T
ToeInTheWater
Guest
So, I haven’t actually watched this yet because, although originally produced by the BBC, it was shown in the US on Lifetime, a channel I usually NEVER watch. However, I have read the Agatha Christie book on which it’s based. I heard about the miniseries later when it was released on DVD, and read some reviews on it. Apparently it is one of the rare screen adaptations to preserve the novel’s original ending.
However, I also read that the adaptation of the book did change a lot. In the original, ten people who are lured to a mansion on an isolated island, all accused of causing the death of someone, and then start being “picked off” by a crazed killer. Apparently, they changed many of the crimes into obvious murders. Even though the whole point of the book was that the crimes did result in deaths, but were sins of omission more than commission, and hence, could not be punished by the legal system. So, the vigilante killer decided to step in.
Also that the adaptation has sex, drugs, and swearing that is not in the original, either. And that there’s a tacked-on “gay bashing is bad” message, changing one of the characters from a corrupt cop who sends an innocent man to prison, to a homophobic cop who kicks a gay man to death.
Now, I did like the “Poirot” TV series produced by British ITV and shown on A+E in the US, but noticed that the later seasons have scenes of sex and drug use inserted into the tales, that wasn’t in the early seasons, and certainly not in the books.
Though some of the sex scenes were believable as probably happening in the books even if not actually mentioned. Such as Jackie and Simon in “Death on the Nile”. Jackie’s “I’ll die if I can’t marry him” obsession with Simon, and intense jealousy, doesn’t ring quite as true if they hadn’t been sexually involved.
However, there’s also a scene of spoiled heiress Linnet using cocaine, which I know has been around since the time of Holmes, but there’s certainly no hint of that in the book. It just seemed to be gratuitous and thrown in for shock value.
On the other hand, I did like how the latter seasons of Poirot made a point of mentioning his Catholic faith, showing him praying, holding a Rosary, etc. Poirot does make some questionable decisions in both the books and the show, but we see him really struggling with his choices at times and often agonizing over whether he did the right thing. David Suchet really added depth to the character beyond what we get in the books.
So, I don’t mind some artistic license. Just wasn’t sure if this miniseries was worth paying money to see, or not.
If anyone wants to discuss the story itself, and whether they actually found the acts of these individuals to equate to murder in terms of the morality involved, that would also be interesting.
For example, one “crime” that was not much changed from book to screen, are the actions of Emily Brent. She is a holier-than-thou, Scripture-quoting spinster. who is accused of being culpable for the death of a maidservant, who she fired when she found she was pregnant out of wedlock. The maid committed suicide in despair. Certainly tragic, but many book readers don’t think what she did came close to murder at all.
I also recall that a “pregnant maid gets fired” storyline in Downton Abbey, and I don’t recall too many fans berating the Crawleys or Carson for firing Ethel. Even though it’s strongly implied she sinks into prostitution, and eventually has to give up her child. Ethel committing suicide, or just starving to death, was far from an unlikely circumstance. She might have, if Mrs. Crawley (Matthew’s mom) hadn’t stepped in to help. If that had happened, would the Crawleys also been culpable for her death?
However, I also read that the adaptation of the book did change a lot. In the original, ten people who are lured to a mansion on an isolated island, all accused of causing the death of someone, and then start being “picked off” by a crazed killer. Apparently, they changed many of the crimes into obvious murders. Even though the whole point of the book was that the crimes did result in deaths, but were sins of omission more than commission, and hence, could not be punished by the legal system. So, the vigilante killer decided to step in.
Also that the adaptation has sex, drugs, and swearing that is not in the original, either. And that there’s a tacked-on “gay bashing is bad” message, changing one of the characters from a corrupt cop who sends an innocent man to prison, to a homophobic cop who kicks a gay man to death.
Now, I did like the “Poirot” TV series produced by British ITV and shown on A+E in the US, but noticed that the later seasons have scenes of sex and drug use inserted into the tales, that wasn’t in the early seasons, and certainly not in the books.
Though some of the sex scenes were believable as probably happening in the books even if not actually mentioned. Such as Jackie and Simon in “Death on the Nile”. Jackie’s “I’ll die if I can’t marry him” obsession with Simon, and intense jealousy, doesn’t ring quite as true if they hadn’t been sexually involved.
However, there’s also a scene of spoiled heiress Linnet using cocaine, which I know has been around since the time of Holmes, but there’s certainly no hint of that in the book. It just seemed to be gratuitous and thrown in for shock value.
On the other hand, I did like how the latter seasons of Poirot made a point of mentioning his Catholic faith, showing him praying, holding a Rosary, etc. Poirot does make some questionable decisions in both the books and the show, but we see him really struggling with his choices at times and often agonizing over whether he did the right thing. David Suchet really added depth to the character beyond what we get in the books.
So, I don’t mind some artistic license. Just wasn’t sure if this miniseries was worth paying money to see, or not.
If anyone wants to discuss the story itself, and whether they actually found the acts of these individuals to equate to murder in terms of the morality involved, that would also be interesting.
For example, one “crime” that was not much changed from book to screen, are the actions of Emily Brent. She is a holier-than-thou, Scripture-quoting spinster. who is accused of being culpable for the death of a maidservant, who she fired when she found she was pregnant out of wedlock. The maid committed suicide in despair. Certainly tragic, but many book readers don’t think what she did came close to murder at all.
I also recall that a “pregnant maid gets fired” storyline in Downton Abbey, and I don’t recall too many fans berating the Crawleys or Carson for firing Ethel. Even though it’s strongly implied she sinks into prostitution, and eventually has to give up her child. Ethel committing suicide, or just starving to death, was far from an unlikely circumstance. She might have, if Mrs. Crawley (Matthew’s mom) hadn’t stepped in to help. If that had happened, would the Crawleys also been culpable for her death?