What changes from a book make a good movie, and what changes are irritating?

taliavishay-arbel

This is a topic which has come up in various discussions. I'd like to read other people's opinions on the topic: What kind of changes from the book to the movie made sense to you in the context of a movie? What changes did you feel made the movie better? What changes made you cringe?

Griselda

At the end of Death on the Nile, there is a flash back, SPOILER ALERT to the murderous pair dancing close in a tiny attic bedsit, with the snow falling on the skylight. The shot is through the skylight, and the camera zooms out to put it in the distance, suggesting the complexities of the world around and the other factors in their lives. For a moment they seem irresistibly moving: Jackie, kind of giddy with happiness. As we know by the end of the story, the young man is only happy in himself, feeding his pleasures, wants and desires. But the scene shows how Jackie must have felt, how love would have been enough for her, and the scene explains why Poirot pitied her. You kind of wish there could have been a story about them, and their love, but never with Simon and his type could it be, because he let's in evil, as Poirot uses the phrase, to himself and Jackie's tender heart, and destroys everything around him like a fire in a wheat field. I also thought that putting Julia McKenzie in Endless Night was a good idea; she certainly played the part sympathetically and with insight. As one of our fellow posters has pointed out, one is helped by having a moral compass when enjoying a novel, and crass empty evil is not attractive to view on its own. The actor who played Michael was splendid, and could be drafted in to play other AC sociopaths. Rather surprised this drama was not repeated this last Christmas. SPOILER ALERT I think the story is good for capturing the times,by the way, and the pitfalls, if this is the right word, when the social order broke down, and some opportunists capitalised and nabbed themselves a rich heir or heiress whom thy didn't care for.

Tommy_A_Jones

In The Clocks The Change of Colin's surname was Silly but I suppose Understandable as many think he is Battle who was not in the Adaptation of Cards On The Table, I hated ALL The Changes in that one were either Pointless or insensitive. In Appointment With Death The Abuse was changed from Psychological to Physical which was silly, I did like Hastings, Japp and Miss Lemon all being in Evil Under The Sun and the Changes in Mrs McGinty's Dead were Innofensive and anyway I loved the Adaptation, I feel the sae about CATP and having Hastings In Murder In Mesopotamia was much needed and lessening the amount of Characters and Having Japp in Hercule Poirot's Christmas didn't upset me either. 

Anubis

I am indebted to others for their comments above, which have raised ideas that are new to me. Regarding adaptations, I'll begin by saying that what first drew me to AC's mysteries was the unfailing surprise of revelation at the end of each one. So, I enjoy an adaptation in which the culprit is someone different than in the book, because it once again introduces something new and unexpected. And while I can't say that I agree with all the choices made by the people directing / writing / acting in the adaptations; well, that's OK. I understand that they are going with their interpretation, which may be different than mine. Also, and please forgive me AC fans, some of the characters in her books are a little two-dimensional. I think that some of the changes in the adaptations are attempts to make the characters and situations more complex, more three-dimensional, in order to satisfy today's more sophisticated viewing audiences. Lastly, a written work, whether a short story or a long novel, can be any length, within reason. But an adaptation that is made for TV must be a certain length. The adaptation of a short story must be about 50 minutes and that of a novel must be about 100 minutes. If there is not enough to "plot" to fill that time, then some filler needs to added, while if there is too much plot, then some needs to be cut out. So I don't mind if certain characters are deleted or certain trivial things are added.

Tommy_A_Jones

If you like the Culprit in an Adaptation to be different to the book the best one for this in my view was ITVs The Secret of Chimneys,

I was really looking forward to seeing who ITV was going to Cast as Battle in Card's On The Table but they deleted the character and had a different Character, I was really Angry and I don't mind saying I was hurt.

taliavishay-arbel

What bothered me about Cards on the Table was a trivial point - SPOILER with the two girls, they reversed the killer and the surviver. That seemed silly to me, especially since the surviver appears again in "The pale Horse", and making her the killer who dies in the end of "Cards" precludes that.

