Have Your Say

Television and Film

Talk about Christie TV and Film here

The Ten "Offenders"

go_leafs_nation 15 Apr 09 at 10:50 p.m. GMT

Something is rotten in Agatha Christie Land...

Here are ten Christie novels that haven’t been treated to a “proper” film/TV adaptation. I start at #10 (smallest “offender”) and proceed until #1 (worst “offender”). Most of these contain minor spoilers of some sort, but anything major that could ruin the book has been marked off by spoiler warnings.

10. The Murder at the Vicarage

Both the Joan Hickson version and the Geraldine McEwan version of “The Murder at the Vicarage” are reasonably close adaptations—but both are just short of getting it perfectly right.

SPOILERS AHEAD!

For instance, the gunshot at the wrong time was solved differently in both. The GM version handled it a bit more realistically than the JH version: the wire cables working their way into Mary’s romantic subplot seemed farfetched in the latter. The JH version also deleted Dr. Stone and Co., along with a bunch of fun characters. The GM version kept these, but also made some controversial changes: a minor poison-pen subplot, turning Dr. Stone and his secretary into the DuFosses, etc.

END OF SPOILERS!

Although these adaptations are fun to watch, they are not really a “proper” representation on screen.

9. Dumb Witness

“Dumb Witness” made many changes to the book that just took away from its dramatic potential. The climax is dumbed down from an emotional climax to a boring, “one-of-the-people-in-this-room-is-a-killer” climax. And this is one of the earlier Poirots, so, cinematically, the film technique is less refined.

8. Taken at the Flood

The first 2/3 of “Taken at the Flood” was positively brilliant: reasonably close both in plot and in tone to the book, despite being set in a different time period. However, in the last third, unforgivable changes take place that really took away from the film’s dramatic potential: the changes just don’t work, and to be honest, they just seem weird. The "almost explosive" climax epitomizes the strange, seemingly rather forced changes, as if the plot alterations were made just for the heck of it, in order to provoke controversy.

7. Nemesis

Like The Murder at the Vicarage, neither the JH or GM adaptations have gotten the book just right. At times, the novel got quite boring, I will freely admit. Atmosphere and character drove the novel, not the plot. So, plot alterations were almost a given for TV. The McEwan version went overboard though, introducing everything from nuns to Nazis.

Of the two, the JH version came much closer to the book, but it was somewhat spoiled by a few things: the (rather pointless) Michael Rafiel scenes; the unnecessary character of Lionel, and of course the change of murder weapon in a certain scene, just to name a few. As a result, the atmosphere is somewhat different than the one that I felt reading the novel. (Some of the changes actually helped clarify a few of the book’s loopholes though!)

6. The Murder of Roger Ackroyd

This adaptation is the reason why I’m opposed to having Hastings, Japp, and Miss Lemon appear in adaptations of novels they weren’t in. The Murder of Roger Ackroyd was positively ruined by Japp’s appearance, and the shootout at the end was just plain pointless. I was disappointed with the result, particularly of such a classic novel.

5. The Mystery of the Blue Train

We’ve only seen one adaptation of this so far: David Suchet’s rather liberal TV adaptation. Rather than looking for differences between novel and adaptation, you’ll make your list shorter by looking for similarities. Although I admit enjoying the adaptation, it’s just not done right.

4. Appointment With Death

Both Peter Ustinov and David Suchet have tried their hand with Appointment With Death, and both of them have failed. Ustinov’s version is more similar to the novel than Suchet’s (what a surprise!), but it’s fairly liberal itself. However, the Ustinov version positively fails to build any suspense at all: cinematically speaking, it’s just plain dull. Although Suchet’s version is a complete rewrite, it succeeds in building suspense and making a slightly interesting new story. However, this doesn’t excuse all the changes that were made.

3. Hercule Poirot’s Christmas

Once more, the presence of Japp hinders the entire film. His presence greatly takes away from the original story, rather than adding as it was originally hoped. Hercule Poirot’s Christmas is doused liberally with dramatic plot alterations as well, and it quite terribly made as a movie: the opening scene completely gives away the solution and motive. They were (in the book) ingeniously concealed yet also paraded in front of the reader. Definitely the wrong way to treat such a fine book.

