Yes, it's almost as if the directors think that a viewer might walk into the room after making a drink, see some action on the screen which isn't sensational, and switch channels. They do say that social media use has given youngsters a very short attention span. Is it true that of the attention span of audiences generally - or just what directors think? I wonder if directors want to stuff their productions with keynote moments of lust, despair, near-violent rage just to keep viewers tuned.
Things "Have to appeal to everybody" Now which is a Shame and other programme's get New Audience's used to Faster paced, more dramatic and more Lascivious things these days hence modern Adaptations of Christie are no longer allowed to be as subtle as days gone by.
Things "Have to appeal to everybody" Now which is a Shame and other programme's get New Audience's used to Faster paced, more dramatic and more Lascivious things these days hence modern Adaptations of Christie are no longer allowed to be as subtle as days gone by.
A Murder Is Announced is a great example between Hinchcliffe and Murgatroyd. The question of "are they, aren't they" lesbians are at the back of our minds when we read the book, but in the Hickson version, if they are portrayed as lesbians by the director it is very subtle but not so in the McEwan version
In The BBC version You could believe they were just 2 women who live together after all it does happen doesn't it? 2 Women get a place for Financial Reasons.
I also think that Ac recognized something very modern and much in the media today, and that is that some people don't want to be labelled: if given the choice, they wouldn't define themselves as rather masculine, rather feminine, lesbian, hetrosexual, or other. They just are comfortable being themselves. The lovely thing about the novel is that we get a sense that the aftermath of the war, and rationing, brought the collection of villagers much closer together. They bartered, shared home produce. There were excuses for visiting. Clothes were offered and accepted. There was a sense of daring and fun, as though being young again. I guess the common post-war experience would have bound the neighbours together. They wouldn't have asked what people were, but would have sensed their good nature through the knowledge they gained of them through bartering and swapping. Doors were left unlocked; produce was left on tables. It was lovely and trusting and innocent, until a different kind of human being spoilt it all.
@barbaraswee: I think Joan Hickson is the best Miss Marple thus far. Hickson exemplifies the killer, sharp mind that Agatha Christie portrays in the character.
I agree with Barbaraswee - Maggie Smith would be a perfect MM! By the way, she played at least 2 AC characters when she was much younger - Irene Castle (a combination of Mrs. Castle and Rosamond Darnley)in Evil under the Sun and a maid or nurse (I'm not sure which) in Death on the nile. She was good then, and she is much better now.
I agree with Barbaraswee - Maggie Smith would be a perfect MM! By the way, she played at least 2 AC characters when she was much younger - Irene Castle (a combination of Mrs. Castle and Rosamond Darnley)in Evil under the Sun and a maid or nurse (I'm not sure which) in Death on the nile. She was good then, and she is much better now.
I'm trying to picture Maggie Smith as Miss Marple and I'm not fully convinced. Do you think she would portray the killer, sharp that Miss Marple has?
I think she would. We are used to her as a rather formal lady (as in Downton Abbey, Sister Act and The Secret Garden) but in Evil under the Sun she played a very sharp, peppery, quick thinking, and at the same time sympathetic character, though there as a detective she was "staight man" to Ustinov's Poirot (that is, she was much less clever in detecting). But I think she certainly displayed the acting abilities needed for a valid MM.
Overall, I think the acting in the Hickson episodes were way better than the acting presented in the newer Marple films and one of those reasons is due to pacing. And I think in an Agatha Christie mystery, scenes need to be at a leisurely pace, allowing the viewer to take in the whole scene, noticing anything that might stand out even if it's subtle. I'll provide an example of good versus bad pacing of a certain scene in A Murder Is Announced (the Hickson versus the McEwan versions) in another post.
If you watched the Hickson and McEwan versions of A Murder Is Announced, you remember the scene when the clock strikes and the the lights go out and the murder game begins (only it's not a game). But which particular scene from both of these versions do you think was better choreographed and well-paced?
