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.

Noah 09 Jan 10 at 12:22 a.m. GMT

My apologies, stylestocurtain, but if you read some of the posts by matthew-reynolds2 on the Agatha Christie's Poirot boards on IMDb, it's not inconceivable. =p

And again, well stated, go leafs.

Noah 09 Jan 10 at 12:22 a.m. GMT

My apologies, stylestocurtain, but if you read some of the posts by matthew-reynolds2 on the Agatha Christie's Poirot boards on IMDb, it's not inconceivable. =p

And again, well stated, go leafs.

go_leafs_nation 08 Jan 10 at 11 p.m. GMT

I'm going to jump in and point out the obvious- the old ones were far more of a formula than the new ones are. There it was Prologue that Gives Solution Away-Shouting-Death-Meaningful Glances-Dramatic Revelation-Shootout. The few exceptions are loved because they ARE exceptions. But these automatically fit a predictable and often-stale formula. The filming may have been lighter, but it was static and extremely dull. The new series style did away with these flaws.

stylestocurtain 08 Jan 10 at 10:44 p.m. GMT

I completely agree with u Bundle, there should have been a transisitonal stage - Poirot seems a different person lately!

stylestocurtain 08 Jan 10 at 10:37 p.m. GMT

Go leafs: I never actually said that characters enjoyed the murder, but that there were lighter moments at one time or another. The filming of the earlier ones is lighter (too many literally dark tones in the later ones).

And yes there should have been a transistional stage, because Poirot as Suchet plays him is suddenly different from the previous episodes.

Noah: I don't know where this myth comes from, but they're not truer to the books. Maybe they take everything more literally, but the spirit of Poirot himself doesn't correlate to what Christie wrote. I.e. the way Suchet plays him, the camera work etc. They might be writing down the script word for word but the performance is not in the spirit of Christie.

And the episodes are more or less the same post 2002. All soft focus and gloom. The scripts are different, but the way they're filmed aren't

Lastly - who the hell is Matthew Reynolds? Whoever he is I'm not him, and I don't really know what makes you think that. Unless of course you find it inconceivable that more than one person misses the old format ...

It is also absurd that a lot that 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.

I miss the spirit of the old episodes. After all, no-one turned round when they were being made and said "Hmm. they're not very good are they. They're just not as close to what Christie intended"!

Noah 08 Jan 10 at 9:26 p.m. GMT

The reason for the change?  I mean, I think we've already said it a million times, but I guess if it's necessary...

They're truer to the books.  Not ALL the books, but the books that are dark are now being portrayed as dark.  Three Act Tragedy was, in my opinion, a lighter adaptation.  Yes, it was high-artsy which turned some people off, but it still had the banter and rapport between Charles, Poirot and Egg.

Five Little Pigs, Sad Cypress, The Hollow, and others are, individually, very dark books and were portrayed as such.

The series is less about a formula now and more individualized in that it looks at the characters, setting, tone and atmosphere of the individual novel and forms the production accordingly.  You can't rope post 2002 into one group because the individual episodes are VERY different.  Compare Five Little Pigs to After the Funeral to Three Act Tragedy, for instance.

And thank you, go leafs, I do believe you understood my argument very well and articulated what I couldn't.  stylestocurtain, I'm going to assume that you're Matthew Reynolds from the IMDb boards.  You miss Hastings, Japp and Lemon.  We get it.

Bundle_ 08 Jan 10 at 8:52 p.m. GMT

I see where you are coming from, go leafs w/ Roger Ackroyd and Chimneys but it still had Christie's stamp on it because she wrote the books. The writers for these adaptations are very often written by different hands so a lot of the time, especially lately, there hasn't been much cohesiveness in how the adapts are portrayed.

go_leafs_nation 08 Jan 10 at 8:42 p.m. GMT

Mysteries can be funny, but expecting characters to enjoy being suspected of murder is a stretch. The request borderlines the absurd. As suspects, they shouldn't have fun in their predicament at all- unless one of them enjoys the publicity (often knows too much and is promptly bumped off).

But did there need to be a transitional stage? The Poirots are a series, and often refer to past cases, but they do not have a perfect, wonderfullly linear progression in Poirot's character and so forth. His feet ache in this book and are fine in the next. The dark move was effective. Complaining about it is, I find, like someone complaining that Agatha Christie wrote The Murder of Roger Ackroyd right after The Secret of Chimneys- such a random shift from a comic novel to a dark novel is unthinkable! Where's the transition? Is she a serious or comic writer? I think I'll just gripe about it...