2. The Sittaford Mystery

The only television adaptation we have seen is McEwan’s, and we all know how dreadful that was. The acting was horrendous on the most part. The romantic subplot is overplayed, and causes the mushiest scene in AC film history (the bathtub scene) to be shot. The script is dreadful, practically a complete rewrite from the original book. It also fails to build suspense, intrigue, and (to be quite honest) mystery.

1. Cards on the Table

The greatest letdown of all time. The first 58 minutes of Cards on the Table were brilliant, and quite faithful to the book. Then, Nick Dear (the screenwriter) let it all go down the drain. Homosexuality, role reversals, removed deaths, changed motives… They all played major roles in the film’s failure. By the end, the film becomes quite ridiculous: a theory that a “detective” was the killer is obviously a waste of time; the dagger is seen protruding from Mr. Shaitana before this “suspect” even gets to examine the corpse.

MAJOR SPOILERS!

In addition, the huge character swap between Rhoda and Anne is quite unforgivable. According to the Honeysuckle Weekes interview I have in my version of Cards on the Table, she accepted the role of Rhoda because she wanted to be the “baddie” for once.

It raises an interesting question: did anyone other than Nick Dear read the book? Particularly David Suchet, who praises the series for being “faithful to the novels”. To prove his point, he reads an excerpt from Taken at the Flood, where Poirot’s eccentricities provide him with a vital clue (people who read it should know what I refer to). He points out this is exactly what HE does in the TV adaptation of Taken at the Flood. But this similarity is extremely minor in light of the other changes, that it becomes insignificant. Yet Suchet fails to acknowledge these plot liberties?

END OF MAJOR SPOILERS!

And that is the end of the list: these 10 “offenders” haven’t been treated to a “proper” screen adaptation. Will they ever be?

Login or register to add posts and reply

45 replies

Reverse order

GKCfan 18 May 11 at 4:56 a.m. GMT

Well said, go_leafs_nation, well said.

go_leafs_nation 18 May 11 at 2:16 a.m. GMT

That spam was nicely written, and it also contains a lot pretty colours. I enjoyed your annoying manner of writing it all over the forum. You have made this one more link I will not click on. Regards, Me.

anonymoose_au 25 Jul 10 at 12:06 p.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

I have to say I thought Suchet's <i>Appointment with Death</i> was utterly ridiculous, it was changed so much it didn't resemble the book at all! I actually saw it before reading the book and didn't even realise it!

Not to mention the whole method of murder was terribly convoluted and didn't make much sense if you thought about. And what was with the nun?!

I did enjoy the Peter Usinov version - at least it had all the original characters in it! Although the musical score was so completely out of step when you consider the story's about a tryannical, sadistic mother as to be funny!

Nofret 20 Jul 10 at 9:17 p.m. GMT

Yes, I agree, MissQ, and it seems that the recent adaptations are getting further and further away from the originals.

Another thing that annoys me is when a key element in the plot is completely omitted, such as in Murder in Mesopotamia the importance of the nurse's evidence, and the reason she was employed. Also, in Murder on the Blue Train the reason that the victim's face was disfigured was NOT because the killers got their kicks from it, but so that she could not be identified by the train's steward.

By the way, on the subject of terrible adaptations, did anyone see the version of Ordeal by Innocence which was released in the 80's? It started with the police bursting into a flat where 2 people, I think Mickey and Tina, were in bed together, Mickey turns to the policemen and says "Meet my sister" And it went downhill from there, aided by the most intrusive, screechy jazz score!

MissQuin 27 May 10 at 3:29 p.m. GMT

I confess, I couldn't wacth the Sittaford Mystery to the end. It was too embarassing to watch!

Ive enjoyed the recent Murder is Announced, The moving finger and Body in the library. They were entertaining. But TSM has to be the adaptation with the worst changes ever. It was senseless. What bewilders me is how people I know are really excellent actors, could come across as so contrived and stupid?

The most unforgivable change is of course, changing the murderer.

go_leafs_nation 26 May 10 at 9:31 p.m. GMT

Of course, I loved it. It's a masterpiece of modern filmmaking. The comedy is simply brilliant: watch how hilarious the whole thing is when the second corpse is discovered.

Ah, who am I kidding? This, along with Why Didn't They Ask Evans?, is the most embarassing entry into the whole series. I don't mind changes all that much- they can be done well, as in By The Pricking of My Thumbs, A Murder is Announced, or 4:50 From Paddington. But simply everything failed here, and some really shabby direction was trying to pass itself off as stylish.

