I think the secretary thing was more of a confirmation of Poirot's suspicion because earlier, the good doctor mentions that he barely ever plays and then she tells Poirot that he plays all the time with his partner and with the door locked. I might be mixing up media here though because I just listened to the radio version too.
Before watching: I'm worried we're going to fall out 😂 I absolutely adore Alexander Siddig as Shaitana, and you've hinted in past videos that you dislike this adaptation
I'm literally reading the book as I type this. I specifically bought the book for this video (harder to do than you'd think), because I hadn't read it in decades, and I wanted to be able to really form an opinion on the adaptation (which I really liked). I'll return and watch the video when my reread is complete!
I'm gonna go out on a limb and profess I enjoy this adaptation. Admittedly, I haven't read the book, but the most interesting aspect of the mystery (that the players' score sheets and their style of playing bridge reveal the solution) remains unchanged. On top of that, this is packed with actors I love and the set dressing (though a bit overdone) is stylish and engaging. Still, I can understand everyone else's objections. The film is, to put it charitably, regressive in its depiction of gay people. It portrays between two to four queer characters as either violent, obsessive, careless, or depraved criminals. On top of that, I could understand if you saw Poirot's conversation with Wheeler at the end as a patronizing telling-off. I don't interpret it that way, in fact, I think it makes him come off well considering this series emphasizes him being a devout Catholic in the 1930s, but that's sure to cause further consternation for some. No, the biggest objection has to be the leaps of logic and the off-screen confessions; that's lazy and there's no getting around it. In defense of some of the changes, I think it's much better to have Anne Meredith and Mrs. Lorrimer alive for the parlor scene because otherwise it's just down to two suspects, and a 50/50 chance of guessing correct is kind of boring. I've already established in another comment here why I prefer Shaitana's motive for death to be deliberate. Also, why in the book would Mrs. Lorrimer take the fall for Anne if she's not related to her? I know she's dying, but it seems random. And how did Mr. Craddock end up dying in the book? 9:30 "It's not specified why Rhoda killed her, though it was probably for money." I've got to say, that remark threw me. I thought the film adaptation established pretty overtly that Rhoda is a lesbian with an obsessive/toxic infatuation towards Anne and sought to control her. Money may have been a side motivator, but keeping Anne out of prison and under her thumb seemed to be Rhoda's prime concern and I was surprised you didn't bring that up.
I liked the adaptation as well, but I thought that Rhoda attempted that because she was jealous and wanted Despard for herself. I think your interpretation is very interesting and it might really be the case. Didn’t like how they handled his little twist in particular though. Seemed kinda out of nowhere as it was Anne who suggested a boat ride.
Thank you for saving me the trouble of watching this. I really enjoyed the book and it would ticked me off to see how the adaptation went off the rails.
Saw the film long before reading the book, I like both versions and the film is a go to time killer or pick me up. Also I believe Battle was changed as the actor who played him previously was unavailable, which I assume is the same reason why the Anne and Despard characters didn't reappear for The Pale Horse(despite swapping her and Rhoda, it could have worked). Also I am glad others also picked up on the similarities in the Death In Paradise episode.
Excellent video as usual. Unfortunately this is my least favourite Christie novel. The first time I read it, about 40 years ago, I thought she had put in no effort. It felt as if she put the four names on a dart board, blindfolded herself, threw a dart and bent the story to fit the name the dart landed at. When the Suchet adaptation was first shown, I wasn't expecting much as I thought we were past the golden age of Suchet adaptations but it failed to even pass my low expectations. One of the few that I have only watched once.
Has anyone ever seen Murder By Death? At one point David Niven (hey, six degrees of Poirot!) suggest that the victim may have killed himself to create the perfect, unsolvable crime for the sole reason of satisfying his own ego against the mental might of the world's greatest detectives. The Charlie Chan stand-in replies: "It's stupid. It's most stupid theory I ever heard! Haha!" In all seriousness though, I feel like the idea works here. I'd rather Shaitana be depicted as a thrill-seeking provocateur bored with life rather than an incautious idiot who invites Death to his door and then is surprised when it acts. I'd alway, always rather have the hero face off against a cunning adversary over a chump.
