Christie Papers

When new articles and information are added to the site we'll give you a taster here ...

Login or Register to post a comment

TV ADAPTATION REVIEW: POIROT­– HALLOWE’EN PARTY

12 Jul 11 12:06PM

TV ADAPTATION REVIEW: POIROT­– HALLOWE’EN PARTY

By Chris Chan

(MINOR SPOILERS!  READ WITH CAUTION!)

Christmas came early this year, and the Poirot production team’s gift to us is a Hallowe’en Party!  The three episodes of the new season (at least, what PBS in the United States has dubbed “Poirot: Series XI”) have all been great additions to the series, and of them, I can’t decide whether The Clocks or Hallowe’en Party is my favorite. 

Hallowe’en Party is a tricky book to adapt.  In terms of plot, it’s one of Christie’s most complex works, with Poirot having to investigate both present-day murders and a presumed crime from the past, with the added difficulty of not knowing whose murder he’s supposed to be solving!  With a forgery subplot, a mysterious death that turns out to be a red herring, and plenty of lies and misdirection, an adaptation might veer into difficulties with comprehensibility.  Viewers do need to pay close attention to this telemovie, since the dialogue is crammed with clues, but Mark Gatiss’s screenplay keeps everything clear and fair for the observant viewer.

Thematically, it’s one of Christie’s darkest novels, containing two of Christie’s youngest victims, as well as a half-dozen murders (the book leaves some deaths ambiguous, but the film makes a couple of the deceased characters’ deaths definite murders).  Many fans have complained about the series taking too dark a turn in some recent installments, but this episode handles the dark storylines skillfully without going down the path of dreariness, and still manages plenty of the series’ trademark humor without any camp or inappropriate lightheartedness, all sprinkled with the macabre touches of Halloween.

There have been several changes from the original novel, but they pretty much all work.  Rowena Drake now has a son and a daughter, who underscore the will subplot, as well as serve as additional suspects.  Mrs. Reynolds is now a stepmother, which perhaps has been done to make her a more plausible suspect for the deaths of the children under her care. I really liked Poirot’s references to All Soul’s Day, which adds poignancy to the abundance of homicide.  Some viewers have commented that the subplot involving one drowned teacher and her friend is yet another instance of the screenwriters injecting lesbianism into Christie’s work.  For once, there is some justification for this in the original book.  An adolescent boy suspects a deceased woman of being a lesbian (this is the one and only time that the word “lesbian” is used in Christie’s work), but the woman’s sexual orientation is never confirmed, and Miss Whittaker’s feelings have been tacked into the adaptation.  Indeed, this sub-sub-sub-subplot only takes up a few paragraphs of the book, but its role in the film has been considerably expanded.  The only change that really upsets me is the absence of Superintendent Spence.  His character has been deleted with a stock police officer that resents Poirot’s presence at first, but who runs to the great detective the moment a second murder occurs.

Some viewers have expressed concern that Poirot uses an anachronism by using the phrase “it was a dark and stormy night.”  While Charles M. Schulz’s comic strip dog Snoopy does use that phrase often, Edward George Bulwer-Lytton first used the line to begin his book Paul Clifford in 1830, writing that, “It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents--except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness.”  Bulwer-Lytton’s overly flowery prose style was infamous (a bad writing contest is currently named after him), so it is therefore perfectly acceptable for Poirot to use this line.

I have not agreed with some critics of the series lately, who have claimed that Poirot hasn’t been doing as much detecting as he used to lately, and that the solutions seem to be pulled out of thin air.  One or two of the less impressive adaptations of recent years have been guilty of this, but Hallowe’en Party is a fair-play mystery, with the clues properly laid out and accessible for the observant viewer.  A particularly skillful use of this takes place in the middle of the episode, where the camera, from Poirot’s perspective, pans over a selection of objects.  The viewer naturally studies the items in the shot, certain that a vital clue is carefully hidden in this scene.  As the ending proves, the vital clue is that something is missing in this scene, which leads to questions, assumptions, and conclusions that can be drawn by studying people’s behavior.

The actors are once again extremely well-selected.  Zoë Wanamaker is once again delightful in her recurring role as Mrs. Oliver, although one wishes that she had more screen time.  One particularly enjoyable scene comes when Mrs. Oliver is fighting a nasty cold, yet still manages to run through theories of the crime between sniffles.  Deborah Findlay hits all the right notes as the domineering social organizer Rowena Drake, Amelia Bullmore plays Judith Butler extremely convincingly as an understandably concerned young mother, and Fenella Woolgar (who played Christie herself in an episode of Doctor Who) is also notable as Miss Whittaker.  I liked Julian Rhind-Tutt’s portrayal of Michael Garfield as a narcissistic gardener obsessed with beauty a lot.  The young performers are all quite good playing adolescents who range from endearing to annoying to distasteful, and I wish all them well with their future careers.  And as always, David Suchet manages to be brilliant and pitch-perfect every moment that he is on screen.

Based upon previews and other commenters, I’m afraid that this episode has once again been cut for American audiences.  The edits aren’t blatant, but it’s still disappointing that U.S. fans have to wait for the DVD’s in order to see the whole film.