MissQuin 26 May 10 at 7:56 p.m. GMT

Go leafs: "The only television adaptation we have seen is McEwan’s, and we all know how dreadful that was. The acting was horrendous on the most part. The romantic subplot is overplayed, and causes the mushiest scene in AC film history (the bathtub scene) to be shot. The script is dreadful, practically a complete rewrite from the original book. It also fails to build suspense, intrigue, and (to be quite honest) mystery."

Ive just watched the Sittaford Mystery and I was utterly appalled beyond words. Ive sat through Nemesis, with Nazi's and Nuns, but I couldn't sit through this utter claptrap. In the scene when the falcon dropped off it's perch dead, I knew just how that bird felt.

Not even the ouja board scene could interest me, when they called out to the spirits "is anybody there?" They should have spelt this out with the glass: N.O...B.U.T.... I.M... B.O.R.E.D... T.O... D.E.A.T.H.

 Oh and the bathtub scene? Well it was bad, Charles should have poured ice cubes in there. Even James Murray, whose rather attractive couldn't liven up procedings.

 But I thought the ski scene and all the snow scenes were the worst scenes in the history of Chrisite adapts. You could see it was fake! It looked like cotton wool. Let's hope the people responsible, never attempt to remake Dr Zhivago.

Anyone else hate it as much? or did anyone actually enjoy it?

Tommy_A_Jones 29 Aug 09 at 10:33 a.m. GMT

I looked yesterday and the name of the Actor is Jamie Belman, he recently appeared in Midsomer Murders.

Tommy_A_Jones 27 Aug 09 at 12:53 p.m. GMT

James Warwick might be too old now, I wonder if he has a son?, I saw an actor in Midsomer Murders a couple of weeks ago, I bet he could play Anthony Cade, pity I didn't look to see what his name is.

anthony_cade 26 Aug 09 at 10:07 p.m. GMT

Thanks, TheMole! Yes, Anthony Cade is my favourite character - and I can't imagine any actor or adaptation being able to do justice to him, or to The Secret of Chimneys! Though I'd love it if they managed to. Having checked out the more faithful adaptations you suggested (thanks! They're great!) I'm pretty sure that if we were in the 70s or 80s, the safe money would be on the part going to James Warwick...!

Lone_Wolf 23 Aug 09 at 9:31 p.m. GMT

It was  "emo"? That's a really lame ciritism, d00d.

AndThenThereWasTim 23 Aug 09 at 9:05 p.m. GMT

Thought I haven't seen many of the shows Leafs brings up I Totally agree about Cards on the Table. I Enjoyed the book and was awating the DVD to come from netflix but when I finally got it and watched it I hated it so much I contimplated breaking it so Netflix wouldn't have a copy. Changing the motives TWICE to conform to the directors desire to add scandle. it did not make ANY sence at all. The Murder is Announced Character is debatable as ive said in many posts. One adapt I didn't like was Suchet Death on the Nile. I Thought Miss. Ottobourne (Young) was not innocent enough. She seemed almost emo as the adaptation almost seemed emo as well. Though not as true to the book I liked the Ustinov version much better. Olivia Hussy Angela Lansbury, Maggie Smith, and David Niven were much more entertaining. The quality of the film making seemed more authentic and real as well because (since it was only about 15 years after the actual time period the didnt try and Modernize it which I think is the downfall of 90% of the bad adaptations which Im sorry to say are not few and far between

Tommy_A_Jones 23 Aug 09 at 2:22 p.m. GMT

I will have to re-read the book and then watch the Suchet version and then I might have to re-think my opinion

Lone_Wolf 23 Aug 09 at 1:34 p.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

" he was a pathetic man I thought thinking he had a chance with a young beautiful girl"

Sure, but I imagined him as being more superficially charming and more tanned (he was described as having a sunburnt face). I imagine him as more Philip Lombard-ish in his looks. I don't remember Thora disliking him or something. And he certainly had enough suggestive power to make an impression on Cust, though the latter is admittedly weak-willed and easy to manipulate.

"consider them unimportant and harmless"

Revealing the plot twist way before it should've been is certainly not harmless. Since "the ABC murders" was the only Poirot adaption I watched in Russian, maybe the translators messed something up, but I doubt it.