Ms_Kylie_Menage 08 Jan 10 at 7:48 p.m. GMT

I think some of the issues touched on, such as the pacing, the fact that the episodes are "rushed" etc, stem from the fact that they are limited to 90 minutes. It is a shame, and I would love it if they could be a bit longer, perhaps 2 hours.

Some of the radio plays are 2 1/2 hours long, and many are the very best adaptations imaginable.

I'm just grateful many red herrings and plot twists are intact, even at 90 minutes. Compare the two films of Death On The Nile for example - the longer one is almost a whole hour longer and yet important characters such as the Allertons, and red herrings such as the bottles being thown overboard and the fake pearls are either deleted or else so oversimplified so as to be completely uninteresting. I'm glad when a plot survives intact even if it results in it feeling "rushed".

Having said that, if only the episodes could be a little longer - oh joy!

Bundle_ 08 Jan 10 at 2 p.m. GMT

Continued....

As for go leafs comment about it not supposing for it to be humorist when a murder is committed in mystery books: ideally one would think that there shouldn't be any, but nevertheless there are humorous bits and pieces in nearly every mystery books. Just look at Dorothy L Sayers Lord Peter Wimsey books she tends to be just a tad more gruesome in the way the murders are committed but Lord Peter still retains his sense of humor. As does Ms. Oliver in the books she is. I think this just must be a fad that is generally appreciated in mystery books one of which I have never heard complained about before. I mean, I sure don't want to read a series of ystery books filled w/ goolish characters, and murders every ten seconds, it would be too horrible!

Now there was that comic relief in Mrs. McGinty's Dead which I believe was done to lighten it up a bit but it failed miserably, because it came from no where... again THERE WAS NO TRANSITIONAL STAGE.

And I think that we need more debates like this as it keeps the boad ore interesting. We just can't keep avoiding a subject because there are people who may not agree w/ it. This is not a nasty remark to anyone in particular I'm just impyling it in a general sense.

Bundle_ 08 Jan 10 at 1:59 p.m. GMT

stylestocurtain

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy - Poirot suddenly changes personality and the filming style was changed (probably due to an eccentric person at the top), and suddenly everyone starts saying that's what it should have been all along?

As always, I respect everyone's opinions, and do not wish to insult anyone else when I say that I completely agree w/ stylestocurtain. I think the statement that I quoted above sums up a lot. So I shall add on to it by saying that there were good Poirot's when they were in their "light hearted stage" and there were bad ones too; no one is saying that they were perfect. And there are some good "darker Poirot's" too, as well as some bad ones.

But the thing is - is why does the mood of Poirot change so DRASTICALLY!? One minute you are looking at the fun, adventuress side of the Poirot adapts, with his colorful friends, and witty humor, and exciting chases, and lively vacations, and then the nezt minute Poirot is extremely serious, and nothing even remotely humorous or happy enters into his life it all and it all seems to happen in the blink of an eye. Whereas in the books there is a transitional stage attributed to World War II and Poirot getting older and all that, but at the same time there is still some humor in it to lighten the mood a bit. My problem w/ some of the new adapts are that there is NO TRANSITIONAL STAGE. It was from one extreme feel/mood to another w/o any warning!

go_leafs_nation 08 Jan 10 at 1:10 p.m. GMT

At the same time, they are generally far more entertaining. The cinematography looks far less like a TV movie now. The Mysterious Affair at Styles, Murder on the Links, Dumb Witness (which was one of the worst Poirots), and many of the early episodes were extremely static and dull. The productions now are lavish and often excellent.

People will hardly enjoy themselves when there's a depression like the Great Depression going on. Not many can find work, working conditions aren't great, and there's an egomaniac in Germany threatening all of Europe. It wasn't nearly as glamourous as all that. True, there was glamour- revolving around film stars and so forth especially- but generally, the decade wasn't a happy type. The Dirty Thirties, they're generally referred to. Not the Glamourous or Gay or Delightful 30s.

Lord Edgware Dies was good, true. But it was paired with the dreadful Murder of Roger Ackroyd. Evil Under the Sun the next season was also good- it came hand-in-hand with the poor and dull Murder in Mesopotamia, which also gives the ending away more or less at the start, a bad habit/trademark of Clive Exton. The next season (starting with the Pigs) was the dawn of the darker Poirot, and it was entirely brilliant. The next two seasons had varying script qualities. After seeing The Clocks and Three Act Tragedy, I'm pleased to say that, unless the writers are complete idiots and mess up Murder on the Orient Express, it looks like this season is back at the point the Five Little Pigs season was! Hooray!

stylestocurtain 08 Jan 10 at 12:18 p.m. GMT

The newer Poirots are OK ... but I don't think they'll ever be as good as the early ones. The earlier ones were acclaimed in their day and applauded for their portrayal of Poirot as far as I can remember no-one had any issue with the way they were being done ... and these ones do attract a lot more criticism.