I’m really disappointed Superintendent Battle was written out of the film adaptations for two stories in which he appeared: “Cards on the Table” and “Towards Zero.” He is a brilliant sleuth in his own right, though not as prominently on display as Poirot and Miss Marple, he nevertheless is in a similar league with Tommy and Tuppence Beresford. We don’t see him often, but when we do, he doesn’t disappoint. I feel like in some ways, he was a precursor to Columbo. An intelligent policeman who figures things out and then, in the case of “Towards Zero,” tricks the murderer into implicating themself.
It always bothers me that, as the host that being THE victim of a crime would be the ultimate thrill, why would he then drug himself & sleep through the hole experience?!? But, more to the point, it is unfathomable that someone would think that Dame Christie's plot(s) were not convoluted enough & needed more twists & turns.
The convolution I'll grant you, but as for the motive, I think you're looking at it wrong. Being a victim isn't what prompts Shaitana to act, he's a provocateur. For him, the thrill doesn't come from the experience of being murdered (he's not a masochist) it comes from the ego trip that's created by gathering 4 acclaimed sleuths and then creating a murder they cannot solve, thus proving he has the more ingenious mind. Therefore, making the act painless makes total sense. And if you think "well, he's dead, so how would he know?" Yes, that is a definite point. But one must assume that Shaitana believes in some sort of afterlife where he'd be able to know the status of the case and take pleasure in it being "unsolvable."
@@Unownshipper One should Never Assume. Taking a sleeping compound, in order to facilitate ones own death is more of Fatalist behavior rather than a Provocateur. Best stick to the book.
You’re wrong about this adaptation being a bad one. I really enjoyed it and could follow the plot very easily. Poirot realised that the doctor was a homosexual because the secretary told him that the doctor plays with his regular bridge partner with the door locked in-spite of the fact that the doctor told Poirot that he’s not serious about the game and yet he plays on a regular basis with the same partner every evening with the DOOR LOCKED and that partner is the husband of the woman he supposedly had an affair with. It’s not far fetched for Poirot to use psychology in order to deduce that the doctor is not only a murderer but a homosexual.
This book is one of my favorite Christie stories. I was really disappointed by what they did to it on screen. I was willing to go along with the other changes but, when they made Rhoda the killer and then killed her off, that ruined the whole thing!
I literally (as in literally, literally, not figuratively literally) finished reading the book fifteen minutes ago and immediately watched the video. I'm afraid, Miles, on this one we're going to MOSTLY disagree. I really love this adaptation. I saw it before I reread the book, though, which meant I really didn't remember the original, and I honestly just really, really love most of the actors (Zoe Wanamaker, Alexander Siddig, Lesley Manville, the women who played both Rhoda and Anne) in this one, so I do acknowledge that that might make me biased. But now I've read the book, and I agree that it really is a great Christie, and such a perfect mystery for Poirot. Tailor-made for him, really, as psychology as revealed through bridge playing is really the only thing we have to go on (though knowing the solution, I did feel that the cardplaying really made it obvious who it was, but I really can't tell if that is just because I knew the killer ahead of time). Miss Marple, for instance, I don't think could have or would have solved it the same way. It really is rather faithful, as you point out, especially in the first half. But I think most of the changes are either fine or improvements. For instance, I think making Mrs. Lorrimer and Miss Meredith mother and daughter strengthens the case for why she'd confess. It works in the book, but I do think I like the adaptation's rationale better. Also, I'm not really sure WHY they changed Rhoda and Anne around, but I think it works just as well and doesn't really change anything, actually. Two changes, I agree, really aren't necessary. One, making Wheeler a suspect. Just don't really need it (and as I'll get to, the motive is a bit distasteful). And Shaitana drugging himself is, really, a bit much. They changed Shaitana's characterization a bit, and him being a burnt-out hedonist looking for a thrill by engineering a murder fits well enough with that. But why actually drug yourself? Or actually let yourself be murdered? Just pretend to be asleep and see who tries it; then you really have a