Death On The Nile

Rounak Ghosh

Cruising aboard the "Karnak" are Detective Hercule Poirot and passengers of the upper English class including the famous and beautiful Linnet Ridgeway with her Newly-Married husband Simon Doyle.And we find,a cunningly streamlined  Jacqueline de Bellefort trailing after them since their marriage.But one day,bad news reeks through the Ship - the beautiful Linnet Ridgeway has been shot through the head. Death on the Nile, surprisingly, often felt like a television drama. Jealously! Affairs! Revenge! Gossip! It was highly entertaining and I developed an affinity for Jacqueline de Bellefort in particular. I most likely shouldn't, since she, let’s say, took it a bit too far! Yet I enjoyed her clarity and audacity and I was never completely sure whether she should remain a suspect or not. On a ship travelling down the Nile, tensions are high and everybody is suspect. Death on the Nile is also not exactly what we would call politically correct, and it really is fascinating to see what sort of language, cultural and social attitudes were deemed acceptable in the 1930's. Death on the Nile, however, was much slower than And Then There Were None. It took nearly half of the book before a murder was committed and although I was quite enjoying the build up, it meant that the second half of the book – the attempt to solve the murder – was rushed. Pls Comment.

Selina Kyle

Very True.!!!!

MissQuin

Spoilers!!! I love Death In The Nile. I feel that it's is more character driven than most Poirot books.  It really centres on three people, Linnet, Jackie and Simon and explores what really drives them in life. Linnet is only interested in herself and will go to any lengths to get what she wants. Simon is mainly motivated by money.  

Jacqueline de Bellefort is my favourite female character in any Poirot story. She will go to any lengths out her love for Simon.  In an odd way I also felt so sorry Jackie. Agatha Christie wrote her such a way that makes you feel empathy towards her. She didn't kill for selfish reasons or for gain.  If you compare to her to other Agatha Christie female leads like Elinor in Sad Cypress, she's more hot headed and passionate. yet at the same time she can also pull of a remarkable pre-meditated murder 

I think that Death On The Nile is a book that deals more with emotions. There's a touching scene when Poirot tells Jackie "do not let your heart into evil". Although I did guess who the murders were, I couldn't figure out how it was done. 

There are such a variety of characters. But Salome Otterbourne is hysterical funny! I wonder if she was based on a real author?

I think perhaps the book appeals to people who like other genres of literature as well as crime. On the old Agatha Christie forum, someone compared the story to Henry James Wings of A Dove. 

tudes

I agree with you, Miss Quinn. I's an excellent book.
 I think the characters are much more "alive". They're full of contradictories emotions and  more complex than usual.

SPOILERS: The three main characters are a bit tragic. Since the beginning, they seem that they will never achieve what they want despite of their efforts. They're  dommed to suffer and be unhappy.
Even Simon, I felt pitty for him. He's almost a child. It seems that he doesn't understand the graveness of his acts.

MissQuin

I admit I don't feel the same amount of empathy for Simon. He killed his wife on their honeymoon for her money. Then dipped his finger in her blood to draw a J on the wall. It's rather macabre. As Jackie said, she felt better killing someone in the heat of the moment. But not while someone lies sleeping. The fact Linnet was impossible to like, with  her self absorbed nature did make it easier to empathize with the murderers rather than the victims. Same goes for Mrs Ottobourne who obviously made her daughters life so miserable. 

Has anyone seen the adaptations? I found the Usitov version was much better. But it had some major flaws. Linnet was portrayed as a outdoors type climbing up rocks. I imagine her book's character would wear unsuitable clothing, shoes and would cry is she broke a nail. Even though Mia Farrow doesn't look like my idea of Jackie, she at least had that air of unhealthy obsessiveness. She did anger so much better than the actress in the Suchet version. 

Also the Suchet version had a much sadder finish. There was no happy ending for Rosalie. I think the book had the best ending. Although tragic, Mrs Allerton says "thank God there is happiness in the world". 

That has to be one the ultimate cruises from Hell. There were the dead bodies of Simon, Linnet, Jackie, the maid and Mrs Ottobourne to carry off the ship!  Did Poirot ever get a restful holiday?! 

tudes

I saw both adaptions and I prefer Ustinov. The actors are better and the changings weren't so bad. Besides,  I love Angela Lansburry! She is very well (I like her as Miss Marple too).

Spoilers:  Although I would like to see a much more passionate Jackie. She's a woman desperately in love! And very smart. I think she's the best character of the book!
I wouldn't like to travel in a cruise with Poirot. Everybody drops dead! At the end of the book, I was relieved! No more dead bodies!  8-X

MissQuin

I thought both Angela Lansbury and Frances De La Tour were both fabulous as Mrs Ottobourne. In the Suchet version she was def making a pass at Poirot, which is so funny. After all the heated romantic tension it's an amusing diversion. 