Katherine 08 Jan 10 at 12:05 p.m. GMT

It all comes down to taste, doesn't it?I much prefer the look of the later Poirots. And they haven't made Poirot "a million years older" overnight. David Suchet himself is now 21 years older than when he started making the series, so it makes sense that the character has aged alongside him. (Even if it is still only 1936!)

stylestocurtain 08 Jan 10 at 11:55 a.m. GMT

If someone is tired of seeing the debate they don't have to join in - there are people who haven't discussed it themselves!

Actually the 30s were very glamorous at the time it's just that people tend to see it retrospectively as the Eve of War etc; However I don't think that this historical perceptive was really taken into account anyhow when they started filming the newer ones.

Re: Poirot's eccentricities - they're still there but he's going through the motions. I have never said Poirot should be overly comical, but neither should he be the frowning-all-the-time character he is now. As I've said repeatedly, some of the earlier works were darker and done very well, just differently.

The old formula didn't stop working at all - Lord Edgware Dies is one of the best TV adaptations ever done and was made towards the end of the old run. It's just absurd to make Poirot a million years older overnight and to change the format so much to the point that it becomes a different series.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy - Poirot suddenly changes personality and the filming style was changed (probably due to an eccentric person at the top), and suddenly everyone starts saying that's what it should have been all along?

In fact, the only real selling point is that they have David Suchet in. If this new genre of episodes came out with any other actor in, they would be slammed as not being as half as good as the old ones.

go_leafs_nation 08 Jan 10 at 11:20 a.m. GMT

My guess is that Noah is tired of seeing the debate pop up all over the place, much like I don't want to hear another word about "Where's Hastings?".

Noah is completely right. The 30s were a grim decade. The 20s were a far more cheerful one, but there wasn't much gaiety to go around after the Depression.

Poirot's eccentricities are not removed. See, for instance, his perpetual rearranging things in The Hollow, or his obsession with symmetry that provides a vital clue in Taken at the Flood. They don't make a farce out of it, though, and quite rightly. Books like The Hollow and Sad Cypress were very dark, and the insertion of Poirot having to lose weight would've killed it. The old formula worked well with the first episodes, but stopped working well near the end of its usage. That's why it was discontinued- it was changed because it didn't suit the old Poirot, who is far more serious and contemplative. Why? Because he's gotten old, and seen more evil.

stylestocurtain 08 Jan 10 at 10:27 a.m. GMT

(contd...)

In any case, I don't actually think someone sat down and thought "I'm going to make this as accurate as possible to the period and to Christie's books" - for one they've tampered with the plots more than they needed to, and with the tone as well. Someone has just done it their way and - bizarrely - is being applauded for it. As I said before, I think these new episodes ride on the success of the older ones. The old formula worked so well - why change it? Not one earlier Poirot was as off key as Appointment with Death. And Death on the Nile wasn't sombre. No, it's just someone at the top who wants to change everything and try and be too clever with it all.

I think it has more to do, as someone else said on another thread, that Christie's grandson might be cashing in and allowing liberties to be taken that his mother Rosalind wouldn't have allowed, and perhaps Suchet becoming executive producer as well. I think a lot of people think that if Suchet is playing him and he's saying he's pleased with it then it must be true.

Incidently, Murder on the Links was one of the darker Poirots of the earlier episodes, and was done brilliantly, music, camerawork, acting, locations, everything. They could have easily done the new ones in the same format and it would have all turned out so much better. The new ones might have style but there's no life in them, no culture or anything.

As I said before - the earlier Poirots are what he'll be most famous and remembered for, and these new ones depend on a fan base built by them.

stylestocurtain 08 Jan 10 at 10:26 a.m. GMT

Firstly, Noah, if you are sick of a debate you don't have to take part in it!

Now, onto the debate itself ...

I didn't say the Poirot books were light - I said they were serious with light moments and characters, which is what makes Poirot so popular. In Hasting's narratives this is always obvious, with him noting Poirot's peculiar habits. Whilst these habits did include shoe shines and herbal teas, it was also a passion for the symmetrical and the ordered, for good food etc... - and no-one can deny that in the books Poirot takes a lot of pleasure in these things. In the "darker" Poirots this has been dismissed almost entirely, and Suchet plays Poirot very differently.

I don't think it's got anything to do with being "truer to the books" - I think that's just an excuse someone has made up. All of a sudden, after Murder in Mesopotamia, Poirot suddenly ages and starts acting all serious for the next 16 or so featurelengths? To the point where he is almost a different person? There are elements which Suchet has kept, but it's hard to believe Poirot would not have kept his pride and enthusiasm for his cases. Poirot was a funny little man with quirks, we don't see any of that in the new episodes.

I don't think the new portrayal of 1930s England is accurate at all. I think it would fit wartime, or Forties post-war period, but not the Thirties. The Thirties were a time of great artistic flourishing and style - you only have to look at the way fashions had changed and the famous Art Deco had developed for that. People were enjoying life again after the First World War, and the threat from Germany was underestimated (the war that would be over by Christmas?) And people certainly didn't go round depressingly mournful!

(contd...)

Noah 08 Jan 10 at 4:17 a.m. GMT

(cont'd)

Your complaint about Poirot being depressed now can be summed up in two words: he's old.  He's not as "sprightly" (I mean, as sprightly as Poirot could get...) as he was.  In the books he's shown to be even older than he's portrayed on film.  He enjoyed his peculiarities, yes, but his peculiarities involved shined shoes and herbal teas, nothing that he needs to walk around with a smile on for.

As you may have guessed, I'm pleased with the "darker" turn of the Poirot series.  It's not that it's "dark", it's that it's accurate.  England in the 1930s was not a happy place, or if it was, it was happiness as a front for fear.  War with Germany was imminent, and they had just finished a war a decade previously.  Tensions were high, unemployment was high, and spirits were low.  The characters attitudes seem much more relevant in the new series than they did in the old.  I felt like The Clocks portrayed this very well.

Hopefully I haven't given offense, but I would just like to throw out there that it's not like the producers are trying to make a "depressing" series.  Nobody wants to watch something that's "dark" and "depressing."  They are merely creating a series that is accurate of the times and much closer in spirit to the tone of Agatha Christie's original novels.

Noah 08 Jan 10 at 4:17 a.m. GMT

Okay, I've seen this argument everywhere and I'm getting really sick of it, so I'm going to sum this up as definitively as I possibly can.

Poirot books are not light.  There's dry, Gosford Park-ish humor among them and some of the remarks suspects make are so rude that they are laughable.  There is never a punch line with Agatha Christie and no humor is ever set up, it just comes across naturally through the dialogue.

There is no humor or levity in Five Little Pigs, The Hollow or Sad Cypress.  The characters are VERY somber and had the production teams attempted to inject humor or, as you call it, "gaiety," all atmosphere would be ruined.

There IS, however, some levity in other novels, such as The Clocks, Three Act Tragedy and Cat Among the Pigeons.  The cute little one liners that CERTAIN characters had the nature to make were left in tact.

There is no humor in a novel like The Murder of Roger Ackroyd.  The injection of odd bits of "funny" completely ruined it and the theatrics of the ending were laughable at best.

The older episodes, while enjoyable, set up SO many jokes that it was irritating.  Hastings is not a bumbling idiot in the novels as he is made to appear in the films, he is a very intelligent person, just a few steps behind Poirot.  I cannot imagine Poirot would regularly associate with an unintelligent person.  The same can be said for Japp.

stylestocurtain 07 Jan 10 at 10:57 p.m. GMT

Because the gaiety and funny moments of the earlier Poirots are far more faithful to ACs works than the new ones will ever be. None of Christie's books are 100% sombre - in each of them there was always lightheartedness in somewhere from some character. Poirot in the books is serious, yes but not dark! He enjoys his pleasures in life, and he has his likes and peculiarities. The new Poirot is not just sombre he's downright depressed!

The early Poirots were what made the series so popular - and in my opinion these later ones are only finding fame because they are riding on the success of the earlier ones.

go_leafs_nation 07 Jan 10 at 10:51 p.m. GMT

Why is gaiety a sudden requirement of the characters? These are suspects in a murder investigation; what on earth would they have fun being in their situation for? The silliness of attempted comic moments was a major downfall for the early Poirots- nothing's as unfunny as something that tries to be funny and isn't. This dark, contemplative Poirot is not only more faithful to AC, it is more believable and far more realistic.

I adored The Clocks, incidentally, which kept the core of AC's story intact, added an intriguing layer, and eliminated the incredible coincidences and randomness of the murderer's identity. And of course, Poirot passionately cries out that England is a country well worth defending! What a moment!It is probably one of my favourite episodes so far.

stylestocurtain 07 Jan 10 at 10:41 p.m. GMT

Yeah he is wearisome isn't he!! Suchet will always be the definitive Poirot I guess whatever happens, I just wish they hadn't changed it so much before they went and made the majority of the novels :(

Bundle_ 07 Jan 10 at 9:32 p.m. GMT

Yes! I've gotten the feeling too, stylestocurtain, that Suchet -- while his performance is still wonderful -- is less enthused by the role of Poirot, perhaps this is because he is a little wearisome in the role thus could be the reason for the more darker and often drastic changes in the new adapts,  or maybe it's because he's trying to show us that Poirot is getting older....Both reason could account for why he seems so lack luster.

shanty_sleuth 07 Jan 10 at 9:27 p.m. GMT

Anyone who has seen The Clocks will agree that the humour has not disappeared from these current adaptations. Beatie Edney is hilarious as Mrs Hemmings, the stereotypical "cat woman" of Wilbraham Crescent. Her lines were hilarious, and her cats' names far more inventive than Christie's (Tiddly-Pops, Copenhagen). One cute little moment that came out of no where: "Have you realized that if you write 'T.S. Eliot' backwards, it spells toilets?" *brief pause as Poirot and Colin look at each other* "Well... almost." And the way Poirot behaved in that house was just as funny (clearly he is not much of a cat person).

Sinead Keenan was also wonderful as the chatterbox Nora Brent. The way she never stopped talking, and how she harried Miss Martindale was superb. Although the episode has some gloom and doom in it, it is a much lighter outing than previous ones (I find).

stylestocurtain 07 Jan 10 at 6:46 p.m. GMT

I agree with you, Bundle - the humour in McGinty and in most of the new episodes comes across as very dry - most of the characters are very dry themselves and very serious. I didn't really like McGinty either. There doesn't seem to be any gaiety going on - the characters don't ever appear to be enjoying themselves! There are so many awkward silences too.

I also think in particular Poirot doesn't seem to be enjoying himself ... he comes across as very negative. I think it must be coming from Suchet at least in part along with a director, because he seems very enthused about playing the different Poirot he plays now!

It would be great to have an online Q&A session with the producers/Suchet - I'd look forward to it a lot!! It'd be interesting to see what their answers are!

Katherine 07 Jan 10 at 6:36 p.m. GMT

I think humour is a particularly difficult thing to assess. What makes one person laugh leaves another completely cold.

The "comedy" moments with Japp and Hastings do nothing for me, but I did find the interaction between Robin and Ariadne funny. There were also some lighter moments in "Cat among the pigeons" - particularly the schoolgirls, and I loved Miss Rich's line about Mrs Chadwick: "she's got a thing about the French..."

So you can't deny that there are lighter moments: maybe the main difference is that they don't involve Poirot himself so much these days, but are rather given to the guest characters. That is one of the big differences I see. The older episodes would previously poke fun at Poirot's pomposity and idiosyncracies (like the books themselves), whereas the series now takes the character of Poirot much more seriously. Is this coming from David Suchet in his role as producer or is it from elsewhere?

Maybe we could ask the website to arrange an online Q&A session with some of the producers of the series - maybe even Mr Suchet himself. It would be interesting to be able to ask them their thoughts about the way the show has developed over the years.

Bundle_ 07 Jan 10 at 5:26 p.m. GMT

go_leafs_nation

Not all the humour has been taken out. Ariadne Oliver and Robin Upward's collaboration produces notable incidents of comedy in Mrs. McGinty's Dead, for instance.

I disagree, go leafs. The interaction between Robin Upward and Ms. Oliver was intended to be funny on screen but to me it just didn't pan out right. I think the whole adaptation was so dark and depressing that it just diluted any comedy that was put in there .

After I watched Mrs. McGinty's Dead I was left feeling overwhelmed by the forcefulness of the emotions that the actors portrayed, and scared out of my wits by all the dark and gloomy stuff!

And I also think stylestocurtain was right in saying that: "The point is that a lot of the books did have lighthearted moments, so in a sense the recent Poirots are not being faithful to how AC intended!"

go_leafs_nation 07 Jan 10 at 5:12 p.m. GMT

Not all the humour has been taken out. Ariadne Oliver and Robin Upward's collaboration produces notable incidents of comedy in Mrs. McGinty's Dead, for instance.

stylestocurtain 07 Jan 10 at 3:54 p.m. GMT

I think some of the earlier Poirots were dark themselves, notably Murder on the Links for example, and Dumb Witness. A lot of those feature lengths were quite serious. But the makers of the new ones seem to have taken all humour out of the new episodes - when Poirot himself is supposed to be vain to a humourous degree!

The music was pretty repetitive for the short story adaptations, but not for the feature lengths - the music for Death in the Clouds and Hickory Dickory Dock was different, for example.

I agree that some artistic licence has to be taken sometimes, which is why I don't always think that being "faithful to the book" all the time is a great thing (Japp & Hastings were written into a few episodes in which they didn't originally feature very successfully). The point is that a lot of the books did have lighthearted moments, so in a sense the recent Poirots are not being faithful to how AC intended!

I think Poirot has always been dark, but you can have dark and light relief at the same time. I think these new seasons are just all dark, which makes them quite bland.

Katherine 07 Jan 10 at 2:22 p.m. GMT

(continuation of previous post....)

And I’m quite happy with the one-off police inspectors. It’s already stretching credibility that Poirot finds himself mixed up in so many murder cases, without requiring Japp to be the investigating officer in every single case as well.

It’s also worth bearing in mind that the stories we are seeing now have been left until last for a reason. The earlier episodes were able to pick and choose from all the truly classic stories (although they still managed to mess up “Roger Ackroyd” monumentally), whereas I don’t think anyone could really argue that “The Clocks” or “Hallowe’en Party”are fantastic novels. So I understand them having to make some changes to plot lines. However, Appointment with Death was a mess, which friends of mine – who have never read the novel - struggled to enjoy.

My only wishes really are that the writers/producers had a little more faith in the work they’re adapting and only made changes where necessary, and that David Suchet would remain more faithful to the character of Poirot as opposed to just saying he is.

Katherine 07 Jan 10 at 2:21 p.m. GMT

Well I don’t think it’s anywhere near as disastrous as you make out.

I think there have been some wonderful episodes since 2003. (Indeed, I think “Five Little Pigs” is my favourite Poirot episode ever!) Some of the earlier episodes look cheap and there were usually a couple of dodgy acting performances per episode. And all the “comedy” business with Japp, Lemon and Hastings was rather twee and could be very irritating. Also, they fell into a very formulaic trap of having a prologue (which often gave away the key to the murder), and ended in a gun shoot with Japp and the police chasing the killer.

I do agree with you, though, about Suchet’s performance. Considering he always makes a big deal about how he goes back to the books and is as faithful as he can be to Agatha Christie’s creation, he seems to be a very different character to the one I find in the novels. Maybe Suchet has got bored with playing him and wants to inject more drama into the character.

I think it’s tricky to find a balance. On the whole, I prefer the way the series looks now: it looks very classy and is beautifully shot, where the early years looked cheap. But there is a danger of it becoming a bit pompous and taking itself too seriously: it is only a whodunnit after all – not a searing psychological drama! (cont...)

Ms_Kylie_Menage 07 Jan 10 at 1:49 p.m. GMT

I concur, Go Leafs!

go_leafs_nation 07 Jan 10 at 1:14 p.m. GMT

I like the darker Poirot, which is far more faithful to the tone of Dame Agatha's original books. Japp, Hastings, and Lemon's presence began to ruin movies starting with Hercule Poirot's Christmas, continuing most notably onto Murder in Mesopotamia and The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. Removing this comic relief and making the series more contemplative works. Yes, they were a delight; but they're gone, and that's that. It's a debate I'm tired of.

The music before was also very flawed, and the varying themes work far better. Before, it sounded simply lazy, and apart from a few good cases, weren't too effective in building suspense. The melody with the saxophone was very good, but I like hearing varied melodies from production to production: the perpetual 'ticking' in The Clocks, the quiet, menacing instruments in Mrs. McGinty's Dead; the melancholy violin in The Hollow; the variation on the classic Poirot theme with other instruments in Death on the Nile... These were all fantastic examples.

This dark, serious Poirot is far more like the tone of AC's novels now. I can't imagine Poirot and Hastings sitting down to drink tea and deduce the solution to the case in Five Little Pigs. I can't see Japp squeezing himself into someone's luggage in Murder on the Orient Express and acting surprised to see Poirot there. The style of Poirot is incredible- what could use more work is the quality of its scripts. The newest season, however, so far, has been brilliant. It is the perfect remedy to the shambolic conclusion last time with Appointment With Death.