ITV have earned a well-deserved reputation for the quality of its (their?) period dramas. I imagine they will always want to keep up the high standard. Based on what I read in the newspapers, I would say that the BBC is losing its reputation for high-brow programmes, and gaining one, in terms of news and other programmes, for being biased in favour of what some like to interpret as 'left-wing' causes and views. I would, therefore, be prepared for some 'modern' interpretations of some of Agatha Christie's characters, and some attempt to administer a hefty dose of political correctness. The BBC is considered to be cash-strapped after years of cuts, so I question whether they could make a beautiful period drama like Downton Abbey.
I don't think it is possible to improve on David Suchet's Poirot, nor the wonderful actors who play Miss Lemon and Hastings. The viewing public has been given real gems. They are so beautiful these episodes.
Ok. That's definitely important. I wonder what David Walliams will do with the Beresford Dramas. I suppose we won't have to wait long, and quite a few snippets of information are being released through the media.
Hi, @Griselda! I think David Suchet and the others actors did a wonderful job as Hasting, Japp, Miss Lemon, but some of the adaptions weren't nice. Some were boring and some were awful (I hate hate hate Cards on The Table, for instance). I hope BBC be better than ITV. I have to say, although, that I'm not very excited.
The BBC have a Good track record for Adaptations in recent years like The Lady Vanishes and The 39 Steps and long before them The Joan Hickson Series, ITV were Good with Poirot (Except Cards On The Table) but in the main terrible with Marple, I hope the BBC Productions will be good but I am sceptical with Tommy And Tuppence because of the Casting and have no Idea as we haven't learnt yet who will be in ATTWN
I hope the BBC Productions will be good but I am sceptical with Tommy And Tuppence because of the Casting and have no Idea as we haven't learnt yet who will be in ATTWN
Actually the cast has just been announced for ATTWN. Here is the link:
Definitely a waste of talent. If only the film-team stuck to the book instead of deviating. Please trust in the material! Agatha Christie is not called the "Queen Of Mystery" for nothing!! But I noticed a lot of the later Poirot films were deviating more from the source material, putting unnecessary changes unlike the earlier films in the series.
Definitely a waste of talent. If only the film-team stuck to the book instead of deviating. Please trust in the material! Agatha Christie is not called the "Queen Of Mystery" for nothing!! But I noticed a lot of the later Poirot films were deviating more from the source material, putting unnecessary changes unlike the earlier films in the series.
I can't agree more, @ChristieFanForLife! If they were faithful to the stories they would do very great films, instead they "created" and "wanted to be modern" and, as result, some films are very boring or awful!
And that's what concerns me about today's adaptations of Agatha Christie's books because the producers and directors look like they try so hard to make Agatha Christie relevant on the screen but the thing is, she doesn't need to be relevant because she ALREADY IS! Her books has always been relevant even though her books were written so many years ago. Just as William Shakespeare's plays are relevant so are Agatha Christie's for though their characters dress differently than we do, their inner attitudes and motives are as old as time and people in today's society has these exact same feelings: greed, hate, jealousy, love, etc. These same feelings STILL exist within the human heart. So how is A.C. not relevant??? BBC. . . . ITV, please stick to the source material and when necessary, make changes from the book but not for the sake of being relevant.
With the exception of Anna Maxwell Martin, Miranda Richardson, Charles Dance and Toby Stephens it is a fairly boring Cast, I can't see however how you can say they aren't sticking to the Book, haven't all the Films had a different setting. having it set in Devon is Great, and just because it mentions one death doesn't mean there won't be more, Please someone explain what is wrong with the forth-coming Production, If It is the Casting I agree with you, I haven't liked Charles Dance since I saw him on Room 101
I hope they don't add in lesbian affairs like they did in ITV's Marple. Those were uncalled for, with the exception of emphasising Hinch and Murgatroyd's relationship in A Murder is Announced.
