I agree that Five Little Pigs brought some depth to the characters. Elspeth Greer came across convincingly, I think, and, of course, the visual form was able to do justice to a very visual novel: the powerful painting; the strong sunlight; the visual presence of the wife, Caroline; the herbs and plants; the views; Elspeth's featureless sitting room when she is older and settled.
I love the book and the film and you're right the characters have so much depth and complexity, something that Agatha Christie's critics accuse her of not doing with her characters. But Five Little Pigs blows what they say out of the water. I like in both the book and the film, even though Elsa Greer is older and settled, her attitude is the exact same as it was when she was younger -- she hasn't really grown up, physically but not emotionally. I love these lines from the book:
Elsa: “Why are you sorry for me?” Poirot: “Because, my child, you have so much to learn.” Elsa: “What have I got to learn?” Poirot: “All the grown-up emotions—pity, sympathy, understanding. The only things you know —have ever known—are love and hate.”
Just those last lines from Poirot are profound and makes you think.
I really think that she was at her very greatest best understanding the emotions and attitudes of the young. I have personally used her observations in Five Little Pigs as a means of more deeply appreciating the themes of Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet. FLP isn't my favourite mystery on the page, and I think it might be because the murder is retrospective. I always prefer those AC novels which are written in one tight time phase and in one location. I didn't get enough of a feel of Caroline. Actually, what comes across to me is a feeling of great pity for Caroline' 'pathetic-ness' which is so acute that the novel makes uncomfortable reading for me. There she is, justifiably angry with her spouse, who could blame her for wanting to attack him; yet so mild on being sentenced. We are told why she is so meek later, of course, but for me, reading about her demeanour, it wasn't satisfying - I didn't like the effect: it didn't get me anywhere, or get me thinking what was behind the crime. Also, if I remember, the motive of the other suspects was a bit weak in each case, and I think there were not too many clues to allow us to fix on one who had to have done it. Again, the retrospective element is the problem here: not good enough clue-hunting territory for we readers: the time, as it had marched on, had kicked over the traces, so to speak.
This might be a little off topic but then again it's not. In P.D. James' (another fellow mystery writer) autobiography "Time To Be In Earnest", she specifically list a number of things that should be taken in consideration whenever a book is adapted into a film. I wish those who adapt from Agatha Christie's books would take these things to heart. Doing so would show a respect for the material and in return would make a positive contribution to Agatha Christie's legacy. The "they" refers to producers/directors and P.D. James addresses this list to them:
Don't attempt to televise a novel unless you are really interested in the work. Too often it seems that you are interested in acquiring the title and the name of the author and are then happy to proceed with something which bears little resemblance to the original work.
Novelists accept that television is a visual medium and that things may have to be shown which are otherwise described. But consider first whether the actors could communicate in words rather than have everything shown in pictures.
Don't fundamentally alter the chief character. With Dalgleish (the name of her detective), the first director decided, as he told me, to bring him downmarket. I had after all, decided to create a detective who was the son of a Norfolk vicar. That had been my choice and I don't see why television should decide that this was altogether too middle-class for their purposes.
Where there is original dialogue, why not use it as far as possible? I was very lucky with the Anglia treatment of A Taste for Death, one of the best of the Dalgliesh series. Dame Wendy Hiller took the novel on the set and frequently remarked: "In the book I say this. Why can't I say it on screen?" It is interesting that writers who are both good and successful, like John Mortimer, seldom alter the original dialogue; Brideshead Revisited was almost entirely [Evelyn] Waugh. I suspect that the adaptors who are less successful can't resist the temptation to have their own words on the screen.
As it may be necessary to cut out incidents and characters, what is the point of adding additional ones?
Must we always have a car chase? Men may like them (altogether I can't think why); most women find them boring in the extreme. And if you must have a car chase, must it go on for so long? It need last only as long as it takes us to go and make the tea.
I absolutely adore this show! My favorite episodes are among Five Little Pigs, Evil Under The Sun, The Big Four (interesting changes were made from the original), Elephants can remember, Cat Among the Pigeons is Also a favorite of mine. Among the worst are, as said, The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. I remember reading the book and excited about watching the film adaption on Netflix, and after the notebook reading and the death added, I turned it off. I'm torn on the Murder on the Orient Express one.Another one I abhor is Appointment with Death. I have yet to see Cards on Table, but the general consensus is that it is poor, and I am saving that one for later. I have only a few episodes left before I complete the show. The ABC Murders is a great one, probably my favorite of all. and out of the short episodes I love The Dream, Yellow Iris and Dead Man's Mirror. I prefer the more developed storylines instead of short episodes like Four and Twenty Blackbirds, where the majority of its runtime was filler. I may start watching the Marple miniseries with Joan Hickson after I complete this show.