Let no one think that I am sycophantically praising the film because I have been asked to do so by the official Agatha Christie website.  Over the last few years, no one has done more to criticize the recent Appointment with Death, Nemesis, The Sittaford Mystery, Why Didn’t They Ask Evans, The Secret of Chimneys, At Bertram’s Hotel, Murder is Easy, and the last half-hour of Cards on the Table (the first hour is superb, however) than I have.  But the three episodes of Poirot: Series XI contains some of the series’ finest work.  Three Act Tragedy is a good, solid episode; and The Clocks and Hallowe’en Party cross the line into greatness.  These episodes ought to convince the fans who have worried that the series might have wandered wayward that the good times are not over yet.

Unfortunately, one way or another, Poirot will be over soon.  Only four Poirot novels (The Big Four, Dead Man’s Folly, Elephants Can Remember, Curtain) remain to be filmed, as well as the play Black Coffee, the anthology The Labors of Hercules, and a handful of short stories, including “The Lemesurier Inheritance,” “The Regatta Mystery” (which was turned into a Parker Pyne mystery), several more stories that are really earlier or alternate versions of later stories that have already been adapted (“The Adventure of the Christmas Pudding” a.k.a. “The Christmas Adventure,” “The Market Basing Mystery,” “The Mystery of the Baghdad Chest,” “The Second Gong,” and “The Submarine Plans”), plus the recently discovered stories, published in John Curran’s Agatha Christie’s Secret Notebooks: “The Incident of the Dog’s Ball,” and the phantasmagoric alternate version of “The Capture of Cerberus.”  I have argued in the past that unused bits and pieces from the other novels could be used to stretch out a full-length adaptation of “The Lemesurier Inheritance.”  (http://agathachristie.com/forum/have-your-say/television-and-film/lemesurier-inheritance-adapt/).  I also think that The Labors of Hercules, being Christie’s best short story collection, deserves to be filmed.  Since one-hour adaptations are no longer in vogue, perhaps a series of six ninety-minute telemovies, which each “labor” taking up half an episode, could be filmed.  Less appealing but also possible would be to make each “labor” a half-hour, thereby creating four ninety-minute episodes.

However, with the future of the series hanging on a razor’s edge, it is important to let the powers that be know that we, the viewers, want to see the rest of the Poirot canon filmed.  That is why I end this review with an appeal to all viewers who share my sentiments to contact ITV (http://www.itv.com/contactus/wheretofindus/default.html, viewerservices@itv.com), and Masterpiece on PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/feedback/index.html) and politely but enthusiastically tell them that we would like to see more episodes of Poirot filmed.  I also know that awards submission is another way for quality shows to garner more suggestion or support, so please also suggest that “Poirot: Series XI” be submitted for awards such as the Emmys, the Edgars (http://www.mysterywriters.org/mwaforms/entryform_FilmTV.php), and the Peabody Award (http://www.peabody.uga.edu/entries/important_dates.php).  Here is a sample letter:

To Whom It May Concern:

            My name is (YOUR NAME HERE) and I am a fan of the “Agatha Christie’s Poirot” series starring David Suchet.  There are only a handful of Poirot stories left to be filmed, and I am writing in order to ask you to please continue to film the remaining episodes.  Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

(YOUR NAME HERE)

Hallowe’en Party ought to inspire all fans (including those who have been worried about the series’ future) that the show must go on.  It’s that good.

• 2 comments

Comment on this story

Login or Register to post a comment

2 comments

smifey7 23 May 12 at 8:48p.m.

http://erefinishingkitchencabinets.net

S_Sigerson 12 Jul 11 at 8:09p.m.

Overall I enjoyed this one except I do have a minor quibble. It's pretty obvious who the murderer is. This could have been negated by having a second person come in out of the rain claiming to have seen a stranger lurking outside the house. Miss. Whittaker would have worked perfectly considering how the victim was killed and perhaps a third person (maybe one of the young Drakes) could have popped out of the kitchen claiming they had spilt wine or something on their dress or shirt and had to wash the stain out which is why its wet. This would redirect attention away from the murderer. Once you learn how the crime was committed, it's not difficult to make the connection. Agatha Christie used misdirection all the time in her stories to great effect. If time (given a 90 minute format) was an issue the scene, in which Mrs. Goodbody dressed as a witch bursting in through the French windows to scare the children, could have been deleted. Great atmospheric effect, but she had no motive for the murder. However, despite this issue I enjoyed it a lot, but I would not rank it as one the best. Out of 5 stars, I probably rate it somewhere around 3 to 4.


In the television adaptation of The Clocks the writer inserted a grieving mother who lost a son with no political motive for what she did, in place of a woman who in the book had a living illegitimate daughter and firmly believed in Soviet Communism which explains her motives, two very different characters who did what they did for two totally different reasons. In the same adaptation an English brother and sister (in the book) are inserted or replaced with a Jewish German brother and sister, different characters with different life experiences and motives.


Throughout the Poriot and Miss. Marple (including the Joan Hickson series) these types of changes were made. Characters who were different from the book/short stories were inserted into the television adaptations. Physical and personal traits along with character's motivations were changed from the ones found in the book/short stories. If you object to a character's sexual orientation being changed, logically you must also object to these other changes as well because sexual orientation is just like any other trait human beings are born with.