thrill having hard proof to hang over someone's head. If they'd transferred the unused "dying anyway" motive from Mrs. Lorrimer to him, it would have made more sense, but as it is, it's a bit of a "Huh?" especially as, as you pointed out, Poirot figuring that out doesn't really make sense. I will say, though, I don't think the change in characterization is terribly dramatic, actually. I thought it was quite clear in the book that Christie was mirroring Poirot and Shaitana deliberately. They're rather alike -- rather ridiculous physical presences, foreigners looked down on by Brits, especially men, effeminate and arguably queer-coded (though I don't think Christie truly consciously did that, but they really are), extremely intelligent and perceptive, masters at getting information, fascinated by murder and murderers -- except for a key difference: morality and compassion. Poirot has both in spades; Shaitana has none of either. Now on to what has apparently become my tiresome schtick when commenting on these adaptations: queerness. Always nice to see queer characters! And we all know sometimes I think it works beautifully in these adaptations! And sometimes it really doesn't! This one is a bit of a mixed bag on that front. On the one hand, making Shaitana and Rhoda (I'm totally with @Unownshipper; she's obviously lesbian-coded and obsessively in love with and controlling Anne) and Roberts and Wheeler all gay is fine. The problem, and again I'm totally with @Unownshipper on this, is they made them all sociopaths, murderers, and villains! (Well, Wheeler not so much in the end, but they do open the possibility of it, and I'll get to him in a moment. And, yes, this comment will have an end. 😁) Queer representation through negative tropes from the last century about degenerate and murderous queers! Thanks, I hate it! And, at last, we come to the end of this even-longer-than-usual-for-me novel of a comment with Wheeler. How I despise the end where Poirot hands over the photos to him. First of all, and I'd have to rewatch to remember why I thought this specifically, but I thought the implication was that Wheeler was crossdressing in the photos and that's why the look "didn't suit him." Second, and it might have been the way Suchet played it, but Poirot said it so nastily that I just thought it made him look like a bigot and just not nice in a way I don't associate with Poirot. He's a very righteous man when it comes to murder, but he has, as I said above, oodles of compassion. And, yes, he didn't ruin Wheeler's life by handing the photos to someone else, but he didn't have to be so mean about it. Just left a horrible taste in my mouth and made me dislike Poirot. Fin.
Thanks very much for your insight. As someone who hasn't actually read the source material, it was compelling to get both Miles' and your takes on it. I hadn't thought of that, but I think you're absolutely right that transferring Mrs. Lorrimer's imminent death by illness to Shaitana would've made more sense. Not only would it have been a nice callback for novel-readers to catch, but it also would've explained his hastiness. Miles mentioned it seemed unlikely Shaitana would've selected *two* individuals who seemed guilty of murder but were actually innocent. That didn't actually bother me as there was no way for anyone other than Rhoda to know about Mrs. Benson's death, and regardless of the extenuating circumstances, Major Despard did get away with homicide. But if Shaitana were dying, then perhaps he'd be in such a hurry to set up his Card Game of Death, that he'd have rushed his research into his participants at the Suspect Table. I think they swapped Rhoda and Anne around for no better reason than so Anne (a participant at the night of the murder) would make it to the parlor scene. Rhoda would've seemed out of place since she had no involvement. You hit the nail on the head. It's a regressive trope about signifying "depravity" that's genuinely harmful, although I don't think the creators meant it to be (though that hardly makes a difference). I'm sure with Roberts and Wheeler, they were trying to underscore how different the times were, where the possibility of being outed could've ruined your career, your standing in society, your life, etc. But the fact they go to this trope twice, it really is unfortunate. I didn't get the sense the photos were of Wheeler cross-dressing, though now that you mention the "didn't suit [him]" line, I could totally see it. I'm sure neither the showrunners nor Suchet meant for the final speech to come off so lecturing or mean-spirited, but that doesn't for a moment make your interpretation of it as such any less valid. All in all, I think this is a great adaptation that really could've benefitted from some sensitivity training.
