I suspect the point is to give the site a Magazine type Feel, Just like a Magazine Programme the type of which someone who likes this type of Site might Watch, I agree, Discussion is going backwards, Trends Change Unfortunatel, I may not have been here from the beginning but I will hopefully be here For the Forseeable Future,
@Griselda, the book of this month was also announced on Facebook on the 3rd of august. They subsequently posted different titbits of knowledge around that book. Like AC being 26 years of age when she created Poirot.
The fact that The Mysterious Affair at Styles is the book of the month for August, is the new version of the book and its cover out in September, along with the Agatha Christie stamps on the 15th September, her birthday, and the book playing a big part in the issue.
Hi Dr Sheppard, I think you need to fix the grammar in this post. I can't understand what you are saying. Do you mean that The Mysterious Affair at Styles is August's book of the month because it is going to feature in the September birthday celebrations? Am I right in saying that the Book of the Month for August feature had been left off this forum? Was this an oversight? Have your team decided not to 'support' and 'instigate' debate on this forum after all?
The book has been made the August Book of the month because of its anniversary date - it was written in 1916, although not published until 1920. Perhaps as a marketing approach, it is going to headline activities in September. It should feature heavily on the Royal Mail stamps being released on Septemberer 15th Agatha's birthday.
It's not her best book, unfortunately. It's a shame Death on the Nile wasn't written in 1916. It is more ageless - and contemporary in its treatment of young romance. Some of Jackie's pronouncements could almost be modern. There is a passion which appeals to us in our time.
Hi Tuppence, could you please give us an update of how your team are progressing in terms of energizing and rejuvenating this community forum? I noticed that you liked GKC Fan's post about David Suchet taking a role in Doctor Who. Do you, may I ask, ever like posts by other forum members - or only your fellow moderators? I ask this since I believe that it would lead to a sense of community if you did appear to respond with interest to the posts of your members.
Hi Tuppence, another suggestion. I notice that yourself and your fellow moderator GKCFan both started a fresh thread on the same topic - Ben Afleck, I think.. Why not liaise between yourselves as moderators, and bring your brain power together to create consistency.
Looking at responses to certain threads, the story tells itself about what fans want to see on this forum. A new thread started on August 22nd, and titled 'Interview with Sophie Hannah' receives 7 views and 0 comments, and a thread started on August 25th about 7 new TV adaptations receives 88 views and 14 comments. The clear implication is that fans want to see posts about TV adaptations, but don't have much to say about the new Poirot novels.
Also, I suggest you respond to posts by members, so that, for instance when I asked how the revamp for the website was coming along, you might have replied with some information. It is engaging when a forum seems to be being actively monitored, and it is nice to get a direct response because it shows enthusiasm and appreciation.
I think this Agatha Christie forum needs a bit of reviving because it's definitely in a slump. I enjoy reading insights from those who continue to remain on the board but I'm afraid at some point they're going to leave and if so who am I going to talk about Agatha Christie with? How can this forum go on without any participation? Is there a way in which the moderators can bring something new, something different to the table? John Curran added a big part to the Agatha Christie legacy by giving us access to Agatha Christie's notebooks in his two volumes. Maybe the moderators should invite John Curran onto the forums so we can hear his interesting insights and observations of Agatha Christie and her books.... anything would be better than nothing at all!
The New Adaptations might rejuvenate the sight with people talking about them, How they could have been improved who should have played the Characters etc.
I'm probably alone in this, but I really, really dislike modern 'adaptations' of any classic literature, Christie novels definitely included.
Go ahead and write your own, original TV series and see who watches it, but stop trading on the names of those who are alreasy famous.
You're not alone at all because I've been shouting down the rooftops of this forum how I hate the adaptations that are coming out today from Christie's books. The last of the good adaptations from Christie's works were from the Poirot series in the 90's. There were a handful of good Poirot's in the recent years, not perfect, such as Five Little Pigs, The Hollow, Sad Cypress and a few others but many of the adaptations are trying so hard to be "modern" that Agatha Christie's characters and plots are being sacrificed because of it. And I fear this new crop of adaptations that are about to come out in the next few years will be more of the same -- taking unnecessary liberties with the stories, homosexual characters, profane language and erotic, titillating scenes thrown in for the sake of being modern -- this is NOT Agatha Christie!
