Yes Mike, Doctor Roberts Sexuality is changed, Yes Anne Meredith and Rhoda Dawes are swapped over, You forgot also that Colonel Race is absent and in his Place is another Colonel (Hughes I Think), I don't know about the other changed because I have only watched the whole Adaptation once, the other times the furthest I have got is Ariadne telling Poirot who everyone is and as ITV seem To have lost the rights to Poirot to a subscription Channel I won't get a chance to look again but I wouldn't anyway.
I agree with you Wholeheartedly, what is the point of reading a Book if you don 't like the Characters, after reading each Christie Book once I return to others because I like The Plot and a lot of the Characters,
S. Siegerson When you make such Dramatic Changes especially when it comes to The Sexuality of Characters you are bound to change the Complexion and Feel of the book, you have my sympathy if you think the Writer of an Adaptation does a better job than the person whose work they are adapting, What the Writer of Cards On The Table did was Odd, Unnecessary and I actually found what The Writer did was quite Cruel I can accept that if James Fox who had played Colonel Race in Death On The Nile was unavailable The writers thought we would use the opportunity to change Battle and Race for others and keep Poirot and Ariadne as they are in others but NONE of the other Changes added anything and I would say Discreditted the series and gave Adaptations of Books a bad name, I can understand that stories might be changed because of time restraints or because the stories are not long enough but to change so much was WRONG!!! IMHO
I believe reducing the number of murders has been done before in several adaptations. Christie herself did this when she adapted several of her books for the stage. She even complained about having to add the perfunctory murder or two. It had something to do with the minimum number of words in a book that her publishers insisted upon.
2)
In there anything wrong with having four homosexual characters in an adaptation? And does the fact a man is married with children stop him from being a homosexual? Especially considering the time period we are talking about. Heavens no. Speaking of which, there is a really good film called Far From Heaven staring Julianne Moore that explores this exact theme. The film takes place in a middle class home in waspy Connecticut US. It also explores racism and the taboo (at the time) of interracial relationships in American society. The publisher Malcolm Forbes was homosexual, married with children. I'm using him an example because he was born in 1919.
3)
This was necessary dues to the re-working of the plot/story. This has happened in all the adaptations to some degree, especially with the short stories. Some of which have been totally re-worked. I don't see people reacting so vehemently in those cases.
4)
There wasn't time for Major Depsard and Rhoda Dawes to form any kind of meaningful relationship. It would have been preposterous for them to go off at the thens to live happily ever after. It makes more sense to have the gallant Major Despard come to the aid of a damsel in distress i.e. Anne Meredith. Quite romantic and sweet. Could the honorable and respectable Major go off with a murderess? I think not.
5)
As I explained in a 90 minute mystery there just wasn't enough time to stage a second murder. Especially, when considering the one in the book is somewhat quite elaborate. As is Cards on the Table is a nicely paced mystery. It unfolds splendidly.
6)
I don't remember this part. All we know is Shaitana is a mysterious figure (adds to the drama and excitement) with a lot of money. As Poirot says, he is one of the riches man in London. You can't say with certainty that is a drug dealer or anything else. Besides what's wrong with drugs and drug dealers. If memory serves there is drug dealer in Peril at End House. And drugs - cocaine specifically, figure prominently in the short story and adaptation The Affair at the Victory Ball.
If Shaitana was tired of life....why not....
Alexander Siddig does an excellent job capturing the mysterious and flamboyant Shaitana from the book.
and despite all this, you maintain that the screenwriters merely "expanded" upon Agatha's story?....
Yes, I do. Cards on the Table the novel and the adaptation are close in plot, tone, and most importantly cleverness. A lot of the dialogue is taken directly from the book including lines for Dr. Roberts. Once again Dr. Robert's sexuality is never actually mentioned in the book. Thanks to Nick Dear's writing and Alex Jenning's excellent performance the Dr. Roberts from the adaptation is pretty darn close to the one I read in the book. It is an copy carbon of the book? Of course not. Nor could it ever be. But it is faithful (as best as it could be given a multitude of reasons) and sympathatic to Agatha Christie's book? In all honesty, yes.
To compare an excellent adaptation like Cards on the Table with the not so good The Pale Horse is simply laughable. I might add, and not because of the inclusion of Miss. Marple. It was just plain terrible because of the changes to storyline, the writing and some of the acting. Not the case with Cards on the Table which has all the right ingredients for a great and entertaining mystery.
Finally, yes i do think a lot of Agatha Christie's characters are two-dimensional and simply stoke characters with no depth. Every now and then...for example in Ebdless Night...she does create a character with individuality and depth. However, in most of her mysteries it is all about he plot/puzzle. That was where her strengthen lay.
I never said I don't like the characters, but I do read Agatha Christie because of the plots. They are good entertaining mysteries. Though rarely do I remember the individual characters. For me, they tend to blend together. There are exemptions of course. For example. Lady Angkatell in The Hollow. She was so outrageous (and quite entertaining) it is difficult to forget her. And I admit there are a few others I remember. However, I can understand those who might have a difference reading experience.
