@ChristieFanForLife , I wonder if it is accurate as IMDB can be edited by the fans, I believe. A writer from downtown abbey sounds interesting, as that show has been praised for its screenwriting (I have not watched the show myself). I suppose Glen Close could play Edith and Max Irons as Charles. Finding an actress for Josephine will be hard...most child actors nowadays only know how to play comedic roles in sitcoms. There is one English actress, Raffey Cassidy who has starred in a few movies that could pull it off while she's still young. If they film this year, it would be the right time. She looks like how I pictured Josephine. Since the writer is from Downtown Abbey I'm sure it will be very character-driven, which is always a good thing, and will focus much on the characterizations, but hopefully they are not significantly more developed than the plot. The current director has only made a couple of films, and one was deemed positive while the more recent one was not favored and considered negative by critics.
I do not know what to make of this new information. I hope BBC does some changes with Ordeal by Innocence and Death Comes As The End and not have them run the same as And Then There Were None did, released in the past year. I liked the majority of it, and the complaints I have are probably the ones everyone else had. I liked the atmosphere and character sequences, however, which is definitely important for Ordeal.
I'm probably going to skip the ABC murders, as the Suchet one was already all I could hope for.
For Death Comes As The End, I wonder if they might consider changing the ending, and possibly search for the original. I am dying to know who is the original killer as the villain as a little default. I suppose when they asked her to change the ending all she did was switched it to a villain whose twist was done in previous formulas. I hope, though for DCATE that they cast all Middle Eastern or African actors as the story takes place in ancient Egypt.
I look forward to them with Interest I do not care how good or bad they are ape=rt from ABC Murders The Choice of who will play Poirot, Japp and Hastings interest's me enormously.
There's an interesting article in The Guardian by Sarah Hughes, published September 11th 2016, about the golden age of crime, and the influence of Agatha Christie on other modern writers who are setting their new crime stories in an earlier era.
The article quotes James (?) Prichard (yes it says James) Chairman of Agatha Christie Limited as saying: 'There's a terrible tendency to see golden age crime as cosy crime, but I think it's pretty evident that my great-grandmother found murder a serious and horrific business.'
That is interesting. I think some of we fans think the term 'cosy crime' is out of place because Agatha Christie conveys the full horror of taking a life - and the consequences for everyone connected.
James Prichard goes on to say of golden age crime novels, 'People enjoy the puzzle element of them and they like the fact that you might feel a little uncomfortable, but never so uncomfortable that you can't go on.'
That point of views seems different to that of Hilary Strong of Agatha Christie Ltd, who in that article in Drama Quarterly of December 2015, which I quoted from in an earlier post, said of the time when the Suchet Poirots ended:
'Did we want to carry on with Christie being the traditional, much-loved work that it is? People's perception of it is 'cosy crime'. But for a brand to remain alive and resonate for a modern audience, it needs to do something new and give a different message.'
It will be interesting to see whether the new tv adaptations take influence from the growing number of crime novels which are being set in an earlier era, or whether the producers try to make audiences sit up in their seats even to the point of being shocked and uncomfortable. Perhaps it will depend on which novels are chosen for adaptation. I tend to think that the recent adaptation of And Then There Were None was presented to be 'edgy' and scary. Clearly the Tommy and Tuppence dramas were rather more cosy and nostalgic.
I'm sure many of us would say that the stories are so good that you can just adapt them using current, popular and great actors. Don 't overthink it and go for a contrived effect, is what I would say.
I believe the atmosphere the new And Then There Were None was used artfully. They seem to be going for the darker Ordeal by Innocence and her other psychological thrillers rather than her village mysteries. What I hope is that they don't make it too uncomfortable (and some plot points in Ordeal are rather...uncomfortable), because the last thing they need is to sap out the humor and lightness from her novels. When the show Poirot decided to change things up and darken the stories, that is when the quality deteriorated.
I believe the atmosphere the new And Then There Were None was used artfully. They seem to be going for the darker Ordeal by Innocence and her other psychological thrillers rather than her village mysteries. What I hope is that they don't make it too uncomfortable (and some plot points in Ordeal are rather...uncomfortable), because the last thing they need is to sap out the humor and lightness from her novels. When the show Poirot decided to change things up and darken the stories, that is when the quality deteriorated.
It's like they go to the extreme. Either it's too dark (such as some of the Poirot stories) or it's too silly (like the new Miss Marple films in which you can't take the characters seriously) and there doesn't seem to be that balance of both seriousness and/or dark tone and humor/lightheartedness.