I have to say I loved the BBC Marple with Joan Hickson, it was the whole package. ITV Poirot, well i think the early episodes are great, definatly Christie, I thought the ABC Murders along with Death in the Clouds are top notch. Once we get into the edgy episodes, not too sure about them, some parts of them I like, sometimes think they lost Christie and found Hitchcock. Personally I could never get into ITV Marple, I think that the producers didn't have faith in the books as they changed the murderer, plot and characters far too much. When they placed Marple in stories where she isn't in them, I am not sure what to think, on one hand i think its good as some get to see stories that Christie wrote without Marple or Poirot, however I think if they adapt a novel they have to go back to the source material. Maybe they should have just done a new series of individual stories instead of putting Marple in them. I hope that the new Partners in Crime the BBC will do AC proud, I confess I am a little nervous for it, but I'm sure it'll be great.
The trailer looks slick and well-made; very busy. The early Beresford novels were quite fast-paced.
Sometimes I think a parallel in terms of 'adaption woes' might be Pride and Prejudice with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle. It was so well-cast and faithful, that you couldn't really do it better. In that light, what is the ethical and appropriate approach for the next lot of directors to take? Do they just give popular of-the-moment actors a chance to do it as beautifully?
I think that preparing the actors is the key to making the recent adaptions excellent. Do these professionals really understand everything about their character, and their motivations? David Suchet and Joan Hickson have been magnificent, Hastings, Miss Lemon and Japp also. But what about the suspects? It is not just about wearing pearls and a wig, and looking down and twisting a handkerchief round your fingers - eyes darting rapidly left every so often to indicate hidden trauma or guilt. A worthy successor would be one in which every player is brilliant. In versions of Death on the Nile, they usually have been.
I loved The Joan Hickson Series and Most of The Poirot Episodes, and the ones with James Warwick and either Cheryl Campbell or Francesca Annis, I can't see there is any reason to divert from the Book as The Films are successful and The Touring Play seems to be well received too so why would anyone want to tamper with it, It would be Proof that people in TV do not know or Care what they are doing.
I'm so happy i will have the chance to watch the new adaptations on BBC, because here in Belgium we don't have ITV. I'm looking forward to the new Tommy and Tuppence. Hope they'll have the same chemistry as there was between James Warwick and Francesca Annis. Hope i won't be disappointed. I've never seen David Walliams in movies or on tv, only the pretty midwife :-)
Can I just say how hard I am praying for ITV to get Christie back? The Poirot with David Suchett was in my opinion the perfect series of al time, and I love Julia McKenzie as Miss Marple. Meanwhile BBC's Tommy and Tuppence was a hideous mess, and I didn't care for "And Then There Were None". The fact that '"Partners in Crime" was so bad it had to be cancelled pretty much tells us that its all downhill from here. I am heartbroken that there will be no watchable Agatha Christie programs to watch, but hopefully ITV will make other programs I will enjoy. I'm certainly not going to bother giving the BBC another chance.
Can I just say how hard I am praying for ITV to get Christie back? The Poirot with David Suchett was in my opinion the perfect series of al time, and I love Julia McKenzie as Miss Marple. Meanwhile BBC's Tommy and Tuppence was a hideous mess, and I didn't care for "And Then There Were None". The fact that '"Partners in Crime" was so bad it had to be cancelled pretty much tells us that its all downhill from here. I am heartbroken that there will be no watchable Agatha Christie programs to watch, but hopefully ITV will make other programs I will enjoy. I'm certainly not going to bother giving the BBC another chance.
I watched the T&T "Partners In Crime" series yesterday (I rented a DVD from the library) and I have to say that I didn't like it at all. First off the story [The Secret Adversary] veered away from the original one (both from the book and the original 1983 film) and it didn't help to update the story from the 20's to the 50's. I bet that even if the film remained in the 20's they still would have remained unfaithful to the book. I felt that Francesca Annis and James Warwick from the 1980's series had more wit, spark, charm, humor, snappy dialogue, and chemistry than David Walliams and Jessica Raine. No wonder the series was canceled. Please bring back Francesca Annis and James Warwick so they can film the remaining T&T stories (N or M? , By The Pricking Of My Thumbs and Postern Of Fate). Both actors are the right age, considering the fact that T&T ages throughout these stories and are no longer as young as they were in The Secret Adversary or the stories in the Partners In Crime collection.