Griselda

Your train of thought, Anubis, is similar to one which I have been working on today. However, I'm differing with your views - a change, as I usually agree - and I'm thinking the characters are not exactly two dimensional, and in need of some nuancing, and character traits, but rather that people pre 1970 - probably everywhere, but certainly in Britain - defined themselves by their attitudes and beliefs, and when they spoke they concentrated on conveying the right moral message, or doing what was right, according to their code. This is Joan Hickson's Miss Marple to a tee, but the other characters in stories also are discriminating, conforming, sanctioning, accepting according to scruples. We live in the age of the personality cult and the celebrity. People want to polish, refine and be proud of their persona. I think this change is behind Geraldine Mckewan's Marple, the director is trying to look for a reason for her prying and enquiring in the image and personality, and decides Marple is eccentric. Even Julia McKenzie felt she had to convey uncertainty, fluster and a kind of jolly social embarrassment. For Miss Marple's generation though, the personality was hidden, and you spoke with confidence in what you believed. I think trying to flesh out perfectly ok characters is ruining adaptations, and I think that, as I get older, I'm finding AC's dialogue very subtle and telling, and much richer and more inflected than I used to find it.

taliavishay-arbel

Another case in point: in the old movie "Death on the Nile", instead of marrying Dr. Bessner, Cornelia ends up with Fergusson - which misses the whole point of her special, individual character, and again contradicts a later book where she is mentioned as Cornelia Bessner  (I don't remember which).

Griselda

I agree, Tali. That kind of change of actual killer makes the psychology all wrong, and every stitch in the tapestry, so to speak, needs to be undone, to make the pieces of the puzzle fit, as Poirot would say.

Tommy_A_Jones

The Change you mentioned with the 2 women while Irritating doesn't really matter because Pale Horse is not a Poirot Book and so would not be affected but the Change in Death On The Nile is ridiculous as the 2nd book is a Poirot book I think although I can't remember which one either so I might be something people on here hardly ever mentions like Spence appearing in Elephants Can Remember is never or hardly ever mentioned.

taliavishay-arbel

I checked, and the book she is mentioned in is a Poirot book - Evil under the Sun. She is called "Cornelia Robinson that was", but the speaker  (Mrs. Gardener) says she met her at Badenhoff, which makes sense if she married Dr. Bessner. As to "Cards" and "The pale Horse" - I think it does matter, because in the end of "Cards", the girl who tries to kill her friend (reversed from the book) ends up dead - so she can't be married, and hosting her cousin, the narrater of "The pale Horse!"

taliavishay-arbel

I think I mentioned before, that AC created a coherent social world - that is, while her main detectives (Poirot, Miss Marple and Tommy and Tuppence) never meet, they have common acquaintances or friends of friends, which enrichens our reading experience. So changing one book affects our perception of other books. In this case, Rhoda Despard (who appears in Cards on the table with Poirot) and Mrs. Dane Calthrop (Who appears in The moving finger with Miss Marple) link the two detectives, when they appear together in "The pale horse". So making Rhoda the killer in "Cards" breaks the chain.

Tommy_A_Jones

Yes I understand that but it isn't as if Cornelia appeared in the Adaptation of Pale Horse so in that way it doesn't matter.

taliavishay-arbel

Tommy, you confused two of my comments - I objected to Rhoda and Miss Meredith changing roles at the end of the Cards On The Table movie because Rhoda has a major role in the book The Pale Horse, and the way she is portrayed at the end of the movie "Cards" would preclude that.  I objected to Cornelia marrying Ferguson in Death on the Nile because it negates her special, individual character. I never thought or said that there was any connection between Cornelia and the pale horse, and I don't believe there is. 