Now that I think of it there were probably more than four homosexuals. There were of course Dr. Roberts, Superintendent Wheeler, Dr. Craddock and Serge Mureau (the photographer). But it is possible some of the waiters at Shaitana's party were also homosexual, as well as Serge's two little cherubs (the two two guys he was taken a photo of when Poirot visited his studio). I have absolutely no problem with homosexuality, so it didn't both me in the least. I thought it was rather cute when Serge tells Poirot, "had I known such a handsome man would be coming to pick up the photographs." The look on Poirot's face was priceless.. The poor man really didn't know what to do. And it was offensive in the least. It was simply comical. Scenes like this one and the ones between Poirot and Mrs. Oliver added some light comedy, thus making Cards on the Tables just a little bit more entertaining.
1) Agatha managed to kill of ten people in one book! I don't think publishers word limits has much to do with it.
2) Including homosexuals in the adaptation wrong? As a gay man I would say a definite no. Including homosexuals in this adaptation pointless? - a definite yes.
3) Precisely! So they should have just left Agatha's original (and superior) plot alone. The reason why this adaptation stands out as being so poor amongst the other ITV Poirot's is because they made so many changes that they re-wrote the whole story. In other adaptations in the series the changes were far less wide ranging. The exception to this being 'The Labours Of Hercules', where clearly it was impossible for them to fit everything into 90 minutes, but could have easily have done so over two, or even three episodes. Mind you, 'The Labours.." is still a far better adaptation than this was.
4) There was as much time for Major Despard to fall in love with Rhoda as with Anne. Have you actually read the book? am beginning to think not. I appreciate you don't read books for the characters in them, but it seems to me you've ignored everything about all of them in this one. Major Despard manages to do exactly the same in the film as in the book ie rescue a damsel in distress and fall in love. The romance in this is down to Agatha, not ITV. The point is, it's a different character he rescues. The swapping of Rhoda and Anne in the adaptation was needed to cover up the weaknesses in the plot the scriptwriters had made for themselves due to all their changes.
5) Several 90 minute Poirot films have more than one murder. The current book of the month, ' The ABC Murders' is an obvious example. And the first murder shown in the adaptation of 'Cards On The Table' is far from elaborate, it's probably one of the simplest murders ever committed, just like the final murder in ABC. As to the murder of Mrs Lorrimer being too elaborate and not enough time in the film? I disagree.
6) And also in 'Lord Edgeware Dies' and others. It's not about the rights or wrongs of having drugs and drug dealers in the adaptations. In the stories you quote they are an integral part of Christie's original plot. It's about making characters into something they are not, in order to make them fit your newly written (and highly inferior) script.
I have made no reference to the quality of the acting in the adaptations. Indeed I agree that the character of Mr Shaitana was very well portrayed by the actor in question. My criticism has never been of the acting, just of the writing. You feel that this adaptation was "faithful (as best as it could be given a multitude of reasons) and sympathetic" and that it was "close in plot" to the novel. I think it was very far removed from having any of these attributes. You describe a scene between Poirot and the photographer as " It was simply comical."........I would apply that phrase to the whole adaptation.
I apologise for saying you didn't like the plots that was unforgivable, in wanting to comment on your post I found I had to go backwards and forwards and eventually gave up and used my memory inaccurately as it happens.
I quite often remember Characters but I agree some characters in one book are a lot like the Character in another book, From What I remember Alex Jennings played the Doctor well and accurately prt from the obvious change about sexuality which I still maintain was unnecessary and Changed The whole Texture of The Character and went in part towards changing The Texture of the book as Texture Is the word I should have used last time not Complction,
I honestly think you read The book the way you want to not the way it appears in Print and perhaps you do this with others, which is what Peope sometimes do when they are adapting a book for the screen.
The Adaptation had "Most" of The Characters in the Book and was close in Plot at times when the Writer when it seemed to me there was no alternative, but Mike is right in my Opinion it was simply Comical or it would be if the Adaptation hadn't IMHO Horrible
We are never likely to agree on this book/adaptation, since we obviously both approach Christie's work from very different angles. I think this is a positive thing, however, since if everyone's likes and dislikes were the same then think how boring things would be on here (and indeed in life in general!). From the point of view of someone who looks for a good plot over in depth characters, I would be interested to know which (if any) of the ITV adaptions you dislike. Are there any who's plot just doesn't cut the mustard for you?
Murder In Mesopotamia positively bounces in to mind plot-wise like no other Poirot Book if you are talking Just Poirot Books and The Hollow is Average. If it comes to Miss Marple Books then They Do it Wit Mirrors Plot-wise, but of the others I am not keen on Endless Night Plot-wise and execution or Passenger To Frankfurt which is the only Christie book I read from Cover to Cover without having the faintest Idea what was happening, some of the books are so much like another, I don't like The Quin Books either and the only saving grace to the short stories where Parker Pyne is not in his office is that the Central Character isn't Mr Quin and as someone who doesn't care for Supernatural Stories, I find them boring too, I have a Cassette called The Call of Wings on it are 4 stories one being S.O.S. another being The Dressmaker's Doll, of the four on the tape I don't like any.
