Cards On The Table
Christery
Rhode Island, United States
What are people's opinion of this book? Although it's been a while since I've read it, I remember liking the fact that it had like 3 different endings - every time that it seemed that the murderer had been revealed and you said " Oh yes, I see it now!" Christie then pulled the rug out from under you and someone else was revealed to be the murderer! it was pretty cool how she did that.
Comments
I love this book it is definitely in my top 3 of Poirot books and top 10 of Agatha Christie books, I am not keen on some things left unanswered ITV did a HORRIBLE Adaptation I was so disappointed, It wasn't just that Anne was no longer a Killer, Race and Battle were replaced which was bad enough but The Motives were changed, Homosexuality was referred to in Agatha Christie's work but not in Cards On The Table, if A subject isn't tackled in a book it shouldn't be in the Adaptation IMHO, I would Love to buy the set one day on DVD but will never watch this one again
Poirot uses the score cards and asks questions of people about their style of play simply as a way of eliciting information with regards to the general character/mindset/psychology/demeanor of the person in question, helping him determine if he feels the crime was in their nature or not. We learn that Dr Roberts is outgoing and confident, a risk taker. Ann Meredith lacks confidence, but her scoring manner shows she has had to practice economy in life. Major Despard appears to be upstanding and honourable, and Mrs Lorrimer is a master of the game with a good memory for detail. All useful information.
I like the book very much (I like Ariadne Oliver) but the ITV/Suchet adaptation, where they rewrote the ending for their own purposes, is pretty appalling and a low point in an otherwise excellent series of films.
I am not a Bridge Player but I think it has to be Bridge that is Played because of the Symetry, and in Bridge the Four players have to Play North, East, South and West and that wouldn't work with other games, also in order for the Plot to work doesn't someone have to be away from the Table? and so no other game would work either because isn't the person who is 'Dummy' away from the Table which gives the Murderer the Perfect opportunity to Kill The Victim so no other Game would do as I see it, Snap or Rummy or Whist or Poker can have more than 4 Players unless it is to Player Bridge has to have 4 players and no more. I was really looking forward to seeing who was being Cast as Battle, That and the Lascivious Changes ruined it for me, I love most of the Series before and after it though and the episodes I don't like I like much more Than Cards On The Table
If The other books which mention Bridge Games were re-Written, I could see Scrabble being used instead, That would work, Sets have 4 Tile Holders don't they but wouldn't be any good for Cards On The Table because no-one HAS to be away
"A game like Trivial Pursuit wouldn't work because there is no strategy involved. It comes down to the luck of the dice. Whereas, in Bridge it comes down to how the cards are played. To play successful you need to focus on what's been played."
This may be true of how to play bridge, but we are concerned here with creating a suitable opportunity for the murderer to leave the table and murder Mr Shaitana. As such, any reasonably lively game would provide the opportunity, the risk of being seen committing the crime is no greater because it's not bridge. We know that the murder weapon would have "gone in like butter" so only a few seconds were needed, and in any game (just as with bridge), people leave the table. As Major Despard says, " I think every one of us, at one time or another, moved from the bridge table - either to get drinks or to put wood on the fire" Note that he does not say we were all dummy at some time and so all left the table. Opportunities to leave the game table unnoticed will arise in all games. At the time the book was written, bridge was a very popular game and one which I am sure AC herself enjoyed playing. She liked to include in her books things that she knew about (houses, literary quotations, places etc, ) so I'm sure it was natural to her to use that game. My point was, that in a modern adaptation the game played could just as easily be something more contemporary, such as Trivial Pursuit.
Your second paragraph, about the technicalities of the game of bridge and beginning " And knowledge of Bridge would be extremely helpful...." makes as little sense to me as a non bridge player as it did when AC wrote those words as part of Poirot's explanation of the crime in the final chapter of the book. Indeed, most of the technical descriptions of the game used throughout the book make no sense to me, but that has not stopped my enjoyment of the book, nor my understanding and acceptance of how the murderer managed to kill Mr Shaitana with three other people in the room, but nor has it given me a desire to learn how to play bridge!. Even so, 'Cards On The Table' remains one of my favourite Poirot stories.