The reason that this forum has become such a wasteland is because there are not that many posts about her books. The other day I came on here to look at the September Book of the Month thread and found that the threads shown in "Recent Discussions" were overwhelmingly about films, either Agatha Christie adaptations, David Suchet roles, one's favorite actors, and what have you. The general consensus seems to be that people don't like the adaptations very much, yet they won't stop talking about them.
@ChristieFanForLife and @Ajisai , you are both correct. Although there are some which make changes for the better (Cat Among The Pigeons) many add untastful vulgarity, especially in the depiction of her characters. The problem is not that they leave out or cut scenes, but they add way too much in, which makes it crowded and confusing. Sometimes less is more, especially in regards to the new Appointment with Death adaption and that Marple show.
@Madame_Doyle, I've been discussing Nemesis on this link as of late (http://community-archive.agathachristie.com/discussion/457/nemesis/p1), taking a discussion that's started Nov. 2014 and revived it and so far it has generated some interesting discussion from others and believe you me, and Griselda can testify to this, I want lots of discussion on the books probably more than anyone! I remember when Poirot use to come on A&E Network and there was a discussion forum on that website and I use to host and take part in a plethora of book discussions. It was exciting and I miss those days a lot. I would like for something like this to happen in this forum too. One thing I noticed over the last couple of days are a number of new members coming to the forum and I'm glad to see that. There were times I thought about leaving this forum but I'm going to wade it out and continue posting my opinions and discussions in the forum.
@ChristieFanForLife and @Ajisai , you are both correct. Although there are some which make changes for the better (Cat Among The Pigeons) many add untastful vulgarity, especially in the depiction of her characters. The problem is not that they leave out or cut scenes, but they add way too much in, which makes it crowded and confusing. Sometimes less is more, especially in regards to the new Appointment with Death adaption and that Marple show.
I think the length of the films is part of the problem. I noticed the time is way too short and it shows because the scenes are rushed. You need the time to tell the story properly, deliver the clues fairly to the TV viewer, portray the characters in a way that's engaging and spend some time with and not rush through them without getting a good feel of them. For example, the Geraldine McEwan version of A Murder Is Announced feels rushed (watch the scene when everyone gathers at Miss Blacklock's place and the lights go out -- the scene is rushed; the scene is meant to be a quick, short one but they could at least slowed down a bit to create that tension) whereas the Hickson version clocks in at 2 hrs and 33 minutes (without commercials) giving the production team time to tell the story properly and fairly deliver the clues.
I think THE problem comes down to a lack of skills on the part of the production team. It's possible to make a 90 minute Agatha Christie film and do it in a way that's faithful to the story though there will be scenes that are left out or cut and I think the best example of that even though this adaptation isn't perfect would be the Poirot film Five Little Pigs. The film went at a nice pace, the scenes didn't feel rushed, I got a good sense of the characters -- a skilled team worked behind it and the story was in good hands. It's "whose" hands the story is in that depends on whether the film will be good regardless of length.
@ChristieFanForLife yeah, I do suppose it depends on the writing team. I just got the Joan Hickson Marple's, and I cannot wait to watch them as they seem to be the only accurate depictions of Marple from what I've heard. Five Little Pigs is the prime example of a faithful adaption with a creative twists, as movies cannot be exactly like the book or massively changed. Also the ABC murders adaption from the same show, which was phenomenal, and before they made that horrendous Murder on the Orient Express, and you are definitely correct on the length. Especially with Appointment with Death and Cards on the table in the Poirot show. They shove it in a 90 minute time frame, try to intensify it and they end up making the characters too over the top, and add too many pointless subplots to include 'epic' action, and in the process they butcher the story. What makes me love the Agatha Christie novels is how you can relate to the characters as humans being and are psychologically convincing. In Appointment with DeathThere are random add in characters involved in organized crime and slave trade pretending to be nuns and attack a young girl. There was not enough to develop the murderer, and they turned the psychological torturing Mrs. Boyton and her children have them become her adopted children who she keeps to physically abuse in uncomfortable flashbacks.