Thank you for this, ChristieFanForLife. You are truly amazing finding these things out for us.
I'm right in saying, aren't I, that, in the novel, Charles Hayward is not working as a detective, either privately or for the police, and Sophia is not his client?
In the novel, Charles Hayward isn't a detective and Sophia isn't a client of his nor are they both former lovers. They are former lovers but they put their marriage on hold until Sophia finds out who killed her grandfather.
I prefer the way Agatha Christie arranged the situation unlike the upcoming movie but I can see why they did it the way they did. But it looks like (it doesn't say this online) Charles Hayward and Sophia might fall back in love in the film. . . that's where I see it heading. I think as long Charles & Sophia are together then that's fine in my book.
What I'm looking for mostly is the way the film will be executed and if it's executed well we'll have a great version of this story. Crooked House DESERVES to be filmed well. This is one of Agatha Christie's favorite mysteries! You can't mess up on a favorite of hers!
@Griselda it seems Max Irons will play Charles, Terence Stamp will play Aristide, Glenn Close will be Aunt Edith, Gillian Anderson might play Clemency, Christina Hendricks could play Magda, Stefani Martini may play Sophia, and Honor Kneafsey will play Josephine. I think Glenn Close will be great as Edith if you picture her in the 1950s clothing, hairstyles, and her elaborate acting skills that can provide both sides of Edith, as she has great versatility in her movie roles. Terence Stamp is playing Aristide, which makes me think they may want a darker approach to the victims character, but he also is talented. Gillian Anderson seems like an amazing choice, as she is the perfect age for Clemency, and can definitely do that practical, cynical, calculating personality. Hendricks was nominated for an Emmy, and I'm sure she could do that flamboyant, boisterous, dramatic act for Magda. I have not seen Max Irons in anything, but he looks the part. Stefani Martini also seems like a good choice. All of these are very...interesting. Julian Fellowes as a writer is good, not sure about the director. It seems like Honor Kneafsy is definitely playing Josephine for her age...she's the right age, and it seems they are going for an innocent look, but I pictured Josephine as a skinny, angular girl with dark, straight hair, like Raffey Cassidy. However, I cannot make a judgement upon the film or its actors until it is released, but it is fun speculating!
Thanks indeed for finding this out for us, CrookedQuin. It looks to be a fantastic cast, and it seems almost certain that they will make an excellent job of the characterisation. I'm interested in what you suggest about the casting of Terence Stamp. It would be a very effective way of making the main murder explicable in a way which would avoid, to an extent, portraying the child as quite inhuman. It is going to take enormous skill to play Josephine. I am confident that Julian Fellowes's writing will really translate the dynamics between the characters very effectively.
I really hope they'll be able to pull this story off well onto film. It's time to see a well-made and faithful adaptation of a Christie book on screen -- it's been a long time. I think Julian Fellowes is a big fan of Agatha Christie's books so I think he will respect the material and at the same time use his writing skills to be accurate to the time period of the book and bring out the nuances to make Josephine human but evil as well.
@Madame_Doyle, GKCFan is actually the only moderator who replies to anyone in this forum. GKCFan has replied to me countless times. I wish the other moderators would do the same.
I try to reply to everything I can, but admittedly I miss things from time to time. Sometimes the "new replies" feature doesn't list recent responses, so I miss something. Please tag me "@GKCfan" so I respond to all questions. Thank you!
That is right, Madame Doyle, and ChristieFanForLife. Actually a response! And indeed, as ChristieFanForLife you say, it is always GCK who replies, and also, generally, these days, Dr Sheppard.
What is amusing in a certain way, is that the moderators speak to each other on the forum but not to us! Tuppence replies to DrSheppard saying words to the effect of : 'Ooh how exciting to hear about the new Poirot novel, do please write a review!!!', but can't be bothered to acknowledge my question. (I take it the forum revamp isn't going as dynamically as at first suggested, because there are no changes yet, and no replies to enquiries about it.)
In terms of dramatisations and to cosy or not to cosy ( using the adjective as a verb) I don't think Dame Agatha's work is cosy, of course, but it does strike me that perhaps today's ' modern audience' would actually feel more interested in the period pieces than some middle agers and oldsters might think. Whilst for me, born in 1962, my mum's young era seemed old-fashioned and unenlightened, I am not sure that really young adults in their twenties and thirties feel quite as optimistic about their brave new future as the previous beneficiaries of change. Certainly, in Britain, young people cannot get a mortgage, a home, an interesting job, opportunities to self-actualise via study as easily as their parents once did - indeed young adults are often still living at home simply dreaming of standing on their own two feet well into their late twenties. They might think that there might be a few interesting insights to be had from surveying the ways in which earlier generations did things. I'm sure that most will embrace the caring dimensions which social change has brought, but it might interest them to examine how people used to live. Some things better, and some things worse, but they may like to rewind the years and give a look to how we got here.
Being a "millennial", I can certainly agree with what you said Griselda. I've been very uncertain about my future . . . . and I'm not very optimistic as I used to be. I think a lot of times the present generation looks back at generations of old and view them as old-fashioned and unenlightened but I think we can look back at previous generations and learn some things. We are never too good to learn. Why do we think because other generations don't have the kind of technology that we have, that makes them unenlightened and unintelligent?
I wish that ITV could get the rights to Christie back again. Look at what BBC did with Partners in Crime. Their problem is that they are trying to make the works toothless. I love Christie. She is elegant, and intriguing, but her work needs help in the character department. She really did not know how to write people. Maybe Christie would have liked the BBC adaptations, but I don't. I really don't care for any of her works that don't have Poirot or Marple anyhow. I enjoy having someone that I can relate to and admire in the work. Plot with cut out cardboard characters of English society isn't interesting enough. So far everything the BBC has done with Christie has sucked.
A pretty good version of Endless Night was on television in the UK a couple of Christmases ago. Check it out. The lead character was superb, and will surely be asked to play the part of a sociopath in future.
That was the ITV version. It was superb. But Sarah Phelps is casting it as noir with American actors, not English. The whole BBC thing is awful.
I wish that ITV could get the rights to Christie back again. Look at what BBC did with Partners in Crime. Their problem is that they are trying to make the works toothless. I love Christie. She is elegant, and intriguing, but her work needs help in the character department. She really did not know how to write people. Maybe Christie would have liked the BBC adaptations, but I don't. I really don't care for any of her works that don't have Poirot or Marple anyhow. I enjoy having someone that I can relate to and admire in the work. Plot with cut out cardboard characters of English society isn't interesting enough. So far everything the BBC has done with Christie has sucked.
Is it Christie who didn't know how to write people who needed help in the character department or is it the actors and the production team who are not getting what Agatha Christie is trying to get at "with" her characters? I remember reading a comment from a member on this forum who said, "I think that preparing the actors is the key to making the recent adaptations excellent. Do these professionals really understand everything about their characters 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."
The problem with the recent adaptations is that they are trying so hard to be "modern" that they are putting Agatha Christie's plots and characters to the sideline and that's what making these adaptations "toothless". Her books and her characters are not toothless, it's the adaptations that are making them so. What concerns me is that the production team is trying so hard to be relevant but the thing is Agatha Christie was always relevant! Why are all her books still in print? They are in print for a reason. Because people are STILL reading her books. She attains new fans each year.
Agatha Christie is always accused of making one-dimensional, cardboard cutout characters but Christie did know how to write people. She observed people and she knew human nature and the hidden depths of evil that live in the human heart. In Janet Morgan's "Agatha Christie, A Biography", she says, "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." This quote was from a news 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."
Agatha Christie KNEW human nature and she presented this flawlessly throughout her books. Just as her characters put on facades, even in the real world we do the exact same thing. We hide things that we don't want other people to know or see. There are many characters from Christie's books that are multifaceted such as Caroline Crale, Elinor Carlisle, Jacqueline de Bellefort, Henrietta Savernake, Miss Gilchrist, and even John Christow. In the Poirot adaptation of The Murder Of Roger Ackroyd, Poirot refers to the village of King's Abbot: "Just scratch the surface, and you will find more jealousies and rivalries than ancient Rome." This explains Christie's characters and we don't clearly see what goes on in their minds and hearts until Poirot exposes the truth. This is very three-dimensional. The heart is like deep waters. A one-dimensional character has no depth.
I wish that ITV could get the rights to Christie back again. Look at what BBC did with Partners in Crime. . . . . .She is elegant, and intriguing, but her work needs help in the character department. She really did not know how to write people.
The problem with the new T&T films is the direction the production team was going with:
*moving the story to the 50's *the downplay of chemistry between David Walliams and Jessica Raine (Francesca Annis & James Warwick from the 80's series was much better) *making the story into 3 parts which would have been a good decision in the past on TV but not these days considering the attention spans of the people --it just didn't work.
David Walliams' portrayal of Tommy Beresford was a big problem and he wasn't like the Tommy from the books. They made Tommy Beresford in the film "toothless", taking out the things that Agatha Christie made Tommy who he was. I mentioned in a previous post that it was not Agatha Christie who made her characters toothless but it's the adaptations that make them so. I've read comments from others that said David Walliams emasculated the character and made Tommy buffoonish. I say that they made him weak, silly, a man-child, a big baby, and he was nothing like this in the books. The production team stripped Tommy of who he was and reduced him down to nothing. Does this sound like they know how to write people -- to write a person . . . .a man? Agatha Christie did a much better job at developing Tommy and she doesn't need help by the BBC thank you very much
I read an interesting comment from the IMDB.com message boards and I don't think this comment is too far-fetched. This person said, "Showing men as inferior to women is fairly common in contemporary culture, so it's not much of a surprise really that Tommy's character would be played like that." When I hear that the new films are trying to be modern and appeal to the modern audience the former comment made isn't too out there. And I see this dumbing down of men everywhere on TV, films, and commercials. Agatha Christie didn't make her male characters like this!
The new films are dumbing down the characters, making them loud, obnoxious, silly, weak, one-dimensional, and parodies. Just look at the new Miss Marple films and you'll see what I mean.
@ChristieFanForLife I truly believe there are many strong female characters in Agatha Christie novels, and reflected the women of that time period as well. People just don't consider generosity, compassion, kindness, and empathy (one that comes to mind for this is Caroline Crale) strong traits anymore. In the media nowadays, negative traits are portrayed frequently, like rebelliousness, stubbornness --those are, in fact, degrading traits for stereotypical hotheaded characters.
@ChristieFanForLife I truly believe there are many strong female characters in Agatha Christie novels, and reflected the women of that time period as well.
Do you see any strong male characters or ones that are three-dimensional and multifaceted in Christie's books?
Aside from detectives (Poirot, Battle, Tommy, Mr. Satterthwaite), there are villains (And Then There Were None, The Man in the Brown Suit, Endless Night),narrators (Roger Ackroyd, Murder at the Vicarage, Five Little Pigs (after all, flashbacks are narrated), Moving Finger) and stage play characters (Sir Wilfrid), just to name a few– I could come up with numerous others.
Comments
I do not know what to make of this new information. I hope BBC does some changes with Ordeal by Innocence and Death Comes As The End and not have them run the same as And Then There Were None did, released in the past year. I liked the majority of it, and the complaints I have are probably the ones everyone else had. I liked the atmosphere and character sequences, however, which is definitely important for Ordeal.
I'm probably going to skip the ABC murders, as the Suchet one was already all I could hope for.
For Death Comes As The End, I wonder if they might consider changing the ending, and possibly search for the original. I am dying to know who is the original killer as the villain as a little default. I suppose when they asked her to change the ending all she did was switched it to a villain whose twist was done in previous formulas. I hope, though for DCATE that they cast all Middle Eastern or African actors as the story takes place in ancient Egypt.
www.theguardian.com/books/2016/sep/10/crime-fiction-new-generation-golden-age-agatha-christie
It is interesting and worth a look.
The article quotes James (?) Prichard (yes it says James) Chairman of Agatha Christie Limited as saying: 'There's a terrible tendency to see golden age crime as cosy crime, but I think it's pretty evident that my great-grandmother found murder a serious and horrific business.'
That is interesting. I think some of we fans think the term 'cosy crime' is out of place because Agatha Christie conveys the full horror of taking a life - and the consequences for everyone connected.
James Prichard goes on to say of golden age crime novels, 'People enjoy the puzzle element of them and they like the fact that you might feel a little uncomfortable, but never so uncomfortable that you can't go on.'
That point of views seems different to that of Hilary Strong of Agatha Christie Ltd, who in that article in Drama Quarterly of December 2015, which I quoted from in an earlier post, said of the time when the Suchet Poirots ended:
'Did we want to carry on with Christie being the traditional, much-loved work that it is? People's perception of it is 'cosy crime'. But for a brand to remain alive and resonate for a modern audience, it needs to do something new and give a different message.'
It will be interesting to see whether the new tv adaptations take influence from the growing number of crime novels which are being set in an earlier era, or whether the producers try to make audiences sit up in their seats even to the point of being shocked and uncomfortable. Perhaps it will depend on which novels are chosen for adaptation. I tend to think that the recent adaptation of And Then There Were None was presented to be 'edgy' and scary. Clearly the Tommy and Tuppence dramas were rather more cosy and nostalgic.