It doesn't have to be a choice between Plot and Depth of Characters and in fact I think who is a Character with depth might be someone else's least favourite Character, apart from detesting Mr Quin and his Companion I don't much like Colonel Race and think he is saved by Death On The Nile, I don't like Raymond Wes or his Girlfriend/Wife or woman who tells the Bungalow story.
Its in her autobiography. She does complain about the demand from her publishers to get her books up to a certain word count., thus the addition of a murder or two in some of the books. And you haven't proven anything with your example. It had no relevance to what I said. People usually do this when they can't come up with a good counter-argument.
Yes, I have read the book...several times in fact. My point still stands. Rhoda is not involved in the actual murder. She isn't on the spot when the crime is committed. In order to create a believable relationship between her and the major you would need to develop a separate sub-lot similar to the one in the book. This would of course take time away from the actually committing of the murder and the follow-up investigation. This is a murder mystery, not a romance/love story. The focus should always be on the mystery. The switch was a logical and reasonable change given the time constraints of a television adaptation.
Shaitana's background is left vague leaving a plenty of room for further character development. Besides, according to your reasoning the screenwriters were wrong when they gave Poirot a love interest. Yet, I don't see you or anyone else strongly objecting to this change.
Cards on the Table is structured differently than The A.B.C. Murders. For one thing, In Cards on the Table there are more in-depth one on one interviews (time consuming I might add) between the detectives and the suspects that are vital to the story/plot. There are other differences as well. Comparing the two books is like comparing apples to oranges. No, I don't buy your argument the lead-up, staging and follow-up of the murder of Mrs. Lorrimer would not have been possible. Not only would the murder of Mrs. Lorrimer have felt rushed, but it would've thrown off the entire pacing of the mystery. And unlike in The A.B.C. Murders were all the murders are essential/necessary to the plot, Mrs. Lorrimer's murder is not. The only purpose of her death was as a vehicle for Poirot to catch the murder. This was done quite admirably by the compromising photographs in the television adaptation.
What I find bizarre is in an earlier post you said, "It could have been Snap! or Happy Families they were playing, the game itself is of no importance other than as a reason to get all the characters together. In a modern adaptation I think you could use something like 'Trivial Pursuit' to the same effect." One of the key and vital aspects of Cards on the Table is the game of Bridge. It provides a heck a lot of the dialogue. Without it you would need to jettison a hefty chuck of source material from the book. Poirot uses the score cards used in Bridge as a pretext to go around interviewing the subjects. And the score cards provide valuable in-insight into the minds of the suspects. What you suggest would ruin Cards on the Table. So, I'm somewhat bewildered about your criticism of the Nick Dear's changes and why you have gone to great lengths to ripe apart every single one of the my arguments about why the changes work, when you yourself propose ripping the guts out of Cards on the Table.
Nick Dear kept all the vital elements: four detectives, four suspects, a murder committed in plain sight in front of four people with the detectives in the next room, same murder method (a stiletto through the heart), same murder victim, same card game (central to the plot), an illicit love affair between the murderer and one of his patients. He kept the most important aspects that make Cards on the Table such a clever mystery. He built and expanded on these key characteristics to create a fun, entertaining, and well-crafter murder mystery that pays sincere homage to the course material it was based on.
I find Marple a little bit uneven. There seem to be more hit and misses with this series then there are with Poirot. I liked the first season very much and part of the second season. The only one I wasn't thrilled with in the second season was was The Sittaford Mystery. As a stand alone mystery I didn't enjoy it very much....not terrible, just not one of my favorites. And it definitely lost a lot of the tone and atmosphere that you find in the book. Once again you need a screenwriter who can spot what makes the mystery great....keep those parts and go from there. The BBC Radio play of The Sittaford Mystery with Stephen Tompkinson is quite good. Well worth listening to. Since then it has been back and form between liking and disliking. The latest one I saw, Endless Night I thought was not great. Miss. Marple popping up everywhere including Rome I thought was a little unbelievable. She seemed to have had an extended stay (with a recently widowed friend...although after a year I don't see how she be a recently widowed) in a village. Miss. Marple must have been in this village for at least a year or two because one house is demolished and another is built in its place. And I doubt even in the 1950s contractors worked all that quickly Nor are we talking about a wee cottage either. During time she is away I've no idea who was looking after her garden. Unless she just keeps popping back and fourth between St. Mary Mead and this village. Give up much popping around she does in this that might be possible. There were other times when she would inexplicable be in a place that the main character Michael happened to be in. You get the impression Miss. Marple might have become a stalker. And the ending....all I can say is Miss. Marple must be in pretty damn good shape. Now is it possible Miss. Maple could've been integrated better in the