As for the topic, I haven't been here long, but I think there could be more on other characters, maybe to discuss some endings, or murderers.
Appointment With Death is the WORST Poirot film and I don't even know why David Suchet agreed to be involved in such a travesty. Appointment With Death is a great example not following the book and what happens when you reduce a film to 90 minutes and instead of leaving scenes from Christie's book which could have made a great film (that's if they paced the scenes well), they add in unnecessary, pointless scenes that aren't in the book (on top of that they are horribly paced)! This film is a textbook lesson on what NOT to do in an Agatha Christie adaptation and what an adaptation looks like in unskilled hands. And the cast was horrible.
That's true, ChristieFanForLife, the Hickson adaptation you mention is relatively lengthy. That could be an issue - how much time in the television schedule is available to directors.
That's true, ChristieFanForLife, the Hickson adaptation you mention is relatively lengthy. That could be an issue - how much time in the television schedule is available to directors.
Well even if 90 minutes are only given for a director to work with, I think the director should have enough skill and ability to pull it off and still make a faithful, respectable, well-made film. In skilled hands, he/she will know what to do and if he has respect for A.C's books, that director will make it work. Five Little Pigs is a great example, Appointment With Death not so much.
I've been trying to figure out why I love the Granada/Brett Holmes series, and have only been lukewarm towards any of the Christie adaptations (while loving the books). I believe one factor, quite apart from modernization and 'sleazification,' is that much of Christie's works are so internal, and you're treated to the characters and their thoughts. Conan Doyle's style is more spare and external, which lends itself well to the adaptations.
The Brett Holmes series was 20 or 30 years ago wasn't it? When things were might not have been as The Novelist intended but were done Sympathetically, I can't remember when I last saw a Brett Holmes Episode but Characters and Plots not in the Adaptations were not in those Adaptations, with MARPLE Miss Marple is put in some Adaptations when she shouldn't appear, and Characters sexuality or even Gender in one case is altered, The Adaptations are not done sympathetically at all in a lot of them ITV could have done a Great Job of them but for various reasons they chose not to.
I've been trying to figure out why I love the Granada/Brett Holmes series, and have only been lukewarm towards any of the Christie adaptations (while loving the books). I believe one factor, quite apart from modernization and 'sleazification,' is that much of Christie's works are so internal, and you're treated to the characters and their thoughts. Conan Doyle's style is more spare and external, which lends itself well to the adaptations.
There is actually a way to film Christie's characters, sharing their inner and internal thoughts outwardly on the screen. Again it takes "skilled" (a word I've used often as of late but it bears repeating) adapters, directors, scriptwriters, actors/actresses, etc to film Christie's characters and do it effectively. It CAN be done. It's not like it's impossible to film Christie's characters onscreen, but it all comes down to hard work, with the intention of being true to Agatha Christie. And this involves reading the book, re-reading it, taking copious notes, and studying the characters.
Griselda, a member of this forum, directed our attention to a particular Miss Marple episode, The Moving Finger, from the Joan Hickson series where the portrayal of Christie's characters was done effectively and respectively, making them the way Christie portrayed them unlike the recent Miss Marple episodes that misunderstood them:
Richard Symington was well-cast and played. He was presented as being in his late 30s, early 40s, and looked settled and respectable but spruce and well-preserved enough to be attractive to a good-looking young woman, and still vital, one felt. There was no attempt on the part of the directors to style the character as excessively nerdy and as an uptight professional man. The actors seemed to understand their characters and to respond with subtle nuance to anything another character said. There were slight changes to the dialogue from the book, but sympathetically done and showing a deep understanding of what is going on between the characters.