Hello, everyone. Although my favourite Miss Marple, Joan Hickson was too serious and competent looking in my opinion. Miss Marple was described in the books as being tall and white haired and looked exactly like a dear, sweet old lady, but underneath the twittering and fluffiness had a mind like a steel trap. I absolutely hated Angela Lansbury, mostly because of the weird face she pulled when speaking.
I saw 'The Mirror Cracked from Side to Side.' with Joan Hickson today. I was watching closely to analyse how she played the part, and what was different/special about these films compared with the later ones. First thing I noted was that the actors themselves come across as quite ordinary, like ordinary people. They don't have that superannuated gloss that thespians have today, as though they are celebrities exuding confidence, whether they are playing a servant, a doctor or an undertaker. There is a quietness about their acting. They don't dominate the frame. Joan Hickson has age spots on her skin and is not slathered in makeup. Her clothes are creased, and, when not speaking, she sinks back into the human dimension. The other characters act without self-consciousness. Today, any actor asked to do Agatha Christie plays their role as a very good actor doing a parody of the part they've been asked to play. They all seize their moment in the spotlight, whereas in this Miss Marple the most showy characters are those who would, as people, have had more confidence in those times - in the story. Dolly is quite forward, composed, expecting to be listened to, because, of course, she was a somebody - one of the old order gentry who was used to being listened to. The doctor is confident in terms of his professional knowledge, but doesn't project a personality otherwise. The Hollywood couple and their friends (Marina and Jason..et al.) are of course showy and artificially glamorous, but they don't dominate. The noteworthy thing is the dynamics of the characters: the overall tableau of relationships is more important than any one character. You see the deference which existed then, the social order taking shape. The secretary, Miss Zielinsky, is officious but the actor is primed to be non-descript too. Her character is her professionalism coming across - not the woman. Perhaps it is the camera work which does this. You even have more distant shots of the room, a lot less close up camera work, and no letting the character breathe their presence over the audience. In later adaptations of the novels, every speech has been presented as a little cameo role for somebody.
I did a bit of research on WIKI and found that Alan McKee of the Museum of Broadcast Communications had said that the Joan Hickson Miss Marple series was "a good example of 'heritage' production." He said that the series" ...combines new Victorianism in moral standards and a sanitised version of England's past." I think that organisations such as this Museum of Broadcast Communications could be the nearest thing one could get to a scholarly verdict on the phenomenon that is all things Christie. The angle would be the filmed adaptations, which is not as good as if it had been the novels themselves. However, to find a body who can provide some serious insight into Christie is better than to have no scholarly activity at all.
I saw 'The Mirror Cracked from Side to Side.' with Joan Hickson today. I was watching closely to analyse how she played the part, and what was different/special about these films compared with the later ones. First thing I noted was that the actors themselves come across as quite ordinary, like ordinary people. They don't have that superannuated gloss that thespians have today, as though they are celebrities exuding confidence, whether they are playing a servant, a doctor or an undertaker. There is a quietness about their acting. They don't dominate the frame.
Interesting observation and so true! And it's this ordinariness that Agatha Christie displays in her characters throughout her books. It's the ordinary character, the one who is not showy, the one who is normal and doesn't attract attention by anyone that is usually the one who is the least suspected. It's that person who usually has the all the skeletons in their closet, the one who has a heart full of evil and depravity....the one which shocks the reader because who would guess that quiet, ordinary person would be the murderer. And the Joan Hickson films respectfully does that. For example (this will include a "SPOILER" from one of the films)
In the Joan Hickson version of Nemesis, the murderer Clotilde Bradbury-Scott shows her true colors in the end when confronted by Miss Marple but throughout the film she doesn't dominate the frame, she appears like an ordinary woman and actress Margaret Tyzack does it perfectly. On Wikipedia, it describes Clotilde (from the book) as one who "seems the most feminine and soft of the three sisters, and least likely to be a murderer". When you make the actors on the screen larger than life and extravagant then you depart from Agatha Christie's intention. In her mysteries the underlying theme, especially in her Miss Marple stories are human nature and how everyone appears ordinary and kind but scratch the surface and you see the evil that lies underneath. The new Miss Marple films misses the point entirely.