story? Possibly, I'm not so sure. But the structure of in Endless Night is not your traditional Miss. Marple or Hercule Poirot story where there is a crime committed and they come to investigate. So it might actually be impossible or nearly so to incorporate Miss. Marple into the storyline- at least convincingly. In general I have no objection to placing Miss. Marple in non-Miss. Marple stories, but sometimes it just doesn't seem to work very well. She was totally out of place in Why Didn't They Ask Evans. The writing and plot changes were just too strange. There was nothing of the fun light heartiness adventure of Bobby and Frankie that you find in the book. Even based on its own merits without even taking the book into consideration it is pretty bad. A third and final example of an adaptation that I did not like is The Pale Horse. For starters it really does need to be set in the 1960s. Whether or not Christie quite captured the atmosphere of the 60s accurately is debatable. However, she gave it a go and in my opinion did a good job. Second you need Mark Easterbrook as the main character. It's his story. You could place Miss. Marple in the story, but only in a minor role like the role Mrs. Oliver plays in the book. All the vital elements that make the book so good are missing in the Marple adaptation. The three supposed witches are unconvincing. There is no menace. The one scene reminded me of one of those mystery dinner theater events. What happened to the three strange and creepy women who are believed to be witches living in foreboding an ex-coaching inn called The Pale Horse. Instead we have three extremely turned out ladies living in what I consider an extremely posh, beautifully maintained B&B. Some shady bookies would also have been nice too. I can only think they were trying to keep the production costs down by having everything take place in this wonderful and very cosy inn called The Pale Horse. And the "Kanga.....oh my Roo" scene is beyond words. If the writing would have been better I might have liked it on its own, but I just couldn't get into it. I don't think it was god awful terrible, but it definitely did lack what I found most interesting and entertaining the in the book.
Now out the more recent ones that I've enjoyed are Greenshaw's Folly and The Blue Geranium.
I have always struggled with The Hollow, either with or without Poirot. I find the story boring and some of the characters (especially Lucy Angkatell) at times unreadable.
I like Endless Night, but didn't the first time I read it and I agree entirely re 'Passenger To Frankfurt' (although it's fractionally above 'Postern Of Fate' for me). I also find 'The Call of Wings' an extremely strange story.
"She
does complain about the demand from her publishers to get her books up
to a certain word count., thus the addition of a murder or two in some
of the books. And you haven't proven anything with your example. It had no relevance to what I said."
You originally wrote that "I believe reducing the number of murders has been done before in several
adaptations." Make your mind up!. If you cannot follow your own arguments, how are we supposed to? I said that removing the number of murders in this case does not strengthen Dr Roberts motive for killing Shaitana, and further that in 90 minutes it was possible to film one book with 10 murders. I don't see how that statement is either irrelevant or a "poor counter argument".
"..according to your reasoning the screenwriters were wrong when they gave
Poirot a love interest. Yet, I don't see you or anyone else strongly
objecting to this change." What love interest? Poirot has always in deep admiration of the Countess Rosakoff, but I would hardly consider that a love interest and I don't remember any love interest being particularly created or played up on screen. The brief flicker of emotions shown in 'The Chocolate Box' is faithful to the original story.
"in The A.B.C. Murders were all the murders are essential/necessary to the plot, Mrs. Lorrimer's murder is not." Since Mrs Lorrimer has, for her own reasons, confessed to the murder of Shaitana, Dr Roberts kills her and makes it look like suicide so that it will (he hopes) bring the investigation to an end and he will be off the hook. Fairly necessary I would have thought. Since after this murder he feels sure of his escaping the noose, Roberts is now far more off guard at the time of Poirot's final revelation. This is one of the reasons he caves in when he hears the window cleaner's 'evidence' rather than blustering it out. As such, her murder is far more essential to the plot than the final ABC murder.
"Poirot uses the score cards used in Bridge as a pretext"......."the score cards provide valuable in-insight into the minds of the suspects" Which is exactly what I originally said - it's a pretext used to gain insight!. What game they are playing is not the "guts" of the book. " The focus should always be on the mystery" you say, and I agree. But by your argument the focus in this book is on the game of bridge at the expense of the mystery, and thus Poirot could have been replaced by any good bridge player who would apparently have been able to solve the murder by simply looking at the score cards!
"and why you have gone to great lengths to ripe apart every single one of the my arguments" I haven't gone to any great lengths, it's been fairly easy. If your arguments were sound there would not be any evidence to contradict them with and this discussion would never have taken place.
As I said before, we obviously approach Christie's work from opposing angles and as such are never going to agree. I prefer accuracy in plot and detail and a faithfulness to an original story, especially when in most cases the original story cannot be improved upon. But then I tend to prefer novels to television adaptations in general. You prefer adaptations that are " fun, entertaining, and well-crafter murder mystery" Each to his/her own.