Agatha Christie was neither shy nor particularly ambiguous about about writing gay or queer characters in her books. There are Miss Hinchcliffe & Miss Murgatroyd in 'A Murder is Announced', Mr Pye in 'The Moving Finger', Mr Ellsworthy in 'Murder is Easy', the fellow writer who her nephew Raymond West arranges to have house sit for her whilst she is away in 'A Caribbean Mystery' .....and probably several others I cannot currently recall. AC certainly does not leave things in her stories "wide open for interpretation" as you say. She is clear and precise in her writing. This is why when you get to the end of one of her books and discover who the murderer is, you can go back and actually find the specific clues and references that would have guided you to them at the time if you had only realised. There is no suggestion whatsoever in the book that Dr Roberts is gay or is having a relationship with a patient's husband. Dr Shepperd in ' The Murder of Roger Ackroyd' is a confirmed bachelor who lives with his sister - are we to assume that he is gay? Miss Marple's own regular doctor in St Mary Mead never makes any reference to a wife, what about him? Should we assume that every doctor in an AC book is gay, in some kind of motif?. If AC meant that Dr Roberts was gay, she would have made that clear to the reader since it would have raised whole new possibilities and perspectives on the crime. She is however, mistress of the art of subtlety in her stories and does not go around smacking the reader over the head with a piece of two by four to get her points and clues across like so many other (usually American) crime writers of the day and modern television scriptwriters seem to do.
Therefore, when you say that " Nick Dear, the screenwriter, didn't actually change anything. All he did was to expand (in a logical manner I might add) on the information in the book" I have to strongly disagree. He did not expand, he re-wrote. Further, you comment that " In Poirot and me, David Suchet said, "Cards on the Table is one of Dame Agatha's most original crimes, which our script reflected" I think the important point to note here is the use by Suchet of the word our!
Lastly, I come to your comment which I as a gay man find particularly offensive, namely "So what is truly appalling is homophobia and paranoia. One can infer from Mike's comment "their own purposes" that the screenwriters and producers are some private agenda. Maybe (heaven forbid) they even had a gay agenda. And through these adaptations they want to turn everyone in the world gay. If this idea wasn't so asinine it might actually be funny."
I really don't know where to start with this one. Are you saying that I (a gay man) am being both homophobic and paranoid? Are you suggesting that I thought the production company had some plan to make Agatha more queer friendly? Or are you saying that by making the murderer a gay man in the film, they were adding to the school of thought (that AC supposedly meant in the book but would not say outright) that somehow all gay men are inherently bad people?. Following Agatha's example of straightforwardness, and coming from Yorkshire where we call a spade a spade, I think that no one should ever need to infer anything from what I write. My comment regarding their own purposes refers to the fact that I believe television productions today seem to always feel the need to glamourise or sex things up when they are adapting stories from a previous era, and cannot let good stories stand for themselves. If AC managed to become the Queen of Crime and the world's best selling author by her own efforts, she does not need any help from some modern day television scriptwriters looking to make a name for themselves. Kevin Elyot, the out gay actor and writer who just recently died, scripted several of the Poirot and Miss Marple adaptations for ITV, including Curtain. Whilst they may not all have been perfect adaptations of the books, he certainly did not feel the need to introduce random elements of homosexuality into the stories where it did not exist. Some people may think that as a gay man I should be delighted at the way this adaptation twists the ending of the book. Far from it, I stand by my original statement that this was, for me, the low point of an otherwise high quality series of films. Changing the ending is what ruined the story.
I apologise for the long post, but a reply needed to be made.
I think you are wrong in a couple of points, Because of the time when Agatha Christie was writing she was obviously shy and ambiguous about Writing Gay Characters and this is obvious to me as I have had it pointed out to me that Miss Hinchcliffe, Miss Murgatroyd and Mr Pye were Gay and I am far from being the only one who didn't realise this, I think she did this because she didn't want to offend her more Traditional Readers who don't think this way and don't think it matters which it doesn't, I don't make a mental note who writes which Episodes as to me with The Series it is who is in front of the Camera and don't when it comes to Poirot and Marple Care who the Writers or Directors are but It has seemed to me that Cards On The Table and A Murder Is Announced were written to please The Gay Community and The Actual Book in relation to Cards On The Table seemed to be unimportant because with This Adaptation at Least it seemed to me ITV did have a "Gay Agenda" as you put it and I don't think I am the only one who felt that, If any broadcaster is going to buy the rights to a book they should do it the way the Original Writer wrote it which ITV chose to ignore to pander to a section of the Community who they could cater for with a Drama that isn't based on a Book which doesn't have Gay people in it and if they are going to put Gay Characters in an Adaptation of a book which doesn't have gay people at least they should do it sensitively like in Five Little Pigs
I really don't see how anyone could possibly not get from reading 'A Murder is Announced' the fact that the relationship between Miss Hinchcliffe and Miss Murgatroyd is that of two women who are lesbian partners, as opposed to the relationship between Miss Blacklok and Dora Bunner which is quite clearly that of friends/companions. Especially in AC's descriptions of Miss Hinchcliffe with her "corduroy slacks and battledress tunic", her "formidable grip" when shaking hands and the way Julia Simmons describes her as taking up "a manly stance" by the fireplace. To me that's neither shy nor ambiguous writing on Agatha's part. By 1950, when this book was written, many of her readers were no longer wide eyed innocents in matters of a sexual nature. WW2 changed many, many aspects of English country life.
