Oh dear. What a flat adaptation! Such a wasted opportunity, as this could so easily have been a zinging new TV telling of the escapades of this adventurous couple.
I could ramble on for ages, critiquing this 2015 "Partners in Crime" TV programme, so - instead of doing so - I shall simply post here the weblink to the review I left last night at IMDb.com; as that contains ALL! of my thoughts . . . and yes, lots of them! LOL! I just had to get them out of my head as I was SO disappointed with this adaptation!
So here is my review, under the same user name (SceneByScene) :
I think the Reviews were mostly unfair, The First one was obviously written by someone hoping to be spotted by a TV Company or Tabloid Newspaper as I felt he cared about putting his narrow minded opinions across rather than put anything worth reading, he or she obviously watched half of Episode one and then started writing his un-thoughtout piece, No It is not Great, it departs from the Books in the most unnecessary ways and David Walliams plays Tommy IMHO as if he is either playing one of his Little Britain Characters or as if he is having one of his loopy moments on BGT but Jessica Raine is IMHO a good Tuppence, not great but she isn't doing an impersonation of Francesca Annis she is Jessica Raine who talks the way she does which is not her fault, The Script is different WHY? I wish I knew but it is, the main elements are there and it isn't overly offensive or crude or brooch subjects of sensitivity not in the Books, I would have loved it if Albert had been a Hotel Porter and Carter wasn't Tommy's Uncle and Tommy was played by someone else but those things haven't happened and what we have got is compared to a lot of other things on TV these days quite good.
I thought your review of Partners in Crime was very amusingly, colourfully and insightfully written, Scene by Scene. I think you are consistent with what many of us have said before, that the BBC love to hover over the characters and try to channel what they think is 1950s diffidence. You put it very well, I think: 'cutesy'. There is no evidence people were like this in the 1950s and it was all relevant to context. '. Possibly, Tommy is right that you are a little damning, but I really don't think people will remember this series, which obviously isn't down to the lightweight tale since we all remember Francesca Annis, et al.
Now, that is a thought, Marc. Miss Marple. I think you are on to a great idea. She has that prim, but delving mind. She is the sort of person who could portray doing what is right, sorting scruples, because, as I think you said before, she isn't really passionately emotional, but she does think, and think some more.
Hi Anubis. I hope my criticism doesn't colour your idea of the episodes before you get a chance to see them.It will be interesting to hear your views at some point.
I'm not really sure David Walliams is an actor. To be one you have to emotionally inhabit your role. You can't be detached and not quite at home in your own skin, even though a comedian can be standing outside themself in order to satirise themself.
Hi Griselda.Do you think (I'm now trying to be fair to him ) that the script that he has had to work with has played a part in the general (i say general.I may be in a minority) disappointment with his interpretation ?
It has clearly been written to oppose Tuppence,s character.
eg: She is inquisitive,keen,scared but determined etc,whilst he is reticent,unsure,cautious...and nothing like the Tommy that we know from the books ?
I'm sure I got the impression from a magazine interview with him that it was his idea to play Tommy as passive to Tuppence's feisty. He had a preoccupation with the emasculated male when he was writing Little Britain. I bet the production team cow towed to him, thinking that he is commercial gold, and that he knows how to read an audience, and let him shape the script. As I've said before, not very articulately it's true, I think modern day directors look too much at the ego of the characters and present them erroneously as highly self-conscious and seeking to self-actualise who they are. I am now convinced that the upper class types in the first half of the 20th century and before, expressed their sense of self through their judgements about what is the right thing to do in any situation, and that was all proscribed for them. There way of life was about leading and upholding values. And then you enjoy yourselves, if you know you are doing the right thing. I think that is why in the photos of Francesca Annis and the actor who played Tommy you see reserve and propriety but strength. Those actors understood the characterisation. That is where the courage to chase these spies comes from with T and T. You do the right thing and, whatever the outcome, all will somehow be well. Modern day producers think that reserve came from timidity or repression, but I don't think it did.
Well, now I am really looking forward to seeing the programs. I definitely agree with you, Griselda, that reserve does not indicate timidity or repression. On the contrary, I consider folks who bluster and try to be bigger than they are to be the timid ones. Of course, I am a reserved fellow, so that colours my opinion. The other day I read about one of the actors who appeared in the Carry On movies, Peter Butterworth. He was a POW in Germany in WWII after his plane was shot down. He played a part in an escape attempt called The Wooden Horse. They wrote a book about it, and then made a movie about it. When he auditioned for a role in the movie (without telling who he was) the director turned him down as being not brave looking enough. And here he had done the thing.
I agree with you Marc, David Walliams is appallingly mis-cast and Jessica Raine is Great, If the only reason Walliams is playing Tommy is because the person first cast pulled out and without Walliams the Project would have folded you can understand it but that is the only excuse for having him play Tommy.
I would like to see Jessica play Lucy Eylesbarrow but yes I think she is a future Miss Marple unless by the time she is old enough no-one wants to do Christie anymore.
That is an incredible story, Anubis. It is astonishing to think of that sort of bravery, too. As they say, you could scarcely make it up. There is a sense in which directors and actors like to do something different, but sometimes it isn't wise to try. Other well-loved actors could have done their own interpretation, but valued the strengths of the 80s version and followed the novel closely.