Adaptation differences with SPOILERS!!! The Allerton's were cut of of the Ustinov version. I agree that there were too many characters in the book. But I liked the romance between him and Rosalie. Tim did appear in the Suchet version, but he was so odious! Plus Mrs Allerton equally unpleasant, not warm and motherly like in the book. I don't blame the actress, as I know she's good. It's the way she was asked to be played.

No-one can ever match up to Bette Davis!! She is the best Mrs Van Schuyler. Maggie Smith was great, but her character was invented. But it was worth it to see/hear her verbal sparring with Davis.

My main problem with the Suchet adapt was the Allertons. Plus I thought Emily Blunt's American accent was poor. As I mentioned before, Jackie's performance by Emma Griffiths Malin was too weak. Not fiery, plus lacking in conviction. 

As for Simon I think both versions were good, but there was much more passionate chemistry between Mia Farrow and Simon McCorkindale. I did think that JJ Feild was good. I'm not just saying that because I find him so attractive! he did look like he was in pain when he shot himself in the leg/foot. But the denouement in the Ustinov is so much better. 

I couldn't shoot myself in the foot for a million pounds/dollars! 

The settings and costumes were great in both. 

I saw the Ustinov version in full for the first time this year. It made me want to read the book for the 5 or 6th time. One of the good things about re-reading any AC book is you can then see what you missed, all those little clues. 

lachy.a.w

This book is my favourite of the 16 books I've read so far. I loved the atmosphere so much - it was a perfect locked room with all manner of tension waiting to boil over and the red herrings Christie threw in were great. I guessed half of the culprit, which pleased me, but I still found it fascinating to see how it was done. 

As for the adaptations, I saw the Suchet version and I quite liked it but I agree that Tim and Mrs Allerton were poorly cast. As for Jackie, I would imagine that AC intended her to be a bit more passionate. 

The thing about the amount of characters on Death on the Nile is that you have so many possible suspects! Some of Christie's other books were easier to guess the murderer(s) because of fewer characters and through use of logic - well if it wasn't this person then it can only be one of these two! That's how I guessed the identity of Mr Brown in the Secret Adversary and I'm glad that Death on the Nile wasn't the same in that regard.

jennifer

Hi everyone.  I just recently watched the Suchet version - after seeing the Ustinov movie many times.  At the beginning when Jackie is talking with Linnet in her room, Linnet is doing cocaine.  I don't recall that in the book - and they certainly didn't have that in the Ustinov version.  Why do you think that  would be added?  

LeopoldoAtila

I think they want to make it modern. But, in my opinion, it's really bad taste. And this doesn't have in the book.

Rounak Ghosh

I agree that it is bad taste,but see ,Linnet is from the upper class of British people.so i think that could be considered. Everything  shouldn't be from the book u see....

MissQuin

I think that the book gives a good long description of Linnet's behavior. Being short of time they probably wanted to show her nastier side in one simple shot.

As for cocaine- it's used in Peril At End House, The Affair At The Victory Ball and Death In The clouds. Also some other stories. AC always portrayed it as soul destroying, so I don't have a problem with it being introduced in some stories.

I actually feel that Linnet was too much of a control freak to use something that would leave her out of control. 

Rounak Ghosh

simon is foolish..............................

Tommy_A_Jones

I prefer the Ustinov version, It is probably me but I got lost in the Suchet version as to who was playing who among the women, I also agree there are too many Characters in the book, I like all the performances but Ustinov beats Suchet, Niven beats Fox, Farrow beats Malin, McCorkindale beats Field and Landesbury beats De La Tour, Jackie is much worse than Simon Doyle, Doyle is stupid and weak and Jackie is only too keen to exploit the fact, I think Linnet is given a bad press, people who are that rich can't help the way they are 

tudes

I also prefer Ustinov version. It's much more well done. The actors are far better, although I think that neither Farrow nor Malin suits my picture of Jackie. And Lansbury is fantastic (I also like her as Marple in The Mirror Crack'd).

Zeddie

I agree with everybody that Death on the Nile is an absolute classic and definitely one of Agatha Christie's best books  I think it has such a fantastic collection of characters and the love triangle between Jacqui, Simon and Linnet is so well written.

 I also prefer the Peter Ustinov version to David Suchet's and this is simply because I feel that all the characters are portrayed so much better in this version, Mrs Otterbourne, Colonel Race, Mrs VanSchuyler and Simon Doyle in particular.

I have watched the Ustinov version so many times over the years that I must admit I found the Suchet version disappointing when it was finally shown.