I'm sure many of us would say that the stories are so good that you can just adapt them using current, popular and great actors. Don 't overthink it and go for a contrived effect, is what I would say.
http://deadline.com/2016/09/christina-hendricks-glenn-close-agatha-christie-crooked-house-1201818573/
I'm right in saying, aren't I, that, in the novel, Charles Hayward is not working as a detective, either privately or for the police, and Sophia is not his client?
I prefer the way Agatha Christie arranged the situation unlike the upcoming movie but I can see why they did it the way they did. But it looks like (it doesn't say this online) Charles Hayward and Sophia might fall back in love in the film. . . that's where I see it heading. I think as long Charles & Sophia are together then that's fine in my book.
What I'm looking for mostly is the way the film will be executed and if it's executed well we'll have a great version of this story. Crooked House DESERVES to be filmed well. This is one of Agatha Christie's favorite mysteries! You can't mess up on a favorite of hers!
What is amusing in a certain way, is that the moderators speak to each other on the forum but not to us! Tuppence replies to DrSheppard saying words to the effect of : 'Ooh how exciting to hear about the new Poirot novel, do please write a review!!!', but can't be bothered to acknowledge my question. (I take it the forum revamp isn't going as dynamically as at first suggested, because there are no changes yet, and no replies to enquiries about it.)
The problem with the recent adaptations is that they are trying so hard to be "modern" that they are putting Agatha Christie's plots and characters to the sideline and that's what making these adaptations "toothless". Her books and her characters are not toothless, it's the adaptations that are making them so. What concerns me is that the production team is trying so hard to be relevant but the thing is Agatha Christie was always relevant! Why are all her books still in print? They are in print for a reason. Because people are STILL reading her books. She attains new fans each year.
Agatha Christie is always accused of making one-dimensional, cardboard cutout characters but Christie did know how to write people. She observed people and she knew human nature and the hidden depths of evil that live in the human heart. In Janet Morgan's "Agatha Christie, A Biography", she says, "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." This quote was from a news 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."
Agatha Christie KNEW human nature and she presented this flawlessly throughout her books. Just as her characters put on facades, even in the real world we do the exact same thing. We hide things that we don't want other people to know or see. There are many characters from Christie's books that are multifaceted such as Caroline Crale, Elinor Carlisle, Jacqueline de Bellefort, Henrietta Savernake, Miss Gilchrist, and even John Christow. In the Poirot adaptation of The Murder Of Roger Ackroyd, Poirot refers to the village of King's Abbot: "Just scratch the surface, and you will find more jealousies and rivalries than ancient Rome." This explains Christie's characters and we don't clearly see what goes on in their minds and hearts until Poirot exposes the truth. This is very three-dimensional. The heart is like deep waters. A one-dimensional character has no depth.
*moving the story to the 50's
*the downplay of chemistry between David Walliams and Jessica Raine (Francesca Annis & James Warwick from the 80's series was much better)
*making the story into 3 parts which would have been a good decision in the past on TV but not these days considering the attention spans of the people --it just didn't work.
David Walliams' portrayal of Tommy Beresford was a big problem and he wasn't like the Tommy from the books. They made Tommy Beresford in the film "toothless", taking out the things that Agatha Christie made Tommy who he was. I mentioned in a previous post that it was not Agatha Christie who made her characters toothless but it's the adaptations that make them so. I've read comments from others that said David Walliams emasculated the character and made Tommy buffoonish. I say that they made him weak, silly, a man-child, a big baby, and he was nothing like this in the books. The production team stripped Tommy of who he was and reduced him down to nothing. Does this sound like they know how to write people -- to write a person . . . .a man? Agatha Christie did a much better job at developing Tommy and she doesn't need help by the BBC thank you very much
I read an interesting comment from the IMDB.com message boards and I don't think this comment is too far-fetched. This person said, "Showing men as inferior to women is fairly common in contemporary culture, so it's not much of a surprise really that Tommy's character would be played like that." When I hear that the new films are trying to be modern and appeal to the modern audience the former comment made isn't too out there. And I see this dumbing down of men everywhere on TV, films, and commercials. Agatha Christie didn't make her male characters like this!
The new films are dumbing down the characters, making them loud, obnoxious, silly, weak, one-dimensional, and parodies. Just look at the new Miss Marple films and you'll see what I mean.
Aside from detectives (Poirot, Battle, Tommy, Mr. Satterthwaite), there are villains (And Then There Were None, The Man in the Brown Suit, Endless Night), narrators (Roger Ackroyd, Murder at the Vicarage, Five Little Pigs (after all, flashbacks are narrated), Moving Finger) and stage play characters (Sir Wilfrid), just to name a few– I could come up with numerous others.