First off this is what I originally said, "I believe reducing the number of murders has been done before in several adaptations. Christie herself did this when she adapted several of her books for the stage. She even complained about having to add the perfunctory murder or two. It had something to do with the minimum number of words in a book that her publishers insisted upon." You responded with, "Agatha managed to kill of ten people in one book! I don't think publishers word limits has much to do with it." I then pointed out she said this in her autobiography. You then used the film? And Then There Were None as an example because it had multiple murders in it. However, And Then There Were None is structured differently than Cards on the Table. Just like as I pointed out that The A.B.C. Murders is structured differently from Cards on the Table. There is no one universal formula for adapting these Agatha Christie's books for television. All because something works for one adaptation doesn't mean it will work in another. You argument doesn't hold water. And yes in many of her books the 2nd, 3rd murders are perfunctory because Christie needed a way to get the book up to the minimum number of word required by her publisher.
On the contrary the game they are playing is the nuts and bolts of the mystery. You need all the
trappings of Bridge (the scoring which necessities score cards, bidding which necessities a dummy hand) in order for the murder to happen and in order for Poirot to solve the murder. And Poirot being Poirot probably is an excellent Bridge player so there is no need for anyone to replace him. You are the one who suggested any old game, such as Trivia Pursuit would do. Trivia Pursuit would not work. Considering you prefer accuracy in plot and detail and a faithfulness to an original story, I find it strange that you would even propose such an idea.
What love interest? Read the short story The Chocolate Box and watch the television adaptation. You clearly have one character who is not interested in sex at all (in the book) and one who is clearly heterosexual (in the adaptation). The same holds true for the Countess. Yes, in the book it is clearl Poirot simple admires her in the platonic sense. However, is it quite clear Poirot is in love with her in the television adaptation The Double Clue. And even regrets not have a family......wife, kids etc. Doesn't Miss. Lemon or somebody even point this out....
Wrong. All the murders committed in The A.B.C. Murders are necessary to the plot. Whereas, in Cards on the Table the murder of Mrs. Lorrimer is not necessary to plot. It doesn't matter how you get Dr. Roberts to confess. All that matters is you do get him to confess. Mrs. Lorrimer's murder like the compromising photographs are simply vehicles to get Dr. Roberts to confess. And whether one scenario is better than other is moot. It doesn't in the least take away from my argument that the changes were reasonable and logical and in no way harm the plot/mystery.
Yes you have you gone out of your way to shoot down every single one of my ideas. My arguments are sound. Anyone can come up with a counter-argument. However, that doesn't mean those counter-arugments are any good.
And yes plebeians like myself..like fun, entertaining, and well-crafted murder mysteries.
I want to clarify one point I mentioned earlier. The only difference between a gay man or woman and their straight counterparts is who they choice to love. As we have discovered gay men and women share the same needs and wants as straight people. They want to get married. Some even want to have children and raise a family. This is what I meant when I said sexual orientation does not define who we are. Nick Dear uses the same character traits, motivation and dialogue for Dr. Roberts that is found in the book. The only difference is Dr. Roberts in the adaptations happens to love men, not women. He still acts the same, speaks the same and has the same motivation you find in the book. This being said, in no way does this disqualify or lessen my argument that the homosexual elements do strengthen the mystery since since homosexual relations were illegal at this time.
You claim by making Dr. Roberts homosexual you are changing the character. My argument says otherwise. And regrettably people have used the excuse that somehow gay people are different then straight people to deny gay people equal rights or to say somehow they are "abnormal". I don’t like discrimination.
"I
want to clarify one point I mentioned earlier. The only difference
between a gay man or woman and their straight counterparts is who they
choice to love."
I am presuming you are heterosexual? correct me if I'm wrong. I say this because only a heterosexual, however well meaning, could claim this as the only difference. Speaking as a gay man your comment is not only simplistic but idealistic in the extreme. Most heterosexual people have never had to live in fear of their choice of love being discovered resulting in potential ostracism from colleagues, friends or family. Most heterosexual people have never had to think twice about walking in public hand in hand with their chosen partner. Most heterosexual people have never had to lie about, deny or otherwise cover up their sexuality in virtually every conversation they have on a daily basis because they do not know how the person they are talking to will react. Most heterosexual people do not have the experience of opening the daily newspaper to read, yet again, about how they are thought of by society as disgusting perverts because some heterosexual child abuser has struck. Most heterosexual people have never had to listen to the derogatory jokes and banter of people around them in the workplace based entirely upon their sexual preferences. Most heterosexual people have never had to deal, in times of critical illness, with their partners relatives (as next of kin in the eyes of the law) taking control of affairs, deciding on treatments, deciding on funeral arrangements and taking over the deceased partner's assets including the family home. The last happened to a very dear friend of mine, not that many years ago.
Living in a world where these attitudes are displayed, in 2014 just as much as in days gone by, colours your entire attitude to life and the people around you. Gay people have a very different sense of their identity based on this history of persecution and their own life experiences. It is no surprise that some became self-loathing, denying their true selves in order to try to fit in with society's demands.