I didn't like the "And Then There Were None" adaptation either. They tried too hard to be modern, containing harsh language that is not in keeping with Agatha Christie or the way she wrote her stories. All the cursing and offensive language are more in keeping with pulp/hardboiled stories. "And Then There Were None" is a dark story but I think they tried too hard to be dark and with some scenes it felt more like a Stephen King story than an Agatha Christie. With more film adaptations coming onto the scene, both on the big and small screen, my expectations as not as high anymore because time after time I've been disappointed. I wish they would just stick to Agatha Christie's stories and not as much on trying to be modern. Agatha Christie's book are all still in print for a reason. She is relevant, timeless and she still endures.
@ChristieFanForLife no adaption of And Then There Were None so far captured the atmosphere of the novel. There is not very much description of the island in the novel, but this leaves it up to the readers imagination to harness the essence of the claustrophobic nature of them being on the island, and in the readers mind it is slowly changing into a sinister nature. None of the adaptions so far have led the characters spiraling into insanity, they either come on the island already insane, or are perfectly fine at the end of it. This takes away from the psychological thriller aspect. I liked how the new adaption included flashback sequences to add to the intensity, but there was too much focus on Vera. What I liked about the novel is that it switches POV between characters, so you root for the characters you want to survive, you come to know their motivations, pasts, and secrets naturally, almost leaking into their thoughts, and you don't have a clue who will die next, which is the best part of the mystery, other than the identity of the killer. You could tell in the new adaption who was probably going to survive the top three. Some character's light-hearted sides and dark sides were portrayed in the novel, while in the movie adaptions they are either completely likeable, or unlikeable, not human in the novel. They either add too much, or cut too much, taking away from the story. I would say the new recent And Then There Were None is a brave adaption as it lives up to the title, and it is good enough that I'll be interested, or tune into, the new BBC adaptions upcoming. BBC is also known for bringing another great detective to the small screen, Sherlock Holmes, and that show is absolutely wonderful, even with its changes. I have faith in BBC.
Some character's light-hearted sides and dark sides were portrayed in the novel, while in the movie adaptions they are either completely likeable, or unlikeable, not human in the novel. They either add too much, or cut too much, taking away from the story. I would say the new recent And Then There Were None is a brave adaption as it lives up to the title, and it is good enough that I'll be interested, or tune into, the new BBC adaptions upcoming. BBC is also known for bringing another great detective to the small screen, Sherlock Holmes, and that show is absolutely wonderful, even with its changes. I have faith in BBC.
This is what I don't understand when I hear many authors and critics call Agatha Christie a "bad" writer with one-dimensional, flat characters. The problem is not Christie's ability to create characters, it's the adapters who make Christie's characters one-dimensional on the TV screen and just as you said either making them likable or unlikeable. There are no shades of gray and THAT is what makes the characters "human". Human beings are complex and Christie's novels display that beautifully but the problem is that these critics look at the stereotypes alone and they are totally missing the point of Christie's characters and the point that Christie is conveying. And she conveys a certain truth ALL throughout her books. Even in reality, we have people who fit stereotypes such as "the soccer mom" and all that entails with that but on the other side of the fence she could be having an affair with another man and doing a myriad of things in secret and in the dark. Another stereotype would be "the perfect family", "the all-American-boy", etc. I watch the ID (Investigation Discovery) Channel all the time and I hear these stereotypes from witnesses who provide their opinions of how they saw that person. So these stereotypes exist and it's only a facade, an image of how others see that person but they don't see the depravity, evil, corruption, and darkness that lurks inside that comes out with opportunity arises. And on the surface, these characters appear innocent but that's all it is . . . . appearances, but what is the truth beyond the appearance?
So yes, Agatha Christie's characters are stereotypes--at first--but, they harbor dark secrets and pasts . . . .and this is HUMAN! These secrets and past lives break the stereotypes and reveal the human and not the "perfect image" other saw and made them out to be. Secrets and past lives are complex and multi-dimensional so these characters CAN'T be as flat as the critics and other mystery authors claim them to be.