colin hill weston super mare. having recently watched several stories of Miss Marple,I am completely sure who I think is the worst Miss Marple. sorry to speak ill of the dead but Geraldine Mcewan brings absolutely nothing to the role. You could be forgiven for assuming she is the deceased! She makes everybody else in the play look thoroughly interesting and exciting. Lots of other actresses have brought their own take on it, eccentric, dotty, forthwright, stern, perhaps, and I dare say have revelled in the chance of playing such an interesting charachter, but I wonder how Miss Mcewan got away with her almost corpse like portrayal of such a lovely charachter without any criticism it seems. I don't have a grudge against her. I've never seen her in anything else to pass judgemant on.
@hill9: Geraldine McEwan has received lots of criticism, not many from the critics, but from the fans -- particularly those who want the films to be faithful and respectful to Agatha Christie's material. When McEwan played Miss Marple (in the first episode Murder At the Vicarage) they had a flashback in which a younger Jane Marple was involved with a married man. Now Miss Marple came from a time in which people had Victorian morals. This isn't compatible with Miss Marple's character or the times she was brought up in. And though the younger Miss Marple told the married soldier that when he returns he must go back to his wife, it seems like a noble thing but the real Miss Marple, the one that Agatha Christie wrote, would never ever get involved in a situation like this, much less consider such an idea! The new films tried too hard to be modern and appeal to a younger audience that the films themselves were not faithful to the books, not even Miss Marple herself.
I think that it is difficult to portray a character after it has been done so well in the past. I suspect that Geraldine McEwan had been directed to take the character in a new direction. IMO, what we have in the character, under her portrayal, is somebody who is modern for her era, and who is ready to cock a snook at conventions, not just in order to gain access in order to solve a life-or-death mystery, but because, in her heart, this Miss Marple is anti- stuffy conventions and saying the right thing at the right time. She s 'with it.' and modern. In my mind, I see McEwan's Marple as a kind of hippy before hippy's came into being.
Christie tells us, I think in The Moving Finger, and certainly other novels too, that the Victorians had very open minds, thought the worse of human nature, and would suspect their neighbours of all sorts of wrongdoings (sexual indiscretions, I think,) and riske goings on because they well knew that these things were part of life. Christie tells us that the older generation ( in her times) were never shocked. In Carribbean Mystery, Miss Marple ponders that in her young day people had sex and enjoyed it more but didn't talk about it all the time. Miss Marple thinks that it is ridiculous to present sex, as some psychologists do, as something liberating and something all young people must do to express themselves. Perhaps this excerpt from CM is what gave the director of Murder at the Vicarage the idea to put in an adulterous back story for Miss Marple. However, the candid and realistic outlook which Miss Marple attributes to Victorians, is different, I feel, to what has been effected wit Geraldine McEwan' Miss Marple. I have always sensed a kind of ironic sending up of the Christie genre when I re-watch the 'Marple' series of adaptations. I feel that the audience is being encouraged to feel that the characters didn't really agree with the stuffy forms of the times in which they lived, but were repressed big personalities desperate to escape social strictures and to be themselves. The series had quite a few characters breaking out and being somebody different to the 'part' they had been playing: Jane Marple and her adulterous youthful affair (Murder at the Vicarage) and one of the characters in Body in the Library. I don't know which director did The Sittaford Mystery, but this latest adaptation had a modern treatment too, with a character, Violet, finding their true self at the end of the tale.