@@Unownshipper Yes, I appreciate the attempt to show just how ruinous, even dangerous, it was to be queer back then, that the risk of exposure really was a RISK. But they definitely didn't think it all the way through, especially in conjunction with the queerness of Shaitana and Rhoda added on. Excellent idea of why they switched Anne and Rhoda around. That's totally what it was. Yeah, I think MIles was a bit off in the "Shaitana wouldn't make two mistakes" because Despard IS a killer, just one who probably would have gotten off if he'd been charged and tried. And Anne certainly FEELS like a murder (constantly reinforced by Rhoda). If all he had to go on was the way Anne responded to a comment, he was still remarkably close to the truth. BTW, though I don't go as far as to find it less effective, I do share Miles's bafflement at why they changed a fever to hallucinogens for why Luxmore was acting crazy. Like, why? There's really no reason to change it. I can see Suchet trying to play it like Poirot didn't approve of Wheeler's "lifestyle" while still sparing him from a public outing. As an older Catholic man of his times, it's probably realistic and in keeping with the adaptation trying to show the perils faced by queer people then. But it just went a little too far for me, and left a bad taste.
Hey Miles, wanna hear something? I was looking on the killer’s page on Villains Wiki and they mispelled Shaitana atleast three time without the a, and I’m starting to think that was on purpose 😂
Really enjoyed your video. Just one very small correction: I think the secretary hit on the doctor and he refused her and that is why Poirot thinks he is gay (still kinda dumb) and bot because he doesn't hit on her.
Miles, I don't mean to give you more work to do, but I wish you'd lengthen your videos. I'd stick around for a longer discussion especially if you give more of your opinions about the acting like you did here 8:03. I know you're primarily concerned with the adaptation of the written word, but I'd definitely tune in to hear you comment more on cinematic aspects like acting, directing, sets, score, etc.
@@MaryanaMaskar I'm flattered. :) @MadameChristie I asked PushingUpRoses if she wanted to do a collaboration, but she hasn't responded. She might not be interested. I'm going to cover both Hickson and McEwan.
I think Agatha must be spinning in her grave at how the later years of this series mutilated her stories, especially this one, to make them more "edgy," more "modern," and more sexually shocking. It's a travesty. I think David Suchet, who professed to be so loyal to Christie's vision, should have refused to do them.
After watching: OK, yeah, I'd forgotten half the stuff they'd changed (especially around Anne Meredith) And I'd forgotten about film!Shaitana drugging himself - that's so dumb
I totally HATE when film adaptations change a really excellent book. I only watch them to see the book. Why change the names of people the readers know and love - just for nothing! And in this version as it progresses the story is really spoilt!
Having never read the book, I really liked the adaptation -- although having three or four queer characters (Dr Roberts, Rhoda, Wheeler, and maybe Shaitana) stretched credulity. I liked Wheeler being a suspect because I genuinely suspected him the entire time. A solid red herring. What really led me astray from Dr Roberts, though, was Ariadne Oliver's early suspicion of his guilt. "It's Dr Roberts! I know it! Never trust the Welsh!" She nails it on the head, but her character is shown to be impetuous and unreliable so of course we immediately dismiss her theory. Was this in the book?
To let you down gently--no, it's not PushingUpRoses. A while back I asked if she wanted to collaborate on a future video, and she hasn't responded. It's quite possible she's not interested. I still hope you'll join me, though.
I like Alexander Siddig but I hate this episode! Everything that makes the book fun and interesting is removed from the episode. I don't know who the writer is, but I hate him. If I had to write my own top ten episodes of the David Suchet series that I hate (because of the changes made to the story, not because of the original), this one would be high on the list. By the way, I guess with the Shaitana change, they tried to compliment the actor and it's terrible. Everyone should be ashamed, even Siddig if he asked for it!
I’ve only ever seen one or two liberal adaptations of Christie’s work that were any good. I’m more from the school of conservative adaptation. Don’t deviate from the author’s original work, because they’ve already flushed most of the problems out. The screenwriter has to make the novel into a film or TV play. Certain things from the book can’t be adapted to the screen because what works in one does not necessarily work in the other. But he should try to keep as much of the book as can be transferred to film. Rewriting the characters’ personalties and actions shows a certain disrespect to the late author, the only one who had the legitimate right to do that, in my opinion. To me, there’s a fine line between translation and writing an original piece of fanfic, and one must never start on one side and end on the other.
