Locos in The ABC Murders

[phil-b259]

Poirot has been "portrayed" on film by Peter Ustinov (David Niven played his sidekick), Albert Finney and Kenneth Branagh.  The David Suchet version on ITV is a disincentive to watch any episodes as the character appearance and mannerisms are unbearable.  John Malkovich does a "different" Poirot, which is interesting, though he's surrounded by a slash and hack script. I can read the novels, the pictures in my mind are far superior to what appears on the TV screen!

 

The railway aspects of the series are similar to the revelation that the Post Office are going to have to replace a design in a series of stamps to be produced in 2019 as the image selected didn't show British troops landing on D Day, but instead showed American troops landing in Dutch New Guinea...

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46694509

 

Its all down to younger graphic designers not having any historical general knowledge at all.

 

Actually the characters in most of the ITV produced shows are very true to what Ms Christie wrote in her books - particularly David Suchett's Poirot.

 

He undertook considerable research into the character and his depiction is driven only by what Ms Christie actually put in her books - yes the mincing walk, fussy mannerisms, etc  its all there if you pay attention to the details

 

True some of her plots have been re-written to make them better stories, and the final batches of stories had a much harder edge to them, but even so they are still the best realisation of the characters I have seen so far.

 

On a wider point, yes they may well seem twee and not exactly challenging - but to be frank neither are Ms Christie's books in the first place.

 

'Re-imagining' Poirot as something 'more gritty' just to satisfy modern tastes rather ruins the point. Ms Christie's stories were written with the mindset of a 40 year old lady writing in the 1920s. Her characters are products of her time and experiences and are not intended to be explored in depth - they are in truth more about the mystery solving process and getting the reader to sharpen their analytical skills than worry about individual characters .

 

In other words don't ruin something in the pursuit of making it better and simply enjoy them for what they are.

 

As regards the other actors playing Poirot - Peter Ustinov was simply too big! - Agatha Christie made a big thing in her books of Poirot beeing small. Albert Finny was excellent in the 1974 film and a good fit size wise although lacking perhaps the 'egg shped head' as Ms Christie put it in her books that David Suchett seems to capture so well.

Edited December 30, 2018 by phil-b259

[Jol Wilkinson]

For the "average" viewer, the locations are probably more relevant than the railway detail. Shots of single track railways in Yorkshire masquerading as the mainline to the south coast is more likely to be noticed than the loco or carriage livery. 

 

There were other backgrounds and locations that seemed to fail to capture a plausible atmosphere or sense of accuracy. The location of the first murder seemed to have been left open when HP returned to it, yet surely a shop would have been secured or stripped bare if not.  We watched it but found, like many modern productions, it lacked a sense of realism in too many ways.

[Nearholmer]

I can’t abide ‘Miss Marpleshire’ TV, and, given that the ABC Murders was the only TV I watched in the past month, I think I struck a good ‘un, in fact a very good ‘un.

 

Yes, the railway bits were a terrible mess, but the rest was wonderfully gritty - it’s not often you feel the urge to wash all over ten times, using strong carbolic soap, and a floor scrubbing brush, but the East End bits of the programme certainly made me want to!

 

The 1930s are too often portrayed as a world of cosy wonderfulness, which they sure as heck weren’t, so a great counterbalance, and, in contrast to some above, I thought that the characters were eminently believable - maybe it came out more Graham Greene than Agatha Christie, but the better for it.

[Robin2]

 

On a wider point, yes they may well seem twee and not exactly challenging - but to be frank neither are Ms Christie's books in the first place.

 

'Re-imagining' Poirot as something 'more gritty' just to satisfy modern tastes rather ruins the point. Ms Christie's stories were written with the mindset of a 40 year old lady writing in the 1920s. Her characters are products of her time and experiences and are not intended to be explored in depth - they are in truth more about the mystery solving process and getting the reader to sharpen their analytical skills than worry about individual characters .

 

In other words don't ruin something in the pursuit of making it better and simply enjoy them for what they are.

+1

 

The "twee" is what I like. It makes a refreshing change from all the Brexit nonsense we are assailed with every day.