Mike
I know a lot of people who have read the book and don't detect any idea of \Miss Hinchcliffe and Miss Murgatroyed being Gay, The bits you quote could be said about a woman I have met Women who I thought were Lesbians and Men who I thought were Gay and weren't, I admit you are right in some bits of your argument like the fact that after 1950 Agatha Christie's Readers weren't wide eyed Innocents but I sill stand by what I said about her writing of Gay Characters was Ambiguous because I think it was, we obviously mix in different circles or you know people who tell you what you want to here incase they offend you.
I repeat the first line of my original comment on this thread.
"I don't think that having any knowledge of how to play Bridge is at all important to the enjoyment of the book, and I don't think Bridge players have an advantage over non-Bridge players in solving the crime".
Do you play Bridge yourself, or have knowledge of how the game works? and if so, did you yourself therefore spot the murderer by chapter 6 when the score cards are shown in the book? Or are you just re-iterating the opinons of others? I don't play Bridge, but I managed to work out who the murderer was the first time I read the book. Possibly though, that was because it was one of the last Poirot stories which I got to read and so I was perhaps more attuned to how Christie's mind was working by that point. I have to say I'm certainly not particularly clever when it comes to solving the problems Christie sets for her readers, and this was one of the few times I have guessed the murderer correctly.
"An affair between two men is no different than an affair between a man and a woman"
You can't have it both ways by claiming this to be the case and then arguing that making the character of Dr Roberts a homosexual strengthened his motive for murder. Firstly, an affair between two members of the same sex remains as unacceptable today in many parts of the world (around 80 countries and 13 American states I believe?) as it was in England back in the 1930's. Presumably as a heterosexual, possibly white and am guessing almost certainly male resident of the USA discrimination of any form is something you have limited experience of? Secondly, Dr Roberts did not need any strengthening of his motive for murder. If his crimes were made public he would be at best ruined and at worst hung.
"And there have been quite a few self-loathing homosexuals over the years"
Yes, there most certainly have been, but a self-loathing homosexual and a closeted homosexual are not the same thing. One is trying strongly to deny his sexual feelings even to himself, whilst the other could be a perfectly well adjusted man simply trying not to get arrested. You mention as an example of a self-loathing gay man Roy Cohn, but not the persistent rumours surrounding his boss (Sen Joe McCarthy) and J Edgar Hoover. The ruin those two men brought to so many lives and careers is far greater than that wrought by any openly gay man.
"Along with making Poirot much more religious than he ever was in the stories. There is no difference between changing a characters's sexual orientation or expanding or as you might say "re-writting" the religious aspect of a character."
There is a VAST difference between changing someone's sexual orientation and expanding on their already stated religious beliefs, whether that is in real life or in a novel. In real life, in many countries as I have already stated, the first can bring the accused into court, to prison and possibly even to their death. In a novel, and in much more simplistic and harmless terms, it can change the outcome of a story.
I do not know for certain who the Anna is that you refer to when you lifted your quote about 'The Chocolate Box'. I don't actually think you know to whom you are referring here, but I presume you mean the actress Anna Chancellor who starred alongside him in the adaptation? Whilst she may play the character on film who gives him the lapel button holder, I think you will find that a little more thorough research will show you that the item in question was actually the idea of (and was gift from) the costume designer at the time, and has got nothing to do with either David Suchet or the scriptwriter allowing for character development.
"The man who calls a spade a spade should be compelled to use one."
Oscar Wilde I believe, in the 'The Picture of Dorian Gray'. A quote from before his own downfall from public favour and subsequent imprisonment and someone who (may I guess like yourself) has never had occasion to use one in anger! Here's two more of Oscar's for you:
" Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation"
" Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go"
"Certain phrases get up my nose. Although the origin of calling a spade a spade is not offensive in itself, its use as an ethnic slur since the early 20th century has made it quite offensive".