I have just been on Facebook reading about Peter Butterworth Auditioning for The Wooden Horse and knew he was turned down for it but didn't realise how brave he had been, Talbot Rothwell and him were thinking of making Carry On Escaping involving the more humourous of their experiences.
Why Directors, and Writers think they can improve on what the Author wrote is beyond me, sheer Arrogance on their part, also if you are a fan of the Book you expect to see an Accurate Adaptation of the book or so I would have thought.
Interesting insights, Griselda. I think that this new interpretation of Christie does not do the BBC any favours. I have just watched the first episode of this new Partners in Crime and I don't think I could hear to watch another one. Walliams is an appalling miscast - I can't believe that there was no one better after a first choice dropped out! He makes Tommy into a bumbling, lazy idiot - forgetting that he'd just survived a war and all its horrors. Jessica Raine could have been alright as she has some of the vivacity of Tuppence - except the writing has ruined the characters. Bravery becomes foolhardiness - Tommy's war injury has been changed to being hit by a catering van(!) - and reliability becomes boringness. The energy of bustling post war London has been replaced with cheap sensationalism in the script, which butchers the original book into a series of contrived coincidences, silly capers, and marital bickering. It seems like a parody of Christie rather than an adaptation. I would be surprised to discover anyone involved in its production had ever even read a single Christie short story. I'm truly disappointed.
David Walliams is Executive Producer so that is probably why he got the Role of Tommy, he would have been instrumental in raising the money or getting the Project up and running, he plays Tommy with campness and not with Bravery, Humour, Foolhardyness and a little bit of Cowardice which is how it should be played, I think Jessica Raine is not too bad but I agree I would be astonished if anyone had read one of the books, David Walliams says he has but perhaps he needs to have another look to see where he is going disasterously wrong. I think The others on the Production Team did no more than look on Wikipaedia about The Beresfords and maybe read the Blurb on the back of them, definitely no more, still at least it will help David Walliams PLC so that's OK then.
I think you have defined exactly the weaknesses in the adaptation, Mystery Woman. I too got the impression that an underling had been dispatched to read the stories, and to pick out the sensational bits or to fit it into one of a number of horrible pigeon holes the BBC probably have. It's impossible to think, as you say, that any of the directors have read the series. What you identify is what I have been trying to identify: it is a curious lack of energy on the part of Walliams. There is a kind of understatedness coupled with some sly hints of something else, which knowing Walliams love of parody will probably be a suggestion of a deficiency of some kind, as per most of his Little Britain characters. I agree with everything you say to about Jessica Raine, the setting, the silly capers. But then if they haven't read the books properly that is probably how the stories come across to them. War hero - that is the key fact to remember. The original stories had so much of bravery and wanting to do the right thing. This series is forgettable.
Spot on, Tommy. I bet they wiki - d it, and read a summary, and hired an intern to pick out some 'best bits' that would go down well with those viewers especially who only have an attention span of 90 seconds.
I think Marc was right about the script dictating how the action would be played. Is David Walliams a script sort of person? Would he have done that part, or does he farm that out, preferring to do the broad brush visioning. You know what we're all probably thinking. That any future BBC adaptations, or let's say a whole series of five years worth of them, will probably be handed over to David Walliams in order to improve upon and make more entertaining the first half of the 20th century. Still, Mr Walliams is a highly gifted entertainer, and I am sure that the team will take note of audiences and critics and have a rethink before the next lot of episodes. Perhaps we don't view the episodes as viewers would who haven't read and re read all the books.
He doesn't write the scripts, that is Clair Wilson but I bet it is from his outline of the Characters, he was a very Good Actor pre Little Britain but now I wouldn't call him a gifted entertainer just a successful one, to call him gifted suggests he is good at what he does, the Adaptation of the Children's books he writes are good but I fear he has forgotten how to do serious Drama.
I hated this movie! The story was so removed from Christie's story, it changed everything. The actor who played Tommy was too old and very boring.The relationship they had was sad not fun and exciting like Christie's characters.. Why do writers think they can improve on Christie's work?
I've just watched Secret Adversary and I didn't like very much. It's so different from the book. And I have a quite different picture of Tommy! The actor is so different from what I expected! But I have to say that i like Tuppence.
I suppose they felt they had t make it different, I preferred The Book and Reece Dinsdale Albert although the BBC Albert's Acting was good and if It wasn't for the Book I might have liked him, I saw the Actor in something else recently, he was very good.
Comments
Oh dear. What a flat adaptation! Such a wasted opportunity, as this could so easily have been a zinging new TV telling of the escapades of this adventurous couple.
I could ramble on for ages, critiquing this 2015 "Partners in Crime" TV programme, so - instead of doing so - I shall simply post here the weblink to the review I left last night at IMDb.com; as that contains ALL! of my thoughts . . . and yes, lots of them! LOL! I just had to get them out of my head as I was SO disappointed with this adaptation!
So here is my review, under the same user name (SceneByScene) :
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3574152/reviewsIt has to be said :
!! BRING BACK the 1980s' version !!
. . . James Warwick & Francesca Annis F-O-R-E-V-E-R !!
,-)
What fun it would be to see that great series again!
David Walliams's Countenance was the wrong shape as was the rest of him.