 

...R

[45156]

Actually the characters in most of the ITV produced shows are very true to what Ms Christie wrote in her books - particularly David Suchett's Poirot.

 

He undertook considerable research into the character and his depiction is driven only by what Ms Christie actually put in her books - yes the mincing walk, fussy mannerisms, etc  its all there if you pay attention to the details

 

True some of her plots have been re-written to make them better stories, and the final batches of stories had a much harder edge to them, but even so they are still the best realisation of the characters I have seen so far.

 

On a wider point, yes they may well seem twee and not exactly challenging - but to be frank neither are Ms Christie's books in the first place.

 

'Re-imagining' Poirot as something 'more gritty' just to satisfy modern tastes rather ruins the point. Ms Christie's stories were written with the mindset of a 40 year old lady writing in the 1920s. Her characters are products of her time and experiences and are not intended to be explored in depth - they are in truth more about the mystery solving process and getting the reader to sharpen their analytical skills than worry about individual characters .

 

In other words don't ruin something in the pursuit of making it better and simply enjoy them for what they are.

 

As regards the other actors playing Poirot - Peter Ustinov was simply too big! - Agatha Christie made a big thing in her books of Poirot beeing small. Albert Finny was excellent in the 1974 film and a good fit size wise although lacking perhaps the 'egg shped head' as Ms Christie put it in her books that David Suchett seems to capture so well.

Couldn't agree more - I was really looking forward to this, and set up a recording of all of the episodes, intending to watch as a three hour sitting.  I found this version was just too far removed from what Agatha Christie wrote, and could not take Betty Barnard as a  s l u t - the original was a flirt but the portrayal in this version was too far - I watched about 3/4 of the first episode on the afternoon of the 27th, as I had little else to watch, then cancelled the other two episodes, and deleted the first. 

Edited December 30, 2018 by 45156

[melmerby]

Just to balance the loco affairs.

Poirot & Jaap are currently travelling to Doncaster Races pulled by a Southern Loco (ITV3 - David Suchet version)

There looked like a blue GUV standing at the bufferstops at "Doncaster" (looking a bit like a terminus!)

 

Keith

[ejstubbs]

The location of the first murder seemed to have been left open when HP returned to it, yet surely a shop would have been secured or stripped bare if not.

 

My reading of that scene was that the shop had been looted after the body had been found and the local police had arrested the husband.  HP picked the lock to gain access the first time he went there: when he opened the door, the pane of glass next to the door handle was intact.  The second time he went there the door was indeed unsecured, but the pane next to the handle was clearly smashed, suggesting that the premises had been broken in to.

 

I note that the sign outside the shop read "Asher".  I believe that the character's name in the source novel was "Ascher".  Given the nationalist poster on the wall at 'Andover' station, perhaps there was supposed to be some suggestion that they had changed their name to avoid being targeted as 'foreigners'?  I don't recall that being mentioned in the programme, though it might have provided an explanation for the break-in and ransacking of the premises, though.

Edited December 30, 2018 by ejstubbs

[phil-b259]

I can’t abide ‘Miss Marpleshire’ TV, and, given that the ABC Murders was the only TV I watched in the past month, I think I struck a good ‘un, in fact a very good ‘un.

 

Yes, the railway bits were a terrible mess, but the rest was wonderfully gritty - it’s not often you feel the urge to wash all over ten times, using strong carbolic soap, and a floor scrubbing brush, but the East End bits of the programme certainly made me want to!

 

The 1930s are too often portrayed as a world of cosy wonderfulness, which they sure as heck weren’t, so a great counterbalance, and, in contrast to some above, I thought that the characters were eminently believable - maybe it came out more Graham Greene than Agatha Christie, but the better for it.

 

I would agree you statement about the 1930s in general, BUT Agnatha Christie was not writing a social commentary of the 1930s was she? She was writing fiction - designed to provide a bit of escapism and as such she was under no obligation to make it 'realistic' as it were.

