Blog at HPC

"Appointment with Death" TV review

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 08:00:00 GMT

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.

"Third Girl" TV review

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 08:00:00 GMT

There are things that changed in this adaptation from the novel. I can understand why--they make sense. I liked/disliked the episode for just a few reasons. There are spoilers here though, ruining both the David Suchet episode and the novel of the same name.

I liked: the music (the theme song is back! Yes!); the acting (again, superb!); the actress and actor portraying Frances Cary and Sir Roderick, respectively; the inclusion of Mrs. Oliver and Poirot's valet George, and the settings/locations. The casting of the actors for both Frances and Sir Roderick were perfect for me. Little times do the actors match what I imagined them to be whilst reading a novel. It happened to me this time! I don't know why Roderick was blind, but his portrayal was great. The 'look' of Frances was great, even though "Third Girl" is set in the 1960s in the novel--the filmmakers made her look great on TV. She looked like the bohemian she was supposed to be. (The same goes with David Baker, but more on that later.)

I was disappointed with: the omission of the reason why Andrew Restarick's painting was removed from Crosshedges, the writing of the check from Andrew to David--the blackmailing; the change of the character of the murdered woman Seagram/Louise Carpenter; the switching of the numbers of the girls' flat; all the confusion of the stupid teacher A.J. Battersby; the missing Doctor Stillingfleet and the drugging of Norma by Frances Cary.

I can understand why three things were omitted from the TV episode: the important papers Sir Roderick lost, the dual identity of Frances Cary/Mary Restarick (as the 2nd wife of Andrew in the novel); and the leaving out of Dr. Stillingfleet. There is always too much in any novel, and I suppose that could go the same for Agatha Christie.

I guess the filmmakers thought the subplot with Roderick's missing secret government papers and the true motive of Sonia was too much for a televised story. I will admit that this detracts from the central action within the novel. It was disappointing to not include Dr. Stillinglfeet (a friend of Poirot's who appears in the short story "The Dream"), because in the novel he saves Norma's life, gets her off the drugs Frances administered to her, and eventually he marries Norma. I think for the sake of the pace of the episode, he was written off: he appears in just a few chapters and either talks to Norma or reports to Poirot over the phone about her condition. It was much simpler having Norma in Poirot's flat and doing away with Stillingfleet. Now because he was out of the picture, the screenwriter was able to pair Norma and David together.

The very curious change to the story, the MAJOR one, was Frances Cary. In the novel, she also poses as Andrew's wife Mary Restarick (he's not married in the TV story) and she's a painter. She travels back and forth wearing the golden wig as Mrs. Restarick and poses (as Frances) as an artist who puts on art shows. Here on television, she's the half-sister of Norma!? That doesn't even come out right on TV. Too confusing and dramatic, really. Oh, the shock! They should've at least made it that she was a rotten thief that joins Andrew (really bad man Robert Orwell from South Africa) in the scheme for the money, all like in the book. For TV, do away with Mary Restarick the wife, but still keep Frances Cary as the murderer and thief and co-conspirator. In the end, the TV story is screwed up and botched all because of Frances Cary. The worst part of the episode!

The surprise (good) of this Suchet story was the survival of David Baker the artist. I actually liked him in the novel, and was devastated that he was killed. I felt that he should've lived and made a life with Norma instead of the boring Stillingfleet. I'm glad that the screenwriter felt the same way I did. The story was written and set in the 1960s, and they made the episode look right set instead in the 30s. So, David doesn't have the long hair and the vest--but he looked great and Bohemian nevertheless on TV (and is still described by Ariadne Oliver as the "Peacock"). Something very lacking in the televised adaptation was his making the painting of the fake Andrew Restarick. It was essential, to convince people that Orwell was Andrew. The artist's blackmailing the fake Andrew of course led to David Baker's demise, and wasn't included so that David could survive through the story and 'get the girl' (Norma).

Overall, I was satisfied with the adaptation. Poirot threw in plenty of French in this one, Zoe Wanamaker's portrayal of Ariadne Oliver is awesome (she still gets coshed on the head like in the novel!), the music was dramatic and familiar, and the production is always of a very high caliber. Oh, and Poirot still has cards up his sleeve and gathers everyone in the room to provide the solution, just like old times!

"Murder on the Orient Express" TV review

Mon, 12 Jul 2010 08:00:00 GMT

If you haven't read or watched the David Suchet adaptation of "Murder on the Orient Express", then I'd skip this blog entry, if I were you. (I discuss the minor differences between the novel and this televised episode.) Spoilers continue:

Let's start about the ending of the episode: Oh! The drama! Please...we had some 12 minutes of Poirot ranting and screaming at the passengers of the train, locking them up, him praying, then meeting with the police and looking like he was about to cry. Sheesh...the drama! This does not coincide with Poirot's idea of justice from earlier in the episode (more on that below).