For some people, each movie or book is a separate entity - so having one movie contradict another, or a movie contradict a book, is no big deal. But for me, I see an entity beyond single books - a social world, that is broken if characters are changed in a way that contradicts another book. 

taliavishay-arbel

Incidentially, There WAS a movie made from "The Pale Horse", in 1997, which quite significantly changed the story. While it left the basic story and more than half of the main characters, it didn't include Rhoda and Despard! More to the point, it Excluded Ariadne Oliver, and instead gave Hermia a much more active and positive role. I like it when movies take minor, two-dimensional characters and "fill them up". In this case, the Hermia of the book, highly polished and cultured, but not very human and not touched by other peoples problems, becomes much more human - still polished and not very empathetic, but more positive and likeable - though we, the viewers, are not sorry that Mark ends up with Ginger/Kate!

 

Tommy_A_Jones

I am sorry I misunderstood you, I agree an Adaptation should explain and Compliment the Book, I would love a proper version of Pale Horse.

taliavishay-arbel

So would I. I think, while the movie was pretty good, I was sad that they dropped the Despards. They added the country atmosphere in the book, which served as a great background and foil to the mysterious and menacing scenes at the pale horse. Actually, this is a topic in itself: which elimination of characters in a movie is good, and which is bad? E.g., in the Hickson version of 4.50 from Paddington, (Which was a fantastic movie that I really like) the elimination of the real Martine from the scene was sad in my opinion - in the book while she appears very briefly, she is first of all a very likeable character, and bonds with Emma, and secondly SPOILER provides important information that is missing in the movie - that the victim is not Edward's fiance, and has nothing to do with the house and the family, thus giving a twist to the plot. In the new movie she appears, but with a lot of changes which I didn't like.

Tommy_A_Jones

Having Martine in 4.50 From Paddington Ties up a Loose end, but like the plot that was left out of Hickson's Murder At The Vicarage, it is nice to of had Martine but not essential like having the MATV sub-plot was nice but not essential

MarcWatson-Gray

This is just a small niggle that I've always had....But In the T.V. adaptation of The Moving Finger...Mr Pye says to Joanna "If you lived in Lymstock,you would have on just a little powder to take the shine off your nose,and possibly a soupcon of lipstick not very well applied.........." This observation suited Mr Cardew Pye's character to a tee.

However,in the book (The original !! ) It is Jerry who says this to his sister........For once I think the T.V. version got it right..... 

taliavishay-arbel

MarcWatson-Gray, that's brilliant! Of course it makes much more sense for the womanish Mr. Pye to be aware of how a woman should dress and makeup, and not the Masculine Jerry. Jerry notices when a woman is not at her best and wants to help her (see what he does for Megan!) but it was strange to imagine him that aware of the nuances of womens' makeup.

MarcWatson-Gray

Yes..I'd forgotten about Jerry's "make-over" of Megan... but you are right.His observations of her were more masculine in nature.

Tommy_A_Jones

All changes of a Character's Sexuality are silly and pointless. Having Hastings in Murder In Mesopotamia was a Great Change for me and having Japp, Miss Lemon and him in Evil Under The sun was Great but in this case The Book is Great, I don't like Murder In Mesopotamia so I love Hastings being in it.

Griselda

Yes, I heartily agree. If it's not a great book, putting in a great and much-loved character surely elevates it. If the screenwriter and director give modern, or not-what-was-in-the-book, characteristics to the key players, and do it really thoughtfully with great lines and acting,  it can work if the dynamics between individual characters remain what they were in the book. The worst possible thing is sending up the Christie genre and doing a 'Little Britain' on it, making out like they know and we all know that Agatha Chrisite is dated, but we'll put up with it if it the people and conventions can be made to look appropritely ridiculous, because the plots are good, and the clothes they wore then and the furnishings are nice to look. Patronising treatment is terrible, and humour has to be matched to what Agatha Christie was showing she found funny.

taliavishay-arbel

I didn't like the Murder in Mesopotamia movie - but then I loved the book (I've just finished rereading it) so the changes really irritated me. However, in some cases changes are good - I've mentioned before that I loved the changes in the Hickson versions of "Caribbean" and "Nemesis" - giving Victoria and Michael Rafiel, respectively, larger and more multifaceted roles (and adding Victoria's aunt as an extension of Victoria) made the stories more interesting without taking away anything of the original characterization and plot. But that is just the issue - I only like changes if they enhance the original story without essentially changing it.