SerourB

THIS IS MY FAV EVERRRRR book, acc made a youtube vid about it

and will be making more abt every single book Christie has written 

Tommy_A_Jones

I LOVE Your Passion, and I think your Vid was very good, although she didn't die in mysterious circumstances but I love the fact you read And Then There Were None in 1 day, some of the books should be read and then think well I have done that but never again and others must be lingered because if your are reading some and are called away to do something you don't mind because you know you can look forward to coming back to it because you know spacing it out is worth it but which ones you read once and which you re-read is a matter of personal preference,

SerourB

aww thanks , it means alot to have some feedback . 

I actually bought all 85 books including the autobiographies and I am reading them everyweek . I just love her and am ashamed of people my age who dont read her books to watch stupid shows.

Thanks for ur feedback again

Partners_In_Crime

I have to say there's one tiny little detail I have noticed. Near the beginning, Andrew pushed a rock onto her. Simon and Jackie could have just let it hit and pinned everything on Andrew, then they wouldn't have had to suffer at all. Why didn't they do that? Why?

GKCfan

@Partners_In_Crime, ***SPOILERS***

First, Jackie didn't know about the falling rock, as she was on the boat when it happened.  Simon could've just stepped aside and become a widower, but... as Jackie himself noted, Simon didn't have the best brain in the world.  Simon acted instinctively to save Linnet... going to show that even someone with murderous intent can have some measure of innate decency.

Partners_In_Crime

Yes, but it would have been far easier and it wouldn't have resulted in me crying.

Partners_In_Crime

If it were me, I would have made it so he had, just to save them. Andrew takes the fall. This is the end, go home, live happily ever after.

Partners_In_Crime

And yes, even my username is a tribute to them. The feels, they burn.....

ChristieFanForLife

Partners_In_Crime said:

If it were me, I would have made it so he had, just to save them. Andrew takes the fall. This is the end, go home, live happily ever after.

If Simon stepped aside and allowed the boulder to fall on Linnet, we wouldn't have the great mystery that we have.

When the boulder fell, it happened so quickly so it wouldn't have given Simon enough time to think "maybe I'll let this boulder fall on Linnet and this would save me and Jackie from going with our elaborate plan". The natural, instinctive reaction in a situation like this would be to save the other person, and that's what he did. Did he regret it right after? Did he think how stupid he was to save Linnet? The book doesn't say but maybe off camera Simon gave thought to this. Maybe. Jackie thinks on her feet and reacts quickly. When Jackie overhears Salome Otterbourne about to reveal the truth, she shoots her just in time. Simon would not have reacted as such. Ms. Otterbourne would have revealed the truth right before his hand was on that trigger. I'm sure if Jackie was there with Linnet as the boulder fell, being the quick thinker she is, she would have stepped aside or shoved Linnet in line of that rock. When Jackie says that Simon doesn't have the best brains in the world, I don't think she means he's stupid, can't think for himself, or can't come up with good decisions. She's comparing her mind to his. He's not a quick thinker or reactor as she is. He could never come up with the kind of plan she did and execute it perfectly. Simon's actions to instinctively save Linnet is to Jackie not someone who possess the best brain. To Jackie a best brain is one who THINKS, WATCHES, and LISTENS carefully and at all times. And instinct--as shown by the boulder incident--isn't thinking, watching or listening carefully and at all times. Is it safe to say, @GKCfan, that Jackie's hot-temperness and ability to harm others who cross her is in her nature? She is more susceptible to murder. This isn't in Simon's nature. Simon would have found another job on his own and made money from that. He would never come up with the kind of plan Jackie did. Without Jackie, Simon would never resort to murder or a plan like that. 

taliavishay-arbel

You are probably all correct that Simon acted instinctively to save Linnet. However, actually, it may have been a wise move. Someone saw the boulder coming and shouted at them. If he had jumped aside alone and left Linnet it would have made him look at best a coward, at worst a suspect of villiany. However, I doubt the slow-thinking Simon calculated that far.

ChristieFanForLife

taliavishay-arbel said:

You are probably all correct that Simon acted instinctively to save Linnet. However, actually, it may have been a wise move. Someone saw the boulder coming and shouted at them. If he had jumped aside alone and left Linnet it would have made him look at best a coward, at worst a suspect of villiany. However, I doubt the slow-thinking Simon calculated that far.

So in the short-run, it was best that Simon acted instinctively as he did. A matter of luck it seems. It would have definitely made him look suspicious, especially the fact that you pointed out concerning the strong warning when the boulder came down. Simon doesn't think quickly ahead on his feet. Jackie has the brains for all that. She can think on her feet and plan ahead.