Some gay people want to be able to marry, but just as many do not wish to. I am neither religious nor wish to live my life aping heterosexual society. I do not need a piece of paper from, or the affirmation of, someone who represents a religion that has persecuted "my people" for centuries to tell me that suddenly It's ok to have a same sex life partner. I can make that decision for myself thank you very much, and my partner and I have been very happy for the past 18 years without needing such 'blessing'. If there is a God, he can judge me at the pearly gates. Some gay people want children, either biologically or by surrogacy/adoption. Just as many do not. The point is, homosexual people should be just as free to make these life choices as heterosexual ones are.
Whilst in the eyes of the law it is gradually beginning to be seen in more and more countries as being fit and proper that there should be no difference or discrimination between heterosexual and homosexual people, in the eyes of the majority of society it is not so. All people in loving relationships should have the same rights and freedoms, be allowed to marry, have children, have the same pension, financial and decision making abilities as each other regardless of their race, creed, colour, gender or sexual orientation. And be allowed to make these choices for themselves.
Introducing homosexuality as a random plot device without foundation in the basic story, in order to make a television adaptation more appealing/shocking/titivating or contemporary to the viewing audience is yet another example (even in such a very small way) of the ongoing discrimination faced by gay men and women every day. It's using homosexuality to suit someone else's purposes, whilst still not bothering to show ANY of the homosexual characters as normal average well-adjusted people because that's not sufficiently viewable. Superintendant Wheeler could just as easily have replaced Battle and been shown in a loving, committed (though not publicly known about) non-adulterous same sex relationship to balance out the excesses of the others. But no, the homosexual characters must be adulterers (Roberts and Craddock), promiscous (Wheeler), murderers (Roberts) or black mailers (Shaitana).
There are many differences between heterosexual and homosexual people, not just the sex of the person that they love. I don't like discrimination any more than you do, but I have lived with it on a daily basis for my entire life.
You are right in saying about all the things The Adaptation kept but changing the role of the2 girls muddied things and contributed to an Adaptation which was made a Hash of.
S_Seigerson we wilhave to agree to disagree about Passenger To Frakfurt being better than Postern of Fate, The thought of someone putting a gun to my head or being stranded on an Island with only Passenger to Frankfurt fills me with Dread but then the same can be said of Endless Night, Death Comes As The End, Murder In Mesopotamia and Sparkling Cyanide, but those circumstances thankfully will never happen but If I HAD to read one of those it WOULD NOT be Passenger To Frankfurt.
I can't remember if I have said this sorry if I have but It has to be Bridge that is used both because of the enforced Symmetry and because at some point someone has to be away from the Table, I can't see the two ladies Playing Poker and sitting out a hand and you can have more than 4 for Poker so it has to be Bridge
Comments
Yes Mike, Doctor Roberts Sexuality is changed, Yes Anne Meredith and Rhoda Dawes are swapped over, You forgot also that Colonel Race is absent and in his Place is another Colonel (Hughes I Think), I don't know about the other changed because I have only watched the whole Adaptation once, the other times the furthest I have got is Ariadne telling Poirot who everyone is and as ITV seem To have lost the rights to Poirot to a subscription Channel I won't get a chance to look again but I wouldn't anyway.
I agree with you Wholeheartedly, what is the point of reading a Book if you don 't like the Characters, after reading each Christie Book once I return to others because I like The Plot and a lot of the Characters,
S. Siegerson When you make such Dramatic Changes especially when it comes to The Sexuality of Characters you are bound to change the Complexion and Feel of the book, you have my sympathy if you think the Writer of an Adaptation does a better job than the person whose work they are adapting, What the Writer of Cards On The Table did was Odd, Unnecessary and I actually found what The Writer did was quite Cruel I can accept that if James Fox who had played Colonel Race in Death On The Nile was unavailable The writers thought we would use the opportunity to change Battle and Race for others and keep Poirot and Ariadne as they are in others but NONE of the other Changes added anything and I would say Discreditted the series and gave Adaptations of Books a bad name, I can understand that stories might be changed because of time restraints or because the stories are not long enough but to change so much was WRONG!!! IMHO
1) Agatha managed to kill of ten people in one book! I don't think publishers word limits has much to do with it.
2) Including homosexuals in the adaptation wrong? As a gay man I would say a definite no. Including homosexuals in this adaptation pointless? - a definite yes.
3) Precisely! So they should have just left Agatha's original (and superior) plot alone. The reason why this adaptation stands out as being so poor amongst the other ITV Poirot's is because they made so many changes that they re-wrote the whole story. In other adaptations in the series the changes were far less wide ranging. The exception to this being 'The Labours Of Hercules', where clearly it was impossible for them to fit everything into 90 minutes, but could have easily have done so over two, or even three episodes. Mind you, 'The Labours.." is still a far better adaptation than this was.
4) There was as much time for Major Despard to fall in love with Rhoda as with Anne. Have you actually read the book? am beginning to think not. I appreciate you don't read books for the characters in them, but it seems to me you've ignored everything about all of them in this one. Major Despard manages to do exactly the same in the film as in the book ie rescue a damsel in distress and fall in love. The romance in this is down to Agatha, not ITV. The point is, it's a different character he rescues. The swapping of Rhoda and Anne in the adaptation was needed to cover up the weaknesses in the plot the scriptwriters had made for themselves due to all their changes.
