the wrong decade. One of the novel's main themes is how England was after the Second World War.

If the producers are so keen to "age" Poirot (make him older, sadder & lonelier) then why ruin this by making it forever 1936?

stylestocurtain 11 Jan 10 at 11:40 p.m. GMT

I totally agree Rubyy321! That's what makes Poirot Poirot!

Rubyy321 11 Jan 10 at 10:59 p.m. GMT

@ Go leafs nation - I dont think that Poirot is meant to be a "dark" character at all! he is humorous and smart, i think that David Suchet, included all of this in his acting as Poirot.

vansittart 09 Jan 10 at 5:27 p.m. GMT

I'm probably repeating myself from another thread but I too prefer the later Poirots (on the whole - there have been a couple of stinkers). I won't go into all the reasons again here but I think I do prefer the slightly darker tone and I do feel the Hastings, Japp and Lemon were overused in the earlier run.

I do agree that there is less humour in the later Poirots but I think I prefer that and it is still there, its just more subtle (eg I loved how they kept in the 'luviness' of Sir Charles Cartwright in 'Three Act Tragedy' - you could actually see him tiring of his various 'roles' of sailor, detective etc). The one episode in the later Poirots where I did miss a lighter touch was 'Mrs McGinty' which I feel is quite a light book, despite the particularly brutal murders. I too thought that the Upward/Oliver humour didn't work as well as it should and I thought it was a pity to make such eccentric characters as the Summerhayes' as dark and troubled as the rest of their neighbours - still, its a small point and I still enjoyed the film as a whole!

go_leafs_nation 09 Jan 10 at 2:53 p.m. GMT

(I speak strictly from a reader's point of view here, not someone trying to find literary merit and thematic links in the use of the word "and" on page 72.) Agatha Christie doesn't have a definite mood, I think.  She could be lighthearted and fun, as in The 7 Dials Mystery, or dark and contemplative, as in Death on the Nile. Her versatility and the 'enjoyability' of her plots are two assets that all of us, I'd say, enjoy.

But if you look at the Poirots (and just the Poirots), you'll notice that they get far darker and more contemplative as time goes on. The series begins with books like The Mysterious Affair at Styles, Lord Edgware Dies, The Mystery of the Blue Train- but very soon, you begin to see darker titles more frequently: Appointment With Death, Hercule Poirot's Christmas, Sad Cypress, Five Little Pigs, The Hollow, Taken at the Flood, After the Funeral, Cat Among the Pigeons, Hallowe'en Party, and so on and so forth. The turning point, I'd say, was Murder on the Orient Express. From then on, the series started producing dark novels more often. There's the occasional exception that can't be ignored, like Mrs. McGinty's Dead, but generally, the series itself got darker as time goes on. Hmm... That would be an excellent activity- go through the Poirots one-by-one and prove my point for those who still have doubts...

Bundle_ 09 Jan 10 at 2:37 a.m. GMT

And if I had to say which mood was more like Christie...on the whole I would say that she was sometimes dark like in And Then There Were None and sometimes light like in The Secret of Chimneys. HOWEVER her plots always had the Christie stamp on it and some of these adaptations have various different writers and whomever else has a hand in how the stories are potrayed, and a lot of them (so it seems even more so nowadays) are interested in putting their own talents forward and not Christie's.

And the way that I think Christie portrayed darkness was often theaterical, intriguing, and suspenseful. The adapters today portray darkness in quite a different way (than she did) which is harsh, and too modern, and in your face.

BTW I would hate to see anyone take what anyone says about these Christie adapts personally as they are merely criticisms about how they are portrayed.

Bundle_ 09 Jan 10 at 2:36 a.m. GMT

stylestocurtain

people seem to think "if you're a fan of the old episodes you automatically want Japp Hastings and Lemon pushed into each episode". I never said that. I said that they were a good part, and whoever's done away with them has probably done so more to prove a point than anything.

Yes, one doesn't have to like that Japp, Lemon and Hastings were in nearly every adaptation. In fact it can be rather monotonous and slightly unrealistic to see them work on nearly every case together.

And I admit that there are some earlier episodes that I don't care for but there are also some of the dark episodes that I don't care for either. For the lighter ones some of the best I think are The Mysterious Affiar at Styles ( call me a purist but I just loved how faithful it was), and Lord Edware Dies, and One Two Buckle My Shoe, and The Veiled Lady etc. And I like some of the darker ones too like Death on the Nile (actually I loved it), Sad Cypress, The Hollow, and After the Funeral wasn't bad either.

But, like stylestocurtain said, there are some that are a bit too dark. At least w/ the lighter ones Poirot and the rest of the characters and the way the plot was portrayed was serious when it needed to be. Some of the darker ones just seem depressing and there is no variation in the mood at all in some of them, like in Mrs. McGinty's Dead and Taken At The Flood.