 

90 years on we should not be attempting to reinterpret the novels to 'correct' that. You may not like the 'Miss Marpleshire' approach to said stories - but the brutal truth is that is how Ms Christie wrote them and it would be more honest if you simply acknowledged the truth that you don't like her particular writing style than complain when TV productions try and stay faithful to that truth.

[phil-b259]

My reading of that scene was that the shop had been looted after the body had been found and the local police had arrested the husband.  HP picked the lock to gain access the first time he went there: when he opened the door, the pane of glass next to the door handle was intact.  The second time he went there the door was indeed unsecured, but the pane next to the handle was clearly smashed, suggesting that the premises had been broken in to.

 

I note that the sign outside the shop read "Asher".  I believe that the character's name in the source novel was "Ascher".  Given the nationalist poster on the wall at 'Andover' station, perhaps there was supposed to be some suggestion that they had changed their name to avoid being targeted as 'foreigners'?  I don't recall that being mentioned in the programme, though it might have provided an explanation for the break-in and ransacking of the premises, though.

 

In the novel, the shop had NOT been looted, nor had anything been done to suggest a break in - the murder simply left after striking the lady down. A second person did enter the shop afterwards but did not notice the body and left without doing anything.

 

The novel does also say the lady had previously married a German(and thus had a German sounding proper name) but they had separated after his drinking became a problem and she Anglicised it when she opened the shop. The police suspect her husband for a time until Poiriot points out the numerous flaws in that idea.

 

The whole point of Agatha Christie novels is NOT wanton violence against people or property - as benefits her history as an assistant in the chemical lab of a WW1 hospital and later the wife of an archaeologist,  the emphasis in her books is on analytical problem solving and psychology.

Edited December 30, 2018 by phil-b259

[Steamport Southport]

If you're not going to make some effort (particularly with CGI, when you're not constrained with what's still really around and having to physically change details like numbers) why bother with steam at all? Or period costumes? Come to think of it I wonder if that's the reason we had a modern Sherlock?

 

The funny thing is possibly the definitive Sherlock Holmes was also a modern version. The Basil Rathbone version was set in the 1930s and '40s.

 

 

Jason

[Nearholmer]

Phil

 

OK, have it your way:

 

I don't like Christie's style of writing, or the TV adaptations of it; I do, very much, like Graham Greene's writing, and at least some of the TV/film adaptations of it.

 

So, I was truly delighted by an adaptation of Christie that felt more like something by Greene.

 

Except for the CGI trains, which were truly terrible, but forgivable, since only us sad old trainspotters care about that stuff.

 

Kevin

 

PS: "90 years on we should not be attempting to reinterpret the novels.....". Why not?

 

Everything written is game for reinterpretation.

 

Was it "all wrong" to reinterpret Shakespeare's Richard III as a dark 1930s piece, as was done a few years ago, for instance?

 

Reinterpretation, and "return to original presentation" both have their place, IMO.

Edited December 30, 2018 by Nearholmer

[phil-b259]

Phil

 

OK, have it your way:

 

I don't like Christie's style of writing, or the TV adaptations of it; I do, very much, like Graham Greene's writing, and at least some of the TV/film adaptations of it.

 

So, I was truly delighted by an adaptation of Christie that felt more like something by Greene.

 

Except for the CGI trains, which were truly terrible, but forgivable, since only us sad old trainspotters care about that stuff.

 

Kevin

 

If you prefer, how shall I put it, a more gritty adaption - the key word here being 'adaptation' of the ABC murders story then that is of course your prerogative. Far be it from me to tell you what you should or should not like.

 

All I would say is that you must realise that what you seem to prefer is NOT what Agatha Christie wrote in her books and any attempt to try and say otherwise is false. It may make for great TV but, sorry, in my view if you are dramatising a novel then you should stick as close to the source material as possible.

 

I personally have avoided watching TV adaptions of any books I own as they invariably try and be too clever and put stuff in that was not there - or alternatively leave out great chunks to speed things along. Similarly if I have seen an adaptation on TV (or in the cinema) I don't read the book so I am in blissful ignorance of the liberties taken.