I genuinly don’t get how the Show managed to masterfully include a gay character in Five Little Pigs only to 7 episodes later completely fuck it up here.
Because they have nothing in common. "Five Little Pigs" was directed by Paul Unwin and written by Kevin Elyot; "Cards on the Table" was directed by Sarah Harding and written by Nick Dear. I'm not sure who amongst them was responsible for the nuanced or regressive depictions of gay characters in the respective adaptations, but different creative teams will always bring different results. The only constant here is David Suchet and his job is just to bring the work he's given to life, not judge its merits.
My greatest issue with this adaptation is that the changes were COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY,bcs the book was really well written. If it's not broken why fix it? I especially hate EVERYTHING they did with Anne, who was a very well developed character in the book. At first I was hopeful about the inclusion of gay characters, it could've added some good social commentary & depth (like in the 5 little pigs), but it was shallow & even offensive. It's a shame, bcs the acting & the atmosphere of the film were really great 😢
First off: Hi Alexander Siddig! Please come back to Star Trek, we need a DS9 follow up, badly, and it won't be the same without Bashir. Secondly: You want to talk wasted opportunity with this adaptation? If you were going to replace two of the detectives anyway, why not replace Ariadne? Don't get me wrong, I love the inhibitable Ms. Oliver, but you had a Marple movie running at the same time. And there is a wing of the fandom that desperately wanted these two to meet!
@@UnownshipperYeah, but if you have four characters and kill off two, and you’re left with someone who already confessed to their murder (Despard) and someone who hasn’t yet (Dr Robarts) you’ll more likely guess the latter than the former
@@lukacunningham342 To be fair, at the moment of the reveal we were led to believe Anne did it. But I'm still not that impressed with Christie's experiment either. It's good, but I think it's slightly lacking. It's strength is the crossover between the four investigators and the bridge game, while the solution itself is pretty easy to see through (IMO of course).
I was hoping you would similarly ridicule the ghastly, superfluous, and utterly out-of-character scene at the end in which Poirot chastises the superintendent. That scene was absolutely revolting trash. It lowered my opinion of David Suchet that he even agreed to portray it.
As someone who has adapted several works by others into stage plays, I must tell you your philosophy of an adaptor being nothing more than a translator is rubbish. LIterary and dramatic media are very different, and sometimes the most "faithful" adaptations (the ones that blindly follow the original) are the worst. Presuming a good work to begin with (this is not always the case alas) then faithfulness to the heart of the story, whatever you yourself find most compelling about it, that is what is most important, most effective. Generally. That is a rule of thumb rather than a law. However, I agree this one is a mess. It has some compelling moments, some fun details, several very good performances, but yeah as a work of adapting this story it just doesn't work. Not due to straying from the original per se, but because the result simply is not good. It is too muddled IMHO. The love story, for example, feels really very sudden and out of nowhere. Ditto the identity of the killer. The relationship between Ann and Mrs. Lorimer seems fine to me. I don't mind that at all. But the whole business of the Inspector's photos feels tacked on just to give his character something to do. More, I cannot buy Shaitana as any kind of challenger to Poirot when he fundamentally behaves so stupidly. Nor do I see any real evidence of his being tired of life. That would be an interesting idea, but there's no evidence of it anywhere. Yeah and totally agree the so-called evidence about the killer's orientation is so very, very weak. Like, ridiculous. I would not have minded it, to be honest, if only we had some real clues in that direction. But...well, you already know.
If the message that got across was, "Adaptors are simply supposed to take the events of the book and put them on a screen," then I must have chosen my words poorly because that's not what I meant to say at all. There are definitely some Christie adaptations that copy-paste like that--for example, The Agatha Christie Hour--and that's why I'm never covering them. Their "faithfulness" is what makes them suck. When I say translator, I mean exactly what you said, getting across the heart of the story, the core arc and themes, by making whatever changes are necessary within the new medium. There's no "nothing more than" about that job! For this adaptation, I thought many of the changes seemed arbitrary, made (most likely) for the sake of novelty rather than to strengthen the plot and characterization. Even though a lot of other elements stayed the same, the heart of the story got lost. That's awesome that you've had the chance to adapt literary work for the stage! That's the kind of job I want!
