"Appointment with Death" TV review
This adaptation couldn't be any more different than the novel. Having said that, I actually enjoyed this "adaptation"! I need to start by saying that one could read the novel and it would still feel "fresh" Enjoyment from reading the story would not be ruined, even if one watched this David Suchet episode first.
I loved the music (as always), the "awesomeness" of the dig and its environs (beautiful landscape!), and the costuming (again!). One can really appreciate the production that goes into every one of the Poirot episodes for television. It was great to see great actors of high caliber (for myself); many were names familiar to me. They were Tim Curry, John Hannah, Elizabeth McGovern, Mark Gatiss ("Doctor Who"!), and Paul Freeman (Belloq from Raiders of the Lost Ark!).
An absolute waste was Tim Curry, however. As much as I appreciate his acting, his role of Lord Boynton was unimportant to the story. His acting was superb and he brought great emotion to the role given him. In the book, there was no Mr. Boynton! The odious (and murdered) Mrs. Boynton was a widow in the book. Why the change? I can't figure that out, because all Lord Boynton do was take Poirot on a tour of the dig and later show genuine sorrow for his wife's death. Paul Freeman's role as Colonel Carbury (as the law enforcement in the story) was limited. He, too, providing solid acting alongside Mr. Suchet. I loved Cheryl Campbell's limited role as the evil matriarch Mrs. Boynton--she fit my idea of Boynton from the novel right on. (Campbell is no stranger to Agatha Christie productions, by the way.)
Now, the negatives...
Spoilers related to the novel follow: The thing missing the most from the TV story was the character of Mrs. Boynton, and the psychology of the crime (as Poirot said it in the novel). Boynton wasn't also known as Miss Pierce in the novel; Miss Pierce was a fellow passenger to Petra along with Lady Westholme and the Boyntons. As Miss Pierce, she was a wealthy woman who adopted children and tortured them, simply because "we were someone else's" as Carol Boynton points out. What Boynton was in the novel was a prison wardress--and that's important to the novel's story. It's vital because it: 1) describes the strong personality of Boynton and 2) explains why she gets murdered. Dr. Gerard says in the book that Boynton "became a wardress because she loved tyranny." Westholme was the murderer in the novel, too; her motive was completely different than that of the TV story. She was a criminal that met Lord Westholme on a boat and they fell in love. She kept her former life a secret and became a very powerful politician herself. Boynton threatened Westholme (yes, Boynton was a blackmailer, too) and Westholme became frightened. She was afraid that her identity would be revealed and her political life would be destroyed by this twisted and tyrannical woman. That was the motive for killing Boynton. There was nothing in the novel of Wesholme giving her baby away to the Boyntons! She also acted alone in the novel; in the TV story, Dr. Gerard was revealed to be the accomplice and father of the baby?! (Which happens coincidentally to be Jinny, the youngest of the Boyntons.) Nothing will ruin a Poirot or Marple TV story than changing the plot (and adding a different murderer/accomplice).
Poirot points out something vital psychologically in the novel. Boynton always requests her children to be around her. They serve every whim and demand. However, while at Petra, she sends them away and tells them she wishes to be left alone. Poirot points out that that is not in the character of the horrible woman. So, why would Mrs. Boynton contradict herself and desire to be alone (finally, for the first time in her life!). Why? Because she had planned to comfront Lady Westholme. There's nothing better than torturing and harrassing someone, eh? That again, is why Westholme murders Boynton. None of what I just explained was in the televised story! Even the method of murder--stabbing? how boring--in the TV episode is different! Include Jefferson Cope's true identity and his secret relationship to the Boynton family. Nothing like the novel! There are more differences between the novel and the TV episode, but we'll stick with these.
I think it's funny that the story ends with the murderers killing themselves. That's too much like another Poirot story. Sure, Lady Westholme does kill herself in the novel--with a revolver instead. The funny thing is, the two villains kill themselves with digitalis in a syringe. That's the very thing that kills Mrs. Boynton in the novel!
Back to what I liked:
What else did I like from this production? Poirot choosing to return to the dig and gathering all the suspects around and the change of the plot. Huh? Did I just complain about changing the plot and now I said I liked it? Well, for completely changing the plot of the novel, they did a fairly good job. The new plot and motive for the murder actually felt like an Agatha Christie plot this time. That I guess would even include the subplot of the bad bad Catholic nun involved in a slave ring. If you're gonna change the plot, do it with style. Opposite of this would be the "Marple" TV story "The Secret of Chimneys", which is one of the WORST ever done.
I loved the music (as always), the "awesomeness" of the dig and its environs (beautiful landscape!), and the costuming (again!). One can really appreciate the production that goes into every one of the Poirot episodes for television. It was great to see great actors of high caliber (for myself); many were names familiar to me. They were Tim Curry, John Hannah, Elizabeth McGovern, Mark Gatiss ("Doctor Who"!), and Paul Freeman (Belloq from Raiders of the Lost Ark!).