The term spade may in the USA be construed as an ethnic slur, but the USA is not the only country in the world that speaks a version of the English language. What a word or phrase means in one country is very different to what it means in another. Do not misappropriate someone else's language and then have the temerity to criticise them for using it in it's original context.
To enlighten you, and anyone else who may be labouring under the misguided notion that the quote I referred to was a racist one, where I come from (Yorkshire, northern England) the term means as follows;
Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (1913)
Whilst there is some debate about who actually said it first, the following quotation could not be more apt;" England and America are two countries divided by a common language"
The only difference between a relationship between a man and a woman and a relationship between two men is hat society sadly made the latter illegal and sadly in some parts of the world it still is and the fact that in parts ofd the world it is still illegal is morally wrong,
By Making The Doctor Homosexual and the Catupulted Battle Replacement a Closet Homosexual he changed the Complection of the story and not only weakened the Character but did nothing to helps Gay people if you can change a story so you can hep a part of society you are bound to just like having Positive discrimination or quotas ruins things for Disabled people and Woman.
No S Siegerson I am not saying that by giving Poirot a female love interest the Writers weren't pandering to the straight community because that is how The Chocolate box and the relationship with Countess Rossakoff was written by a Writer who was writing in a time when she was writing in a more Traditional era, All Changes to a Book when adapted for Television should be sympathetic to the book and the loyal Fans who want it done as close to the Original as possible, I don't think ITV did that with Cards On The Table, they could have been more subtle.
I am a Disabled Man of Yorkshire Parentage.
1) Change the sexuality of one murderer (Dr Roberts), reduce the number of murders he has already committed to just one, and also change the motive for that murder.
2) Change the sexuality (and then, by necessity, have to change the actual character of ) the policeman. This has to be done in order to be able make up the fake evidence which is needed to coerce the now homosexual murderer into a confession of his crime. ie make the heterosexual Superintendent Battle (a character we already know, and who is married with children) into the one off Superintendent Wheeler and then create incriminating photographs of Wheeler and another man which you then use as a bluff to make Dr Roberts think they are of him and Mr Craddock. So now we have four homosexual characters (Dr Roberts, Mr Craddock, Superintendent Wheeler and his unnamed bed partner) where in the book there are none.
3) Swap the second murderer and her companion around (Rhoda Dawes becomes the second murderer instead of Anne Meredith).
4) Change the budding relationship between Rhoda and Major Despard into one between Anne Meredith and Despard, in order to create a motive for making Rhoda Dawes a murderer in the first place.
4) Create a totally fictitious mother-daughter relationship between Anne Meredith and Mrs Lorrimer
5) Do not then kill Mrs Lorrimer, because due to all these changes that have already been made, the first murderer (Dr Roberts) no longer has any reason to kill her.
6) Make Mr Shaitana into a drug dealer who supposedly no longer wishes to live. So have him take sleeping pills that evening in order to make it easier/less painful for him to die. So that's a murder committed with a victim's knowledge and co-operation. In other words, assisted suicide.
and despite all of this, you maintain that the scriptwriters merely "expanded" upon Agatha's story? The adaptation is as false as Achille Poirot! Further, it is as far removed removed from the novel (and as poor in quality) as was the introduction of Miss Marple into the adaptation of 'The Pale Horse' and several other stories.
"I re-watched Cards on the Table and realized my argument is somewhat flawed." .....at least we agree on something.
" If Shaitana knew not only about the affair that was still going on and that Dr. Roberts had also murdered Mrs. Craddock then Shaitana would have been a real and serious threat to Dr. Roberts". ......Shaitana already IS a real and serious threat to Dr Roberts. He knows he is a murderer.!
"I don't find the characters all that interesting......... if you or anyone else reads Cards on the Table or any other Agatha Christie for the characters then you would probably feel differently about the characters." ....each to his own, but in all honesty what's the point of reading a book if not for the character's in it? Otherwise, why not just read a precis on a book review website and have done with it?. Then you wouldn't need to be bothered with any of Poirot's little idiosyncrasies, or Miss Marple's 'old pussy' habits and knowing comments, or Sherlock Holmes random and brilliant pieces of deduction based on things like how far the parsley sank into the butter, or Insp Morse's love for classical music and real ale. How very, very sad.