Again Griselda elaborated on one particular scene from the same film where sharing a character's inner thoughts and motives CAN be shown onscreen externally but done in a way that's not out of character and is in keeping with the story:
There is a profound misunderstanding about Christie's characterization. If we look at the Hickson 'The Moving Finger' again, with a scrupulous eye, we see characters are conveying, through slight pauses, and changes in pace of movement, what the characters are thinking. Here is Richard Symington, he is surprised Megan has asked Elsie to leave the room. He is slightly put out and cold. (Megan has pushed her social advantage: she's used Elsie's first name as though she is one of the household staff: Symington calls her Miss Holland to denote respectfulness). Megan is firm, and a part of her is watching to see his reaction. Blackmail isn't articulated, but it is suggested in every movement and phrase. He doesn't look Megan in the eye, but tries in tone to preserve his demeanor but his voice has a gentle conciliatory note. If they did that scene today, the actor playing Symington would have to look like a stuffed shirt who is totally gobsmacked. There would be a gaze of malice in his eye, at least two minutes long. He would have to caricature a posh person being shocked, and he would have to stand for all male chauvinists in history who have ever underestimated a woman. When they do the adaptation, it will probably a history lesson in how awful posh people used to be.
I think possibly modern day police dramas, may convey some of the subtlety of response which we see in earlier, Hickson, adaptations of AC novels, when the policemen are talking over the evidence in the course of their daily duties. It is possible that individuals in the early to mid twentieth century used to see preserving forms and conventions as important, and so, to an extent, they were conducting social interactions more in the operating of operating in the work place, in the sense that you didn't just let it all hang out, as character seem to be made to on television. People today are portrayed as much freer and self-indulgent with their behaviour, and directors love private scenes. However, I don't think AC portrayed many private scenes, most, I think, are social, although I do remember one, in A Carribbean Mystery, between the man who has had an affair with Lucky and his wife. Most intimate and unguarded moments are suggested rather than shown, I think.
Comments
The book has been made the August Book of the month because of its anniversary date - it was written in 1916, although not published until 1920. Perhaps as a marketing approach, it is going to headline activities in September. It should feature heavily on the Royal Mail stamps being released on Septemberer 15th Agatha's birthday.
Looking at responses to certain threads, the story tells itself about what fans want to see on this forum. A new thread started on August 22nd, and titled 'Interview with Sophie Hannah' receives 7 views and 0 comments, and a thread started on August 25th about 7 new TV adaptations receives 88 views and 14 comments. The clear implication is that fans want to see posts about TV adaptations, but don't have much to say about the new Poirot novels.
Also, I suggest you respond to posts by members, so that, for instance when I asked how the revamp for the website was coming along, you might have replied with some information. It is engaging when a forum seems to be being actively monitored, and it is nice to get a direct response because it shows enthusiasm and appreciation.
The New Adaptations might rejuvenate the sight with people talking about them, How they could have been improved who should have played the Characters etc.
Go ahead and write your own, original TV series and see who watches it, but stop trading on the names of those who are alreasy famous.
I think THE problem comes down to a lack of skills on the part of the production team. It's possible to make a 90 minute Agatha Christie film and do it in a way that's faithful to the story though there will be scenes that are left out or cut and I think the best example of that even though this adaptation isn't perfect would be the Poirot film Five Little Pigs. The film went at a nice pace, the scenes didn't feel rushed, I got a good sense of the characters -- a skilled team worked behind it and the story was in good hands. It's "whose" hands the story is in that depends on whether the film will be good regardless of length.
As for the topic, I haven't been here long, but I think there could be more on other characters, maybe to discuss some endings, or murderers.
There is actually a way to film Christie's characters, sharing their inner and internal thoughts outwardly on the screen. Again it takes "skilled" (a word I've used often as of late but it bears repeating) adapters, directors, scriptwriters, actors/actresses, etc to film Christie's characters and do it effectively. It CAN be done. It's not like it's impossible to film Christie's characters onscreen, but it all comes down to hard work, with the intention of being true to Agatha Christie. And this involves reading the book, re-reading it, taking copious notes, and studying the characters.
Griselda, a member of this forum, directed our attention to a particular Miss Marple episode, The Moving Finger, from the Joan Hickson series where the portrayal of Christie's characters was done effectively and respectively, making them the way Christie portrayed them unlike the recent Miss Marple episodes that misunderstood them:
Again Griselda elaborated on one particular scene from the same film where sharing a character's inner thoughts and motives CAN be shown onscreen externally but done in a way that's not out of character and is in keeping with the story: