Have Your Say

Television and Film

Talk about Christie TV and Film here

Review: The Pale Horse

(Contains spoilers!)

go_leafs_nation 01 Sep 10 at 6:24 p.m. GMT

This contains spoiler information. Show

(Now that I'm on a new computer, I can recommence my series of reviews that I started a while back. Next up is The Blue Geranium! Feel free to comment- a good discussion is always very fun.)

The Pale Horse is one of Dame Agatha’s later novels. Written in 1961, it is one of Agatha’s best efforts in her later years, and I personally imagine it is one of the best novels she ever wrote, period. I love it more than her beloved masterpiece And Then There Were None, as a matter of a fact. It tells a brilliant tale of evil, and how the murder of a priest commences a series of events that— but you can read the back of the book for the summary. Its use of the occult and supernatural is brilliant, and highly reminiscent of the work of my favourite mystery author, John Dickson Carr, the master of the impossible mystery.

I warn that from this point, spoilers will be present regarding both the book and the film adaptation!

When this film was announced, I was immediately sceptic. After all, The Pale Horse is one of my favourite novels. What right had “they” to throw in Miss Marple? What else would they change? Would the murder of Father Gorman be committed because Gorman had sexually abused the murderer as a young altar server? Would the three sisters be lesbians? Would Miss Marple attend the supernatural show and perform all of her favourite chants?

I was most furious of all about the casting of JJ Feild in the role of Mr. Osborne, who, those who have read the book will know, is the murderer. Mr. Osborne is a nearly retired chemist, and he is more than the ‘eyewitness’—his character is there for a brilliant parody of amateur sleuths, as he begins to stalk Mr. Venables (who matched his description), coming up with complicated theories as to how Venables is not really a cripple and has managed to fool experts into swearing he is. He also claims to have trained himself to be able to recall any face, because he’s always wished a murderer would try buying poison from him, so that he could go up to the witness stand. Feild, I claimed, was wrong for the role for so many reasons— he is young, attractive, and so forth. I was worried that my sexual harassment comment had been taken too literally by the producers secretly stalking the AC board.

Now, all these pessimistic words of mine must solemnly be eaten. I’ve just seen the adaptation, and I think it may very well be the best of this fifth series. It is rather like By The Pricking of My Thumbs in Series 2: it takes some liberties, but effectively translates the feeling of the supernatural to the screen. Of course, it doesn’t add alcoholics or anything as liberally as Thumbs did—in fact, it’s surprising how faithful to the novel the adaptation is. True, Kanga and her husband did not appear in the book (Where’s little Roo? Could they not have chosen a better name?), but their purpose here is to somewhat simplify the novel’s complex plot to fit it into the 90 minute time frame. The Captain is murdered by Mr. Osborne in order to solidify his weak case against Mr. Venables, and this furnishes some vital proof to convict Osborne.

Now, to address my other major concern: JJ Feild’s role. It pains me greatly to admit I was wrong. Feild turns in a brilliant performance as a very different Mr. Osborne. Paul Osborne is a lodger living in the same building as Mrs. Davis, the woman whom Father Gorman sees in the beginning of the story. I must acknowledge an excellent idea from the screenwriter, Russell Lewis (making his Marple debut). Some may know that The Pale Horse was a big part of the reason the “Bovingdon Bug” murderer was caught, and here, Mr. Osborne (now Paul Osborne) is very much like that murderer. Miss Marple reveals that he murdered at an early age, and thanks to psychology, he was allowed to walk free when a bunch of men in tight suits decided he’d been cured. His motive for the murders is the same as that in the book, and Feild is brilliant in his final scene, where he suddenly transforms from “that nice young man who’s helping Miss Marple in this episode” into a full-out lunatic. No, he doesn’t foam at the mouth and pick up a machete—it’s little things that Feild does right. A glance, a nervous smile, some shifting in his seat, and so forth. True, in the flashback when he murders Gorman, he licks his lips a little ridiculously, but at this point, you are so engrossed that it doesn’t seem all that bad. The layer of parody is lost, I’m afraid, and Miss Marple spins him a yarn that is basically full-out trickery instead of subtle clueing. But nonetheless, it is a brilliant idea by Mr. Lewis to take the real-life murderer and insert him into the story, adapting it, in a sense, around him.

The director is Andy Hay, also a Marple first-timer. His direction is brilliant, as he does little things that suggest the sinister without becoming farcical about it. I’m also a big supporter of the series’ music composer, Dominik Scherrer, who once again dishes out a brilliant score, eerie-sounding when it has to be, which works together with the director’s vision, resulting in a considerably scary adaptation.

One more thing. Mark Easterbrook is not thrown in as an afterthought as other detectives in non-Marple stories have been (like Bundle Brent). He performs a role, and with Ginger’s help stages a fight between the two. He then goes to engage the services of The Pale Horse. So the screenwriter avoided placing Miss Marple in silly situations she wouldn’t have been caught dead in, and the result is gratifying.

The acting on all fronts was brilliant, and Miss Marple doesn’t become too annoying. It’s a very entertaining adaptation, probably more faithful to the novel in tone and in some aspects of plot than the older one. It’s great fun to watch. I’m quite happy with what has been done.

Login or register to add posts and reply

4 replies

Reverse order

MissQuin 03 Sep 10 at 10:59 a.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

I'm completley with Go leafs on this.  I enjoyed watching this episode and it's been a long time since I saw a really good Marple adapt.

I think JJ Feild was excellent as the murderer. I'm not saying that because he's so damn attractive either! (Bundle's with me on this) The way he was "the nice young man" kindly helping Miss Marple. Then at the end his boyish smile slowing transforming into a evil leer, it was truly chilling.

I actually liked Amy Manson as Ginger. She was sad over her best friends death. Then attracted to Mark, then during the scene when she pretends to be furious with him, well it was a pretty heated excange. I didn't see any woodeness there.

I found Pauline Collins intensely creepy. Ive never really thought much of her before. I mean she was in the truly dreadful, trying to be so modern it hurts, Sparkling Cyandide!

But anyway, you didn't like so that's that.

Katherine 03 Sep 10 at 9:56 a.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

I thought it was OK. Nothing special really but not as egregiously bad as most of the new ITV Marples.

I really like Julia McKenzie but the actual adaptation veered between the rather silly and the plain dull. The 90 minutes did rather drag. Not much in the way of wit or humour in the dialogue, and some of the characterisations weren't very interesting either.

Pauline Collins, Susan Lynch and Jenny Galloway all looked the part and are great actresses but the script just didn't give them the material to work with. As with most of the new Marples, there seems to be a lack of certainty about the tone they're aiming for. Are they trying to do Gothic chills or just out and out comedy? The "witchcraft" scene didn't seem to know either and merely ended up being a bit silly.

The other performances weren't particularly inspiring. Sarah Alexander tried to inject a bit of life into Lydia, but there was nothing for her to get hold of in the script. Why bother inventing new characters like Kanga and Roo (!) and then give them no personality?

Amy Manson was particularly awful as Ginger, sleep-walking her way through the film, and delivering her lines in a monotone, giving a bizarre line reading that sounded like she was saying of one character "He dyed himself", rather than "he died, himself!"

And with apologies to Miss Quin, I've never seen the attraction of JJ Feild, who gave as dreary and dull performance in this as he always does. Osbourne is a gift of a part for a character actor - insecure, geeky, gawky and then finally insane. Maybe Feild was just miscast, but God he was boring in this: a real wasted opportunity.

It was nice to see Bill Paterson, who was as entertaining as always, but poor old Jason Merrells - is he really reduced to taking such tiny parts these days?

All of which sounds pretty negative, I suppose. 4/10 maybe?

go_leafs_nation 02 Sep 10 at 5:04 p.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

Yes, I too am certain that the killer in the adaptation was modelled after the real-life murderer. And as you say, it was a good episode. Something of a miracle, really. The literary gods must like me of late.

MissQuin 01 Sep 10 at 7:09 p.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

You noticed about Paul Osborne and The Bovingdon Bug killer too. I put a query about it on the other post earlier. Good review Goleafs and actually a good Marple episode, wonders never cease.

http://www.agathachristie.com/forum/have-your-say/discuss-marple/the-pale-horse931/