Saw the film long before reading the book, I like both versions and the film is a go to time killer or pick me up. Also I believe Battle was changed as the actor who played him previously was unavailable, which I assume is the same reason why the Anne and Despard characters didn't reappear for The Pale Horse(despite swapping her and Rhoda, it could have worked). Also I am glad others also picked up on the similarities in the Death In Paradise episode.
![АЛАУДИНОВ у Скабеевой: эти их ВСУ нас НЕ ДОГОНЯТ 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/an0anqU4WGQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I think the secretary thing was more of a confirmation of Poirot's suspicion because earlier, the good doctor mentions that he barely ever plays and then she tells Poirot that he plays all the time with his partner and with the door locked. I might be mixing up media here though because I just listened to the radio version too.
I figured that out too.
Before watching: I'm worried we're going to fall out 😂
I absolutely adore Alexander Siddig as Shaitana, and you've hinted in past videos that you dislike this adaptation
I admit I also like Siddig's casting in this film (I like Siddig in general). But in any case, these are just my opinions. I hope we don't fall out.
Siddig is certainly not the problem here 😂
I'm literally reading the book as I type this. I specifically bought the book for this video (harder to do than you'd think), because I hadn't read it in decades, and I wanted to be able to really form an opinion on the adaptation (which I really liked). I'll return and watch the video when my reread is complete!
I've always thought of this as Agatha Christie's Avengers. Such a shame they messed up this adaptation.
The book is one of my favorites.
Agatha Christie film adaptors *REALLY* don’t like Superintendent Battle! I think he’s only in an adaptation once and that was it!
I'm gonna go out on a limb and profess I enjoy this adaptation. Admittedly, I haven't read the book, but the most interesting aspect of the mystery (that the players' score sheets and their style of playing bridge reveal the solution) remains unchanged. On top of that, this is packed with actors I love and the set dressing (though a bit overdone) is stylish and engaging.
Still, I can understand everyone else's objections. The film is, to put it charitably, regressive in its depiction of gay people. It portrays between two to four queer characters as either violent, obsessive, careless, or depraved criminals. On top of that, I could understand if you saw Poirot's conversation with Wheeler at the end as a patronizing telling-off. I don't interpret it that way, in fact, I think it makes him come off well considering this series emphasizes him being a devout Catholic in the 1930s, but that's sure to cause further consternation for some. No, the biggest objection has to be the leaps of logic and the off-screen confessions; that's lazy and there's no getting around it.
In defense of some of the changes, I think it's much better to have Anne Meredith and Mrs. Lorrimer alive for the parlor scene because otherwise it's just down to two suspects, and a 50/50 chance of guessing correct is kind of boring. I've already established in another comment here why I prefer Shaitana's motive for death to be deliberate. Also, why in the book would Mrs. Lorrimer take the fall for Anne if she's not related to her? I know she's dying, but it seems random. And how did Mr. Craddock end up dying in the book?
9:30 "It's not specified why Rhoda killed her, though it was probably for money." I've got to say, that remark threw me. I thought the film adaptation established pretty overtly that Rhoda is a lesbian with an obsessive/toxic infatuation towards Anne and sought to control her. Money may have been a side motivator, but keeping Anne out of prison and under her thumb seemed to be Rhoda's prime concern and I was surprised you didn't bring that up.
Interesting! I never picked up on infatuation on Rhoda's part, but you're probably right.
I liked the adaptation as well, but I thought that Rhoda attempted that because she was jealous and wanted Despard for herself. I think your interpretation is very interesting and it might really be the case. Didn’t like how they handled his little twist in particular though. Seemed kinda out of nowhere as it was Anne who suggested a boat ride.
I didn't like this adaptation at all, but I also thought your stated motive for Rhoda was pretty clear in the film.
Thank you for saving me the trouble of watching this. I really enjoyed the book and it would ticked me off to see how the adaptation went off the rails.
I totally HATE films changing a really good book! The changes really destroy the story
Why don’t you watch the adaptation yourself instead of relying on the opinions of others to help you decide if it’s good or not.