I liked Angela Lansburry as Miss Marple. I also like Geraldine McEwan as Miss Marple, but I simply hated the adaptions. At Bertram's Hotel was disgusting. They created a new and awful story. I think only The Moving Finger and A Murder is Announced are fairly good. The others films, please, don't watch them! I think Julie Mckenzie is a great Marple and the films were usually fine, especially Pocket full of Rye. She is very gentle and polite and quite smart. On the other hand, Why they didn' t ask Evans couldn't had be done. It was not even a Miss Marple book to start. Unfortunately, I watched just two films with Joan Hickson as Marple. I liked a lot. She is a cute Marple. Very cozy and clever. I think it's really difficult to pick one. It depends not only on the actress, but also on the others actors, the script, if you like or not the original story and so on.
About McEwan...I did love the actress, hated the adaptations. They did seem to want to sleaze it up whenever possible. I like Hickson and those adaptations, and what little I have seen of the McKenzie series. I have never seen Rutherford or Lansbury, so, no comment there.
But my favorite of all is a Japanese cartoon with both Poirot, and Marple...and a duck. Only the Japanese. And I love it.
I liked Angela Lansburry as Miss Marple. I also like Geraldine McEwan as Miss Marple, but I simply hated the adaptions. At Bertram's Hotel was disgusting. They created a new and awful story. I think only The Moving Finger and A Murder is Announced are fairly good. The others films, please, don't watch them! I think Julie Mckenzie is a great Marple and the films were usually fine, especially Pocket full of Rye. She is very gentle and polite and quite smart. On the other hand, Why they didn' t ask Evans couldn't had be done. It was not even a Miss Marple book to start. Unfortunately, I watched just two films with Joan Hickson as Marple. I liked a lot. She is a cute Marple. Very cozy and clever. I think it's really difficult to pick one. It depends not only on the actress, but also on the others actors, the script, if you like or not the original story and so on.
About McEwan...I did love the actress, hated the adaptations. They did seem to want to sleaze it up whenever possible.
It seemed like the adaptations with McKenzie are sleazed up too, especially with A Pocketful Of Rye, specifically with certain scenes that appeared unnecessary. I didn't understand why they were needed.
I thought just as ITV decided to do MARPLE well the series ended, I quite liked Julia McKenzie's last series but I also liked MOST of Geraldine McKewan's 1st series (NOT Body In The Library although David Walliams was good in that).
I like Hickson's Marple the best. I also liked the other Marples too. McEwan took some getting used to. And I liked McKenzie off the bat! I have ALL the episodes of them all! But the ones I'm drawn to again and again are: Hickson's Nemesis, Caribbean mystery, and 4:50 to paddington. McEwan's Body in the Library, A murder is announced, and Ordeal of Innocence. McKenzie's Pocketful of Rye, The mirror cracked from side to side, and the Pale Horse.
I like Hickson's Marple the best. I also liked the other Marples too. McEwan took some getting used to. And I liked McKenzie off the bat! I have ALL the episodes of them all! But the ones I'm drawn to again and again are: Hickson's Nemesis, Caribbean mystery, and 4:50 to paddington. McEwan's Body in the Library, A murder is announced, and Ordeal of Innocence. McKenzie's Pocketful of Rye, The mirror cracked from side to side, and the Pale Horse.
Concerning the McKenzie version of A Pocketful Of Rye, it was overall faithful to the book and the ending adhered to the original ending, but what I didn't like about this adaptation were the unnecessary, titillating sexual scenes littered throughout. I just didn't understand the purpose of them. It's as if they were thrown out there for a shock reaction. It's almost like the production team was saying amongst themselves, 'Well in order to attract more of an audience and to be more modern we must include these sexual scenes and that will boost the ratings.' Well, it might have boosted ratings but I feel if things like this are needed to attract an audience, then surely the production team don't trust that Christie's material is strong enough to be projected onto the screen or the intelligence of the audience.
Nailed it in one, ChristieFanForLife. It's enough to make you read the books and stop there.
The adaptations are getting worse these days. They lose the spirit of Agatha Christie and when you lose that you no longer have a film adaptation based on her stories. You have a story rewritten from another writer stamping Agatha Christie's name on it only because her name will sell. It seems to me it's all about money in the end instead of for the sake of art. When Agatha Christie's daughter was alive she was more protective of her mother's name and the films with the Christie name on it.
Based on this news article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/13/lock-away-grandparents-bbcs-new-agatha-christie-show-no-cosy/), if what is described in it is an indication of what future A.C. adaptations will be like then I will not watch them. And what would be the point if they aren't going to be faithful to her stories? I just want to watch a good old fashion A.C. mystery -- that's all! If I want to watch more gritty mysteries I can look at the more modern CSI shows they're airing these days or watch some good ol' film noir from Raymond Chandler or Dashiell Hammett.
Comments
Doddery old lady with a killer mind is the image Agetha Christie's books portrayed.
How about Maggie Smith she is just the right actress to carry this off ?
Margaret Rutherford was brilliant but not as Miss Marple was written.
ChristieFanForLife said: If you watched the Hickson and McEwan versions of A Murder Is Announced, you remember the scene when the clock strikes and the the lights go out and the murder game begins (only it's not a game). But which particular scene from both of these versions do you think was better choreographed and well-paced?
I absolutely hated Angela Lansbury, mostly because of the weird face she pulled when speaking.
In the Joan Hickson version of Nemesis, the murderer Clotilde Bradbury-Scott shows her true colors in the end when confronted by Miss Marple but throughout the film she doesn't dominate the frame, she appears like an ordinary woman and actress Margaret Tyzack does it perfectly. On Wikipedia, it describes Clotilde (from the book) as one who "seems the most feminine and soft of the three sisters, and least likely to be a murderer". When you make the actors on the screen larger than life and extravagant then you depart from Agatha Christie's intention. In her mysteries the underlying theme, especially in her Miss Marple stories are human nature and how everyone appears ordinary and kind but scratch the surface and you see the evil that lies underneath. The new Miss Marple films misses the point entirely.
Christie tells us, I think in The Moving Finger, and certainly other novels too, that the Victorians had very open minds, thought the worse of human nature, and would suspect their neighbours of all sorts of wrongdoings (sexual indiscretions, I think,) and riske goings on because they well knew that these things were part of life. Christie tells us that the older generation ( in her times) were never shocked. In Carribbean Mystery, Miss Marple ponders that in her young day people had sex and enjoyed it more but didn't talk about it all the time. Miss Marple thinks that it is ridiculous to present sex, as some psychologists do, as something liberating and something all young people must do to express themselves. Perhaps this excerpt from CM is what gave the director of Murder at the Vicarage the idea to put in an adulterous back story for Miss Marple. However, the candid and realistic outlook which Miss Marple attributes to Victorians, is different, I feel, to what has been effected wit Geraldine McEwan' Miss Marple. I have always sensed a kind of ironic sending up of the Christie genre when I re-watch the 'Marple' series of adaptations. I feel that the audience is being encouraged to feel that the characters didn't really agree with the stuffy forms of the times in which they lived, but were repressed big personalities desperate to escape social strictures and to be themselves. The series had quite a few characters breaking out and being somebody different to the 'part' they had been playing: Jane Marple and her adulterous youthful affair (Murder at the Vicarage) and one of the characters in Body in the Library. I don't know which director did The Sittaford Mystery, but this latest adaptation had a modern treatment too, with a character, Violet, finding their true self at the end of the tale.
About McEwan...I did love the actress, hated the adaptations. They did seem to want to sleaze it up whenever possible. I like Hickson and those adaptations, and what little I have seen of the McKenzie series. I have never seen Rutherford or Lansbury, so, no comment there.
But my favorite of all is a Japanese cartoon with both Poirot, and Marple...and a duck. Only the Japanese. And I love it.
McKenzie's Pocketful of Rye, The mirror cracked from side to side, and the Pale Horse.