[Steamport Southport]

Yet there are websites and TV programmes dedicated to showing mistakes in films...

 

Roman fire extinquishers in Gladiator for example.

 

I even saw one the other day saying that in Kelly's Heroes they used the wrong sort of tanks as they never used that type of Sherman at D Day. But you point out the post war East European steam locomotives are wrong then you are a sad trainspotter. 

 

 

 

Jason 

[Nearholmer]

Phil

 

You seem to be accusing me of doing something that I very definitely have not:

 

“All I would say is that you must realise that what you seem to prefer is NOT what Agatha Christie wrote in her books and any attempt to try and say otherwise is false.”

 

At no point have I claimed that this latest version, or indeed any other, is closer to the original text.

 

In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion that quite a lot of the old tosh that TV has served-up under the Christie name in the past has been just as heavily interpreted and adapted as this latest item, but in the opposite direction, so as to make it laughably bromide.

 

Kevin

[Harlequin]

There are lots of people who, like me, have never read the books. We are possibly the vast majority of viewers?

 

I wouldn't know whether any given interpretation of Poirot is closer to the original than any other. What I'm mainly looking for is simply a compelling story with a good pace and interesting characters. From that point of view The ABC Murders was a success, IMHO.

 

 

Getting back to the railway calumnies perpetrated in this series: Can anyone see a way to give the production company feedback without being dismissed as an obsessive nerd? As others have said they take great trouble to get period props, costumes, interiors and vehicles right, so why not the railway elements? There's really no excuse when they have the power of CGI to do literally whatever they want with...

Edited December 30, 2018 by Harlequin

[Pteremy]

Much though I enjoy the Rathbone films so far as story telling is concerned the definitive Sherlock Holmes is the radio version, with Clive Merrison & Michael Williams. 

[phil-b259]

Phil

 

You seem to be accusing me of doing something that I very definitely have not:

 

“All I would say is that you must realise that what you seem to prefer is NOT what Agatha Christie wrote in her books and any attempt to try and say otherwise is false.”

 

At no point have I claimed that this latest version, or indeed any other, is closer to the original text.

 

 

In which case I apologise for saying you had.

[phil-b259]

There are lots of people who, like me, have never read the books. We are possibly the vast majority of viewers?

 

I wouldn't know whether any given interpretation of Poirot is closer to the original than any other. What I'm mainly looking for is simply a compelling story with a good pace and interesting characters. From that point of view The ABC Murders was a success, IMHO.

 

 

Getting back to the railway calumnies perpetrated in this series: Can anyone see a way to give the production company feedback without being dismissed as an obsessive nerd? As others have said they take great trouble to get period props, costumes, interiors and vehicles right, so why not the railway elements? There's really no excuse when they have the power of CGI to do literally whatever they want with...

 

I would wager that most folk who watched the ITV versions were equally ignorant of the novels. However David Suchet took exceptional care to be as accurate as possible to the books - even to the extent of threatening to walk if the directors left out the idiosyncrasies in the books which David felt were essential to the character.

 

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agatha_Christie%27s_Poirot

 

Suchet told Strand Magazine: "What I did was, I had my file on one side of me and a pile of stories on the other side and day after day, week after week, I ploughed through most of Agatha Christie's novels about Hercule Poirot and wrote down characteristics until I had a file full of documentation of the character. And then it was my business not only to know what he was like, but to gradually become him. I had to become him before we started shooting."^[18]

During the filming of the first series, Suchet almost left the production during an argument with a director, insisting that Poirot's odd mannerisms (in this case, putting a handkerchief down before sitting on a park bench) be featured;^[19] he later said "there's no question [Poirot's] obsessive-compulsive".^[20] According to many critics and enthusiasts, Suchet's characterisation is considered to be the most accurate interpretation of all the actors who have played Poirot, and the closest to the character in the books.^[21] In 2013, Suchet revealed that Christie's daughter Rosalind Hicks had told him she was sure Christie would have approved of his performance.^[22]

In 2007, Suchet spoke of his desire to film the remaining stories in the canon and hoped to achieve this before his 65th birthday in May 2011.^[23] Despite speculation of cancellation early in 2011, it was announced on 14 November 2011 that the remaining books would be adapted into a thirteenth series to be filmed in 2012.^[24] The remaining books were finally adapted in 2013 into 5 episodes, from which Curtain aired last on 13 November 2013. A 2013 television special, "Being Poirot", centred on Suchet's characterisation and his emotional final episode.