The ABC Murders is a great one, probably my favorite of all. and out of the short episodes I love The Dream, Yellow Iris and Dead Man's Mirror. I prefer the more developed storylines instead of short episodes like Four and Twenty Blackbirds, where the majority of its runtime was filler. I may start watching the Marple miniseries with Joan Hickson after I complete this show.
The ABC Murders in my opinion is one of those perfect adaptations because it's as faithful as you're going to get from the book and any omissions or additions that were made didn't detract or interfere with the actual story. With a new version of the story about to be filmed, I don't have much anticipation or expectation because with most of today's Christie adaptations, there are unnecessary changes and the execution of the story transferred from book to film just aren't well done like they from the 90's. And I'm not saying that every adaptation from the 90s was perfect but at least the changes weren't done merely for shock value and to attract a younger demographic. What I love about Suchet's version of The ABC Murders is a mixture of humor and suspense and the script focuses on story and unlike a lot of today's adaptations, you get a good feel of the characters and the film is nicely paced. Whereas with Murder on the Orient Express (the Suchet version), scenes are rushed and we don't spend a little time with the characters.
The Dream, Yellow Iris, and Dead Man's Mirror are also all my favorites -- you have good taste Some other favorites from the short episodes are: The Mystery Of The Spanish Chest, Problem At Sea, The Plymouth Express, The Theft Of The Royal Ruby and The Affair At The Victory Ball.
I LOVE the Suchet Poirot a lot. My top favorites are Cat among the pigeons, Halloween Party, Lord Edgeware dies, Five little pigs, and Murder on the links. Dumb witness, the chocolate box, and Styles.
My worst is Murder of Roger Ackroyd! It was atrocious! Nothing like the book. I agree with most here about Appointment with death! And of course, Murder orient xpress! What a mess.
I really liked the Peter Ustinov version of Evil under the sun. It was funny! You can give me bitchy banter between Diana Rigg and the Maggie Smith characters ANYTIME! I liked the Albert Finney version of MOTOE too!
My worst is Murder of Roger Ackroyd! It was atrocious! Nothing like the book. I agree with most here about Appointment with death! And of course, Murder orient xpress! What a mess.
I don't think The Murder Of Roger Ackroyd was as atrocious as Appointment With Death and Orient Express. There were some scenes I could've done without such as Parker getting run over by a car or the ridiculous shootout that ensued towards the end -- unfortunately another of my favorite adaptations with David Suchet, "Lord Edgware Dies", succumbed to a ridiculous chasing sequence that was unnecessary. But I have to admit, I saw worse A.C. adaptations than The Murder Of Roger Ackroyd. Sure, there are some problems with the adaptation but there were some salvageable moments as well; whereas, with Appointment With Death and Orient Express, those two films were complete disasters right from the very start! In Ackroyd, I think actress Selina Cadell who played Caroline Sheppard could have been a tad bit better. By the way, I didn't care much for her hairdo. This is an image of how I think she should have looked as Caroline:
unlike this:
It wasn't that bad of an adaptation but it could have been SO much better. There was definitely some improvement to be done. I think as a whole the actors in the film were well portrayed but if only they remained more faithful to the book, maybe this adaptation would have stood out more in the David Suchet/Poirot canon. Did the production team not trust the material enough?
Do you think any adaptation of Ackroyd (this or possibly future ones) could ever match the brilliance and ingeniousness of the book?
@ChristieFanForLife SPOILER! They could make a successful adaption IF it was filmed first person, such as looking through the protagonists eyes using a camera, and this would make it a more haunting view even as through flashbacks at the end of Dr. Shepherd committing the deed. However, there would be a major problem with shaky cameras and that of the sort.
@ChristieFanForLife SPOILER! They could make a successful adaption IF it was filmed first person, such as looking through the protagonists eyes using a camera, and this would make it a more haunting view even as through flashbacks at the end of Dr. Shepherd committing the deed. However, there would be a major problem with shaky cameras and that of the sort.
I think in Five Little Pigs the shaky camera was alright and I did like the use of making the past bright and possibly optimistic and the present dark but I think using shaky cameras wouldn't be such a good idea with The Murder Of Roger Ackroyd though.
I liked The Adaptation of The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, where they went wrong was showing that Poirot was reading The Journal, If they had taken the Prison Cell bit out it would have been better, they could have shown at the end he was reading the journal but they didn't have to, I think it is near impossible for an Adaptation to capture the Brilliance of a Book but if they had done The Murder Of Roger Ackroyd without the Prison Cell scene and just started the way it is in the book it would have been a start.