I was looking at the clock, and said to myself: we've already had the two solutions proposed by Poirot? What's going to happen now? Filmmakers want to make their productions so dramatic. Now, I will admit that the novel--in my opinion--ends abruptly. But the filmmakers could've added more to the story that's in the book instead of the--cough cough-- lengthy ending. Things were missing.

What was omitted from the book? Four things come to mind: the scarlet kimono, Mr. Hardman's absence, finding the pipe cleaner in Cassetti's cabin, and Hubbard's sponge bag not covering the door bolt. We could dismiss the pipe cleaner, really. That was just more confusion added in Cassetti's cabin. Leaving out the kimono was a disappointment: it was to be an important red herring for Poirot, and later for him to find it in his own luggage is hilarious. Poirot is dumbfounded and responds to this saying: "It is like that. A defiances. Very welll. I take it up." The clue with the sponge bag covering the door bolt was important because it pointed to Poirot that Mrs. Hubbard wasn't being truthful about the strange man in her cabin. She didn't take into account that the bag didn't cover the bolt of the connecting door to Cassetti's cabin--the bolt changes places from an even cabin number to an odd one. The most strange omission from the TV episode was Mr. Hardman--the police officer part of the investigation of the Daisy Armstrong kidnapping case. It was he who was in love with Pierre Michel's daughter (the nurse-maid), not Foscarelli, the Italian chauffeur. He was counted among the passengers who stabbed Cassetti (along with Count Andrenyi, as substitution for his wife).

The biggest change (other than Hardman missing) was the character of Dr. Constantine. He's not Greek, he sounds American in the episode. Not only that, but was acting like the detective. So, I thought: he's in so OUT OF PLACE, he's got to be in on the plot with the rest of the passengers. I was right! He was the obstetrician involved with the Armstrong family. I really thought something was funny when Bouc said to Poirot, "Oh! We got a doctor right here. Um, well, actually just an obstetrician!" Now I know why he was acting like a detective--he was trying to lead Poirot astray. Tricky tricky! So, Constantine was already in the Calais coach on the train? It wasn't made clear, that point. With Constantine being an accomplice, he takes the place of both the Andrenyi couple and Mr. Hardman.

I have two more complaints and I'm done. 1): I thought it was silly of Hubbard--or Dragomiroff--sitting next to Cassetti almost as if reading him a bedtime story while one by one the passengers came in and gave him a stab. It's like: "Next! Hurry up, we don't have all night. [stabbing sounds] OK, were was I? Oh, yes. Well, you're being punished for your crimes against the Armstrongs [blood squishing with knife] and we wanted you to feel the pain. OK, Masterman--it's your turn. Hurry it up. Next!"

2) I thought a great opportunity of doing some flashbacks was sorely missed. I loved the way the Albert Finney film introduces you to the Daisy Armstrong kidnapping right at the beginning, complete with the music and all. In the Suchet adaptation, we get few glances of newspaper headlines of the crime, all in red. One could barely read or see anything with the deep red! Extremely disappointing, especially when the Poirot episodes do a fantastic job of recreating the scene of the crime for us viewers.

There is some contradiction in the character of Poirot--this philosophical mumbo-jumbo of justice greatly bothers me. We see an earlier scene where he and Mary Debenham witness a stoning of a woman who is accused of adultery and Mary says that's "wrong and savage". Poirot's response is "well, she deserves it. She knew the consequences, and justice is being served." But, Poirot does a huge turnaround at the end saying to the passengers that--although Cassetti was an evil man--they had no right to murder him and that they're the savages. "Time to lock you up, for the animals that you are!" He gets all high and mighty and religious on them. This scene/dialogue was I think inappropriate. The producers are rewriting the character of Poirot. Yes, we know he's Catholic--that's been mentioned in the books before. He doesn't have to be pious and in your face; he's quoted in the short story "Problem at Sea" saying: " I do not approve of murder." I think we should leave it at that. Huge spoiler here! This has to do with an entirely different Poirot novel, so you best skip this! How do you explain Poirot's plan with "X" in the final novel "Curtain"? He murders a man--yes, the villain of the story who deserves it. Is what he did in that novel "right"? Having seen "Orient Express" now, I'd think that Poirot is a hypocrite. He says "you--savages for killing a man", and yet he does it in another story. Then, according to the producers, Poirot has a very strange sense of justice. I don't think so. In the ending of the "Orient Express" novel, he has pity for the passengers and sees that justice has been served--and doesn't criticize. As Colonel Arbuthnot says, "Trial by jury is a sound system", but Cassetti didn't get that. Poirot understands that justice was served, and he leaves it like that.

Like the computer game by The Adventure Game (of the same name), the new adaptation was presenting a story that's so famous that they had to make it fresh and a little different. I will admit, it's difficult. There's already the radio play, the wonderful Albert Finney film, and the bad Alfred Molina TV movie. The music here was very very good. This was a really worthy effort--excellent acting and the production value is extremely high.