An absolute waste was Tim Curry, however. As much as I appreciate his acting, his role of Lord Boynton was unimportant to the story. His acting was superb and he brought great emotion to the role given him. In the book, there was no Mr. Boynton! The odious (and murdered) Mrs. Boynton was a widow in the book. Why the change? I can't figure that out, because all Lord Boynton do was take Poirot on a tour of the dig and later show genuine sorrow for his wife's death. Paul Freeman's role as Colonel Carbury (as the law enforcement in the story) was limited. He, too, providing solid acting alongside Mr. Suchet. I loved Cheryl Campbell's limited role as the evil matriarch Mrs. Boynton--she fit my idea of Boynton from the novel right on. (Campbell is no stranger to Agatha Christie productions, by the way.)
Now, the negatives...
Spoilers related to the novel follow: The thing missing the most from the TV story was the character of Mrs. Boynton, and the psychology of the crime (as Poirot said it in the novel). Boynton wasn't also known as Miss Pierce in the novel; Miss Pierce was a fellow passenger to Petra along with Lady Westholme and the Boyntons. As Miss Pierce, she was a wealthy woman who adopted children and tortured them, simply because "we were someone else's" as Carol Boynton points out. What Boynton was in the novel was a prison wardress--and that's important to the novel's story. It's vital because it: 1) describes the strong personality of Boynton and 2) explains why she gets murdered. Dr. Gerard says in the book that Boynton "became a wardress because she loved tyranny." Westholme was the murderer in the novel, too; her motive was completely different than that of the TV story. She was a criminal that met Lord Westholme on a boat and they fell in love. She kept her former life a secret and became a very powerful politician herself. Boynton threatened Westholme (yes, Boynton was a blackmailer, too) and Westholme became frightened. She was afraid that her identity would be revealed and her political life would be destroyed by this twisted and tyrannical woman. That was the motive for killing Boynton. There was nothing in the novel of Wesholme giving her baby away to the Boyntons! She also acted alone in the novel; in the TV story, Dr. Gerard was revealed to be the accomplice and father of the baby?! (Which happens coincidentally to be Jinny, the youngest of the Boyntons.) Nothing will ruin a Poirot or Marple TV story than changing the plot (and adding a different murderer/accomplice).
Poirot points out something vital psychologically in the novel. Boynton always requests her children to be around her. They serve every whim and demand. However, while at Petra, she sends them away and tells them she wishes to be left alone. Poirot points out that that is not in the character of the horrible woman. So, why would Mrs. Boynton contradict herself and desire to be alone (finally, for the first time in her life!). Why? Because she had planned to comfront Lady Westholme. There's nothing better than torturing and harrassing someone, eh? That again, is why Westholme murders Boynton. None of what I just explained was in the televised story! Even the method of murder--stabbing? how boring--in the TV episode is different! Include Jefferson Cope's true identity and his secret relationship to the Boynton family. Nothing like the novel! There are more differences between the novel and the TV episode, but we'll stick with these.
I think it's funny that the story ends with the murderers killing themselves. That's too much like another Poirot story. Sure, Lady Westholme does kill herself in the novel--with a revolver instead. The funny thing is, the two villains kill themselves with digitalis in a syringe. That's the very thing that kills Mrs. Boynton in the novel!
Back to what I liked:
What else did I like from this production? Poirot choosing to return to the dig and gathering all the suspects around and the change of the plot. Huh? Did I just complain about changing the plot and now I said I liked it? Well, for completely changing the plot of the novel, they did a fairly good job. The new plot and motive for the murder actually felt like an Agatha Christie plot this time. That I guess would even include the subplot of the bad bad Catholic nun involved in a slave ring. If you're gonna change the plot, do it with style. Opposite of this would be the "Marple" TV story "The Secret of Chimneys", which is one of the WORST ever done.
Something is very different in the screen adaptations of Poirot. He has become a man of faith. I don't remember if that is part of the book or not. Does anyone remember?
Reply to this
Angela,
In the books, Poirot is described as a Catholic, although he is shown attending Anglican services. Although some have suggested that Agatha Christie's devout Anglicanism informed the moral worldview reflected in her novels, the novels did in any sense revolve around, make an issue of, or even make more than a passing reference to Poirot's faith. In fact, Christie's novels were rather notable for their absence of religion and faith, which were a common themes among her literary contemporaries in England (for instance Evelyn Waugh and Graham Greene.)
The increasing inclusion of religious themes in Agatha Christies Poirot has followed the 2004 death of her daughter Rosalind Hicks, who zealously protected the integrity of her mother's work. The marked change in the characterization of Suchet's Poirot from a ecumenical secular figure to a Christian man of faith followed the death of Christie's may reflect Suchet's well-publicized personal religious awakening and conversion.
Reply to this
I watched Appointment with Death and enjoyed it very much. I think David Suchet did a splendid job. He gives Poirot a charming character and a sweetness about him that I just love.
Reply to this
I love the fact that Poirot shows his faith. I also love the fact that he hates murder, but like on Murder on the Orient Express, he shows compassion to the murderers.
Reply to this