Other Writers and Critics say what they do because The Writers don't want to admit that She was a Trail blazer, if She hadn't have written the way she did The Genre may not have been so popular, There Was a Time when she was the 3rd most read person after Shakespeare and The Bible, The Critics criticise her because they are paid to be Glib and shocking, People say of Alan Ayckbourn Characters and plays look deep you see others look deeper you see yourself, Christie is like that I have come across People often who are like Christie's Characters.
These 2 beautifully written quotes describes Christie's use of the stock character, only to reveal a kaleidoscope of dark secrets, hidden pasts, and motives that reveal more than merely one-dimensional characters:
"Her 'stock' characters --as she sets them out in her lists: 'twittery companion', 'room, irritable, respectable gentleman', even 'BBC type' -- are designed not only to carry the expectations and will this be more easily deluded into overlooking the clues that eventually reveal the criminal beneath the camouflage." [Agatha Christie, A Biography by Janet Morgan]
"So let's move onto another serious accusation — that Christie is just a one-dimensional entertainer. She was, in fact, an extremely clever writer, and brilliant at plots and setting puzzles, as even her critics have to concede.
But what about her wooden characters, the naysayers persist, those dreadful stereotypes? This is to miss the whole point about Christie.
Time after time, she feeds us stereotypes only to trick us. She presents her characters as stock figures before, like a true artist, revealing the complexity beneath the facade." (SO TRUE!)
@CrookedQuin, I noticed with the latest BBC productions, screenwriter Sarah Phelps is so obsessed with the darkness that she misses the subtle shades of tone in her books. Christie is not a one-trick pony. She is not all darkness. Mind you, the short story of Witness For the Prosecution wasn't humorous but neither was it this dark, heavy, plodding story as Sarah Phelps adapted it to be. I watched the film the other day -- not all of it because I kept fast-forwarding it because I couldn't stand it.The film was awful! When I look at older Christie adaptations, such as the 1985 adaptation Miss Marple's A Murder Is Announced, the film wonderfully balances shades of light and dark. I wish these recent adaptations would do the same. It becomes a problem when every adaptation is dark and heavy and it's too much for an audience to take when it's done repeatedly like that. Phelps should really consider the audience and how much they could handle in a film and when to break for relief. Christie wasn't this dark, heavy, plodding writer. Read Mrs. McGinty's Dead, A Murder Is Announced and even The Mousetrap and while the stories deal with the serious subject matter of murder Christie allows times of humor and light-heartedness. I think the problem with all this dark and heavy tone in these latest Christie adaptations has to do with this idea of "realism" in today's modern mysteries. And a lot of modern mystery writers boast in the fact of being more "realistic" than the mystery writers of the Golden Age period. But at the expense of falling into realism, where is the humor, the light-heartedness and the ingenuity of the plots? There has to be some escapism. That's the whole point of fiction.
@ChristieFanForLife if BBC does Crooked House or Endless Night, already dark stories, what do you think Sarah Phelps will do? Ordeal by Innocence is not a favorite of mine, but it was already edgy from what I remember. The thing I am afraid most about is how much Poirot is going to be altered in the ABC murders. I hope they don't make him like Jon Mayhew in the Witness adaption. Thinking about what they might turn him into makes me REALLY scared for upcoming adaptions.
@CrookedQuin, well if the BBC does Crooked House or Endless Night, considering they're already dark stories already, Phelps would probably throw more profanity and sexual scenes in them. Look at the 1970's version of Endless Night and there was a brief nude scene at the end of the film and Christie objected to that and didn't approve of it. I can imagine how ticked off she would be with today's adaptations. I don't really care about this new adaptation of The ABC Murders and the portrayal of Poirot because you know what? In my mind we already have a definitive Poirot and we have a faithful, respectful and definitive adaptation of The ABC Murders already and I can't see how much more faithful it can get. I already know that this upcoming version of The ABC Murders will be ruined so I have not even a shred of optimism. I don't expect much from these new adaptations. Until a change is made to be faithful to Christie's stories and her characters and to return to the traditional way the stories were filmed (example: The older Poirot films from the 90's, the Joan Hickson Miss Marple which were clean and not full of profanity and unnecessary sexual scenes) bringing out Christie's shades of light and dark instead of all-out darkness, then I'll watch the adaptations fully but until then I'll take a peek when a new adaptation is made but to sit through the whole film. . . . no! I couldn't sit through both And Then There Were None or Witness For the Prosecution. Sitting through the recent Miss Marple films were bad enough!