Edited December 30, 2018 by phil-b259

[leopardml2341]

I just spotted a ticket collector touting what appears to be a 'Setright' or 'Gibson' bus ticket machine.......

 

SWMBO has it on iPlayer as I type, whilst catching up with RMweb happenings and browsing eBay for things I don't need and maybe not even want.

 

Time to put the kettle on and inspect mi BRM free paintbrushes.

Edited December 30, 2018 by leopardml2341

[bimble]

the important thing to remember is that the screen writer for the BBC adaptation of the ABC Murders was the same one that rewrote the ending to 'Ordeal by Innocence', which would explain the vast differences (extra murders, charactor death, total rewrite of Poirot's personal history)... I don't think they actually like Christie's works...

 

As for the final railways scenes... those are what you get when you have someone with little to no railway knowledge is asked to produce something "dramatic" via CGI...

[Nearholmer]

Yep, that didn't ring true at all, although those machines were used in the odd railway application, The Rye and Camber Tramway being one of the odder.

[phil-b259]

 

PS: "90 years on we should not be attempting to reinterpret the novels.....". Why not?

 

Everything written is game for reinterpretation.

 

Was it "all wrong" to reinterpret Shakespeare's Richard III as a dark 1930s piece, as was done a few years ago, for instance?

 

Reinterpretation, and "return to original presentation" both have their place, IMO.

 

Perhaps its more of a question of how something is pitched.

 

If I went to see the play 'Richard III' I would expect it to be that written by Shakespeare and nothing else.

 

If I went to see a play 'based on Richard III' then I would understand that there could be significant differences from the original work.

 

Thus if I watch a TV drama called 'The ABC murders I would expect a faithful recreation of the book

 

If I watch a TV drama 'Based on the ABC murders' then I would expect there might be significant differences to the novel.

 

Whilst certainly a fresh take on any story can prove entertaining and may well draw in folk who might not usually enjoy the tale - that does not mean producers should ignore the fact that if they chose to depart from the original source material then what they are making is fundamentally different from what the original author intended.

 

I thoroughly enjoyed the Sherlock series with Benedict Cumberbatch over the past few years - but again it was quite clear that the writers were not tempting to retell Colan Doyle's stories, rather they used them as ideas upon which to base entirely new plots...

Edited December 30, 2018 by phil-b259

[bimble]

Perhaps its more of a question of how something is pitched.

 

If I went to see the play 'Richard III' I would expect it to be that written by Shakespeare and nothing else.

 

If I went to see a play 'based on Richard III' then I would understand that there could be significant differences from the original work.

 

Thus if I watch a TV drama called 'The ABC murders I would expect a faithful recreation of the book

 

If I watch a TV drama 'Based on the ABC murders' then I would expect there might be significant differences to the novel.

 

Not only called, but the opening credits went, "Agatha Christie's / The ABC Murders"

[DY444]

Just to balance the loco affairs.

Poirot & Jaap are currently travelling to Doncaster Races pulled by a Southern Loco (ITV3 - David Suchet version)

There looked like a blue GUV standing at the bufferstops at "Doncaster" (looking a bit like a terminus!)

 

Keith

 

"Doncaster" in that version (complete with blue GUV as you say) was indeed a terminus - St Pancras. 

[melmerby]

The problem with presenting a play exactly as Shakespeare (or is it Shakspear, or....) had written it is that it was written in different English for a different audience in a different type of theatre.

Unless you can do that it has to be adapted to suit modern tastes so is not original.

The Globe productions in London must be the closest, anything on TV has, by needs, to be differently presented.

 

It's like Chaucer's Canterbury Tales.

Totally unreadable unless you are fluent in the language of the day.

 

Keith