Tommy_A_Jones 23 Aug 09 at 1:13 p.m. GMT

I admit I haven't read ABC for a while but I loved the Suchet version, I can't remember if he was bald in the book but I did think the portrayal was good, he was a pathetic man I thought thinking he had a chance with a young beautiful girl and Cust was portrayed excellently I thought I have only got 2 Suchet's at the moment and ABC is one of them, (The other is Evil Under The Sun being the other one and I only have that because It didn't occur to me I was ordering that one instead of the Ustinov one I wanted) so the Suche version of ABC is the only one I have which I meant to have (Although I do like the Suchet version of EUTS), if there are changes in ABC and 'Evil Under The Sun I consider them unimportant and harmless unlike some changes in some Adaptations.

Lone_Wolf 23 Aug 09 at 9:01 a.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

"The ABC murders" with Suchet was just dreadful, IMO, with most of the casting not fitting my vision of the characters (Thora Grey speaking like her mouth is half paralyzed, Franklin Clarke as a rather pathetic-looking 50-something bald man) and Poirot giving the plot twist away at Doncaster, long before the final scene.

The beginning scene of Suchet's "Death on the Nile", while not exactly giving the plot twist away, can provide some ideas to people who are already on their guard for plot twists. I liked it, though, except Tim Allerton, with that sleazy moustache, totally didn't look like I imagined him.

Speaking of giving the plot twists away, Russian publishers of AC's books in English are very prone to it, with sometimes showing the murderers on the cover art, and including the quote that contains the plot twist on the back of the cover.

go_leafs_nation 14 Aug 09 at 2:29 p.m. GMT

I wasn't referring to your post. I was adressing why "the-scene-ruins-the-motive" doesn't apply.

TheMole 14 Aug 09 at 1:09 p.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

go_leafs_nation

You have a hold of the wrong end of the stick when it comes to Suchet's Death on the Nile. Chronologically, the scene came before Simon and Lynette met and fell in love. It introduced the fact that Jackie and Simon were lovers before he met Lynette.

Go leafs, I am confused. Where in my post did I mention that "the scene" did not come before Simon and Linette become lovers? If I said other wise I will be more than glad to admit it, But I know that the beginning scene is before Simon ever met Linette. I also know that that first scene between Jackie and Simon also included them talking about their financal hardships, like when Simon said, "I'm broke, Jackie. What kind of a future is that?" To which Jackie says "I have some money that will see us though for a little while." etc. etc. And that quite possibly that was the scene when Jackie came up w/ her scheme to take all of Linette's money.

go_leafs_nation 13 Aug 09 at 10:18 p.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

You have a hold of the wrong end of the stick when it comes to Suchet's Death on the Nile. Chronologically, the scene came before Simon and Lynette met and fell in love. It introduced the fact that Jackie and Simon were lovers before he met Lynette.

TheMole 13 Aug 09 at 5:18 p.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

anthony_cade Death on the Nile (which I really liked) does this right at the beginning with a scene between two characters that isn't in the book. The person I was watching it with had never read the novel but guessed the murderer and plot simply because that added scene had put it in his mind.

I liked this version too (assuming you mean the Suchet one). But pray forgive me I have to disagree a little bit about the beginning scene w/ Jackie & Simon. Even though it was not in the book I can understand this time why the screenwriters felt the need to add that in: they wanted to add a bit of realism into it b/c after all AC did vaguely hint at it. Although ideally I would rather they not have added in that kind of scene! I also believe that they wanted to show how much Jackie cared for Simon so that it would seem like an even bigger deal when Linette stole him. Did it give the plot away? If you've read the book before (like me & you) or you're very observant then I say yes. But if you are just a regular watcher -- you know just watching it purely for fun (which usually is the audience the producers aim to please) -- then I don't think it gave it away. I really just think in this case it proves you & your friend are smart.

Also, when Jackie & Simon were talking about their financial hardships I think that was a good idea because it quickly summed up their background,  just like when Linette was conversing w/ Joanna she revealed herself to be rich but also catty and snobbish.Of course the screenwriters added one or two things that weren't suppose to be in there but it didn't ruin the emotional feel of the novel, at least for me. And it wasn't badly tattered like Nemesis was to the point where you didn't even know if this was a Christie book. In this particular adapt it still had AC's stamp.