I am so glad I didn't see this, I think If The BBC are only going to commission Somebody who is unable for whatever reason to adapt Christie in a Dark way they should only choose the Dark Books to adapt like Crooked House, Ordeal By Innocense and other less easy to read books and commission someone who wont feel as if they have to compete with modern literature which Christies work should have to do,
I hope they don't make Poirot have a random love interest or in other relationships. I hope they especially don't make him into a James Bond like character when tracking the ABC murderer. Thinking about it makes me rather squeamish.
Comments
I think David Suchet and the others actors did a wonderful job as Hasting, Japp, Miss Lemon, but some of the adaptions weren't nice. Some were boring and some were awful (I hate hate hate Cards on The Table, for instance).
I hope BBC be better than ITV. I have to say, although, that I'm not very excited.
http://www.agathachristie.com/news/article/filming-begins-on-agatha-christies-and-then-there
With the exception of Anna Maxwell Martin, Miranda Richardson, Charles Dance and Toby Stephens it is a fairly boring Cast, I can't see however how you can say they aren't sticking to the Book, haven't all the Films had a different setting. having it set in Devon is Great, and just because it mentions one death doesn't mean there won't be more, Please someone explain what is wrong with the forth-coming Production, If It is the Casting I agree with you, I haven't liked Charles Dance since I saw him on Room 101
I didn't like the "And Then There Were None" adaptation either. They tried too hard to be modern, containing harsh language that is not in keeping with Agatha Christie or the way she wrote her stories. All the cursing and offensive language are more in keeping with pulp/hardboiled stories. "And Then There Were None" is a dark story but I think they tried too hard to be dark and with some scenes it felt more like a Stephen King story than an Agatha Christie. With more film adaptations coming onto the scene, both on the big and small screen, my expectations as not as high anymore because time after time I've been disappointed. I wish they would just stick to Agatha Christie's stories and not as much on trying to be modern. Agatha Christie's book are all still in print for a reason. She is relevant, timeless and she still endures.
So yes, Agatha Christie's characters are stereotypes--at first--but, they harbor dark secrets and pasts . . . .and this is HUMAN! These secrets and past lives break the stereotypes and reveal the human and not the "perfect image" other saw and made them out to be. Secrets and past lives are complex and multi-dimensional so these characters CAN'T be as flat as the critics and other mystery authors claim them to be.
These 2 beautifully written quotes describes Christie's use of the stock character, only to reveal a kaleidoscope of dark secrets, hidden pasts, and motives that reveal more than merely one-dimensional characters:
"Her 'stock' characters --as she sets them out in her lists: 'twittery companion', 'room, irritable, respectable gentleman', even 'BBC type' -- are designed not only to carry the expectations and will this be more easily deluded into overlooking the clues that eventually reveal the criminal beneath the camouflage." [Agatha Christie, A Biography by Janet Morgan]
From an interesting article:
"So let's move onto another serious accusation — that Christie is just a one-dimensional entertainer. She was, in fact, an extremely clever writer, and brilliant at plots and setting puzzles, as even her critics have to concede.
But what about her wooden characters, the naysayers persist, those dreadful stereotypes? This is to miss the whole point about Christie.
Time after time, she feeds us stereotypes only to trick us. She presents her characters as stock figures before, like a true artist, revealing the complexity beneath the facade." (SO TRUE!)
I am so glad I didn't see this, I think If The BBC are only going to commission Somebody who is unable for whatever reason to adapt Christie in a Dark way they should only choose the Dark Books to adapt like Crooked House, Ordeal By Innocense and other less easy to read books and commission someone who wont feel as if they have to compete with modern literature which Christies work should have to do,