5) Several 90 minute Poirot films have more than one murder. The current book of the month, ' The ABC Murders' is an obvious example. And the first murder shown in the adaptation of 'Cards On The Table' is far from elaborate, it's probably one of the simplest murders ever committed, just like the final murder in ABC. As to the murder of Mrs Lorrimer being too elaborate and not enough time in the film? I disagree.
6) And also in 'Lord Edgeware Dies' and others. It's not about the rights or wrongs of having drugs and drug dealers in the adaptations. In the stories you quote they are an integral part of Christie's original plot. It's about making characters into something they are not, in order to make them fit your newly written (and highly inferior) script.
I have made no reference to the quality of the acting in the adaptations. Indeed I agree that the character of Mr Shaitana was very well portrayed by the actor in question. My criticism has never been of the acting, just of the writing. You feel that this adaptation was "faithful (as best as it could be given a multitude of reasons) and sympathetic" and that it was "close in plot" to the novel. I think it was very far removed from having any of these attributes. You describe a scene between Poirot and the photographer as " It was simply comical."........I would apply that phrase to the whole adaptation.
S. Siegerson
I apologise for saying you didn't like the plots that was unforgivable, in wanting to comment on your post I found I had to go backwards and forwards and eventually gave up and used my memory inaccurately as it happens.
I quite often remember Characters but I agree some characters in one book are a lot like the Character in another book, From What I remember Alex Jennings played the Doctor well and accurately prt from the obvious change about sexuality which I still maintain was unnecessary and Changed The whole Texture of The Character and went in part towards changing The Texture of the book as Texture Is the word I should have used last time not Complction,
I honestly think you read The book the way you want to not the way it appears in Print and perhaps you do this with others, which is what Peope sometimes do when they are adapting a book for the screen.
The Adaptation had "Most" of The Characters in the Book and was close in Plot at times when the Writer when it seemed to me there was no alternative, but Mike is right in my Opinion it was simply Comical or it would be if the Adaptation hadn't IMHO Horrible
We are never likely to agree on this book/adaptation, since we obviously both approach Christie's work from very different angles. I think this is a positive thing, however, since if everyone's likes and dislikes were the same then think how boring things would be on here (and indeed in life in general!). From the point of view of someone who looks for a good plot over in depth characters, I would be interested to know which (if any) of the ITV adaptions you dislike. Are there any who's plot just doesn't cut the mustard for you?
Murder In Mesopotamia positively bounces in to mind plot-wise like no other Poirot Book if you are talking Just Poirot Books and The Hollow is Average. If it comes to Miss Marple Books then They Do it Wit Mirrors Plot-wise, but of the others I am not keen on Endless Night Plot-wise and execution or Passenger To Frankfurt which is the only Christie book I read from Cover to Cover without having the faintest Idea what was happening, some of the books are so much like another, I don't like The Quin Books either and the only saving grace to the short stories where Parker Pyne is not in his office is that the Central Character isn't Mr Quin and as someone who doesn't care for Supernatural Stories, I find them boring too, I have a Cassette called The Call of Wings on it are 4 stories one being S.O.S. another being The Dressmaker's Doll, of the four on the tape I don't like any.
It doesn't have to be a choice between Plot and Depth of Characters and in fact I think who is a Character with depth might be someone else's least favourite Character, apart from detesting Mr Quin and his Companion I don't much like Colonel Race and think he is saved by Death On The Nile, I don't like Raymond Wes or his Girlfriend/Wife or woman who tells the Bungalow story.
I have always struggled with The Hollow, either with or without Poirot. I find the story boring and some of the characters (especially Lucy Angkatell) at times unreadable.
I like Endless Night, but didn't the first time I read it and I agree entirely re 'Passenger To Frankfurt' (although it's fractionally above 'Postern Of Fate' for me). I also find 'The Call of Wings' an extremely strange story.
"She does complain about the demand from her publishers to get her books up to a certain word count., thus the addition of a murder or two in some of the books. And you haven't proven anything with your example. It had no relevance to what I said."
You originally wrote that "I believe reducing the number of murders has been done before in several adaptations." Make your mind up!.
If you cannot follow your own arguments, how are we supposed to? I said that removing the number of murders in this case does not strengthen Dr Roberts motive for killing Shaitana, and further that in 90 minutes it was possible to film one book with 10 murders. I don't see how that statement is either irrelevant or a "poor counter argument".
"..according to your reasoning the screenwriters were wrong when they gave Poirot a love interest. Yet, I don't see you or anyone else strongly objecting to this change." What love interest? Poirot has always in deep admiration of the Countess Rosakoff, but I would hardly consider that a love interest and I don't remember any love interest being particularly created or played up on screen. The brief flicker of emotions shown in 'The Chocolate Box' is faithful to the original story.