I believe The Murder Of Roger Ackroyd is filmable -- certainly, you can find actors to portray Roger Ackroyd, Dr. Sheppard and his sister Caroline, Ralph Paton, etc. Certainly, you can film the plot (the inner workings of the mystery) and the clues, but to film the shocking twist ending that Christie devised and film it in such a way that the audience, specifically those who don't know the plot, will not be able to see the twist from a mile away and to make it not look ridiculous but cleverly done is rather challenging. In book form, Ackroyd is able to cleverly deceive readers and it has for decades but TV/Film is a different medium and what can work for the written word won't always work as effectively on the screen. So while Ackroyd can be filmed in some instances, it's unfilmable in another sense. There are some books that are filmable but can't match the brilliance and technical skill of the book itself and one, in particular, is F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby. And I believe The Murder Of Roger Ackroyd is another of those.
Aside from the fact that today most english readers - even those who have never read "Ackroyd" - have heard about the surprise ending, the problem in the filming is precisely to make that twist dramatic. In the book, SPOILER (just in case) the first-person storyteller is discovered at the end to know much more than he has told... but in a movie there is typically no storyteller, and movies which do have narrators are usually weaker. So that the script writer has to create an action movie in which we see the whole action through this one person's eye, and yet leave open the possibility that that one person is hiding something so as to preserve the drama of the end. I havn't seen the ITV version, but I understand from the comments above that is wasn't very successful.
@taliavishay-arbel. The ITV version it was very disappointed. Partially because of all the "problems" of filming this kind of story (as it was already discussed here). Although, it's one of the best A.C, a brilliant plot and an outstanding and clever ending, it's very difficult to pass on all this cleverness to a different media. But, I also think it was poorly done. As usual unnecessary changes, weak dialogues and an unbelievable and ridiculous ending.
@tudes, that was one of the problems I had with Lord Edgware Dies (one of my favorite stories) and it was the unnecessary addition of having a chase scene. I don't know if they felt like the film needed some kind of action sequence. The Peter Ustinov version didn't have it so I don't see the need for the new version to have it. The chase scene didn't add anything to the film. But my question is, in the Ustinov version, when Alton flees is there any word of him getting caught off-screen?
@ChristieFanForLife I don't remember it. I agree with you. There's no need any kind of action sequence. For me too, it's one of my favorites books, The story is quite attractive without any kind of action scene. If anyone haven't read the book yet and after watch the adaptation( because of this kind of scene), s/he buy the book. Well, s/he will hate it. Despite of theses problems, I think this tv adaptation is average if you compare with others adaptions such as Bertram Hotel; Cards on the Table, The Murder of roger Ackroyd and so on.
Comments
Poirot: “Because, my child, you have so much to learn.”
Elsa: “What have I got to learn?”
Poirot: “All the grown-up emotions—pity, sympathy, understanding. The only things you know —have ever known—are love and hate.”
FLP isn't my favourite mystery on the page, and I think it might be because the murder is retrospective. I always prefer those AC novels which are written in one tight time phase and in one location. I didn't get enough of a feel of Caroline. Actually, what comes across to me is a feeling of great pity for Caroline' 'pathetic-ness' which is so acute that the novel makes uncomfortable reading for me. There she is, justifiably angry with her spouse, who could blame her for wanting to attack him; yet so mild on being sentenced. We are told why she is so meek later, of course, but for me, reading about her demeanour, it wasn't satisfying - I didn't like the effect: it didn't get me anywhere, or get me thinking what was behind the crime. Also, if I remember, the motive of the other suspects was a bit weak in each case, and I think there were not too many clues to allow us to fix on one who had to have done it. Again, the retrospective element is the problem here: not good enough clue-hunting territory for we readers: the time, as it had marched on, had kicked over the traces, so to speak.
The Dream, Yellow Iris, and Dead Man's Mirror are also all my favorites -- you have good taste
My worst is Murder of Roger Ackroyd! It was atrocious! Nothing like the book. I agree with most here about Appointment with death! And of course, Murder orient xpress! What a mess.
I really liked the Peter Ustinov version of Evil under the sun. It was funny! You can give me bitchy banter between Diana Rigg and the Maggie Smith characters ANYTIME! I liked the Albert Finney version of MOTOE too!
unlike this:
It wasn't that bad of an adaptation but it could have been SO much better. There was definitely some improvement to be done. I think as a whole the actors in the film were well portrayed but if only they remained more faithful to the book, maybe this adaptation would have stood out more in the David Suchet/Poirot canon. Did the production team not trust the material enough?
Do you think any adaptation of Ackroyd (this or possibly future ones) could ever match the brilliance and ingeniousness of the book?
Despite of theses problems, I think this tv adaptation is average if you compare with others adaptions such as Bertram Hotel; Cards on the Table, The Murder of roger Ackroyd and so on.