"in The A.B.C. Murders were all the murders are essential/necessary to the plot, Mrs. Lorrimer's murder is not." Since Mrs Lorrimer has, for her own reasons, confessed to the murder of Shaitana, Dr Roberts kills her and makes it look like suicide so that it will (he hopes) bring the investigation to an end and he will be off the hook. Fairly necessary I would have thought. Since after this murder he feels sure of his escaping the noose, Roberts is now far more off guard at the time of Poirot's final revelation. This is one of the reasons he caves in when he hears the window cleaner's 'evidence' rather than blustering it out. As such, her murder is far more essential to the plot than the final ABC murder.
"Poirot uses the score cards used in Bridge as a pretext"......."the score cards provide valuable in-insight into the minds of the suspects" Which is exactly what I originally said - it's a pretext used to gain insight!. What game they are playing is not the "guts" of the book. " The focus should always be on the mystery" you say, and I agree. But by your argument the focus in this book is on the game of bridge at the expense of the mystery, and thus Poirot could have been replaced by any good bridge player who would apparently have been able to solve the murder by simply looking at the score cards!
"and why you have gone to great lengths to ripe apart every single one of the my arguments" I haven't gone to any great lengths, it's been fairly easy. If your arguments were sound there would not be any evidence to contradict them with and this discussion would never have taken place.
As I said before, we obviously approach Christie's work from opposing angles and as such are never going to agree. I prefer accuracy in plot and detail and a faithfulness to an original story, especially when in most cases the original story cannot be improved upon. But then I tend to prefer novels to television adaptations in general. You prefer adaptations that are " fun, entertaining, and well-crafter murder mystery" Each to his/her own.
I am presuming you are heterosexual? correct me if I'm wrong. I say this because only a heterosexual, however well meaning, could claim this as the only difference. Speaking as a gay man your comment is not only simplistic but idealistic in the extreme. Most heterosexual people have never had to live in fear of their choice of love being discovered resulting in potential ostracism from colleagues, friends or family. Most heterosexual people have never had to think twice about walking in public hand in hand with their chosen partner. Most heterosexual people have never had to lie about, deny or otherwise cover up their sexuality in virtually every conversation they have on a daily basis because they do not know how the person they are talking to will react. Most heterosexual people do not have the experience of opening the daily newspaper to read, yet again, about how they are thought of by society as disgusting perverts because some heterosexual child abuser has struck. Most heterosexual people have never had to listen to the derogatory jokes and banter of people around them in the workplace based entirely upon their sexual preferences. Most heterosexual people have never had to deal, in times of critical illness, with their partners relatives (as next of kin in the eyes of the law) taking control of affairs, deciding on treatments, deciding on funeral arrangements and taking over the deceased partner's assets including the family home. The last happened to a very dear friend of mine, not that many years ago.
Living in a world where these attitudes are displayed, in 2014 just as much as in days gone by, colours your entire attitude to life and the people around you. Gay people have a very different sense of their identity based on this history of persecution and their own life experiences. It is no surprise that some became self-loathing, denying their true selves in order to try to fit in with society's demands.
Some gay people want to be able to marry, but just as many do not wish to. I am neither religious nor wish to live my life aping heterosexual society. I do not need a piece of paper from, or the affirmation of, someone who represents a religion that has persecuted "my people" for centuries to tell me that suddenly It's ok to have a same sex life partner. I can make that decision for myself thank you very much, and my partner and I have been very happy for the past 18 years without needing such 'blessing'. If there is a God, he can judge me at the pearly gates. Some gay people want children, either biologically or by surrogacy/adoption. Just as many do not. The point is, homosexual people should be just as free to make these life choices as heterosexual ones are.
Whilst in the eyes of the law it is gradually beginning to be seen in more and more countries as being fit and proper that there should be no difference or discrimination between heterosexual and homosexual people, in the eyes of the majority of society it is not so. All people in loving relationships should have the same rights and freedoms, be allowed to marry, have children, have the same pension, financial and decision making abilities as each other regardless of their race, creed, colour, gender or sexual orientation. And be allowed to make these choices for themselves.
Introducing homosexuality as a random plot device without foundation in the basic story, in order to make a television adaptation more appealing/shocking/titivating or contemporary to the viewing audience is yet another example (even in such a very small way) of the ongoing discrimination faced by gay men and women every day. It's using homosexuality to suit someone else's purposes, whilst still not bothering to show ANY of the homosexual characters as normal average well-adjusted people because that's not sufficiently viewable. Superintendant Wheeler could just as easily have replaced Battle and been shown in a loving, committed (though not publicly known about) non-adulterous same sex relationship to balance out the excesses of the others. But no, the homosexual characters must be adulterers (Roberts and Craddock), promiscous (Wheeler), murderers (Roberts) or black mailers (Shaitana).
There are many differences between heterosexual and homosexual people, not just the sex of the person that they love. I don't like discrimination any more than you do, but I have lived with it on a daily basis for my entire life.