Saw the film long before reading the book, I like both versions and the film is a go to time killer or pick me up. Also I believe Battle was changed as the actor who played him previously was unavailable, which I assume is the same reason why the Anne and Despard characters didn't reappear for The Pale Horse(despite swapping her and Rhoda, it could have worked). Also I am glad others also picked up on the similarities in the Death In Paradise episode.
Excellent video as usual. Unfortunately this is my least favourite Christie novel. The first time I read it, about 40 years ago, I thought she had put in no effort. It felt as if she put the four names on a dart board, blindfolded herself, threw a dart and bent the story to fit the name the dart landed at.
When the Suchet adaptation was first shown, I wasn't expecting much as I thought we were past the golden age of Suchet adaptations but it failed to even pass my low expectations. One of the few that I have only watched once.
Has anyone ever seen Murder By Death? At one point David Niven (hey, six degrees of Poirot!) suggest that the victim may have killed himself to create the perfect, unsolvable crime for the sole reason of satisfying his own ego against the mental might of the world's greatest detectives. The Charlie Chan stand-in replies: "It's stupid. It's most stupid theory I ever heard! Haha!"
In all seriousness though, I feel like the idea works here. I'd rather Shaitana be depicted as a thrill-seeking provocateur bored with life rather than an incautious idiot who invites Death to his door and then is surprised when it acts. I'd alway, always rather have the hero face off against a cunning adversary over a chump.
That's fair.
I'm surprised I missed the Murder by Death connection! Thanks for pointing that out.
Good video. I agree it needed work.
Could you ever do a review coming the 3 Death On The Nile adaptations? I think that would be really interesting.
Thank you! I'm not sure when, but I'm definitely going to cover Death on the Nile.
I’m really disappointed Superintendent Battle was written out of the film adaptations for two stories in which he appeared: “Cards on the Table” and “Towards Zero.” He is a brilliant sleuth in his own right, though not as prominently on display as Poirot and Miss Marple, he nevertheless is in a similar league with Tommy and Tuppence Beresford. We don’t see him often, but when we do, he doesn’t disappoint. I feel like in some ways, he was a precursor to Columbo. An intelligent policeman who figures things out and then, in the case of “Towards Zero,” tricks the murderer into implicating themself.
Honestly the Death in Paradise episode did this plot way better. No spoilers but it was one heck of a season opener!
It always bothers me that, as the host that being THE victim of a crime would be the ultimate thrill, why would he then drug himself & sleep through the hole experience?!? But, more to the point, it is unfathomable that someone would think that Dame Christie's plot(s) were not convoluted enough & needed more twists & turns.
The convolution I'll grant you, but as for the motive, I think you're looking at it wrong. Being a victim isn't what prompts Shaitana to act, he's a provocateur. For him, the thrill doesn't come from the experience of being murdered (he's not a masochist) it comes from the ego trip that's created by gathering 4 acclaimed sleuths and then creating a murder they cannot solve, thus proving he has the more ingenious mind. Therefore, making the act painless makes total sense.
And if you think "well, he's dead, so how would he know?" Yes, that is a definite point. But one must assume that Shaitana believes in some sort of afterlife where he'd be able to know the status of the case and take pleasure in it being "unsolvable."
@@Unownshipper One should Never Assume. Taking a sleeping compound, in order to facilitate ones own death is more of Fatalist behavior rather than a Provocateur. Best stick to the book.
@@danieldumas7361 I don't see how that action indicates that attitude... but okay.
You’re wrong about this adaptation being a bad one. I really enjoyed it and could follow the plot very easily. Poirot realised that the doctor was a homosexual because the secretary told him that the doctor plays with his regular bridge partner with the door locked in-spite of the fact that the doctor told Poirot that he’s not serious about the game and yet he plays on a regular basis with the same partner every evening with the DOOR LOCKED and that partner is the husband of the woman he supposedly had an affair with. It’s not far fetched for Poirot to use psychology in order to deduce that the doctor is not only a murderer but a homosexual.
that's not the only thing that makes the episode terrible.
@@petiaivailova2563Your comment is terrible 🤪
This book is one of my favorite Christie stories. I was really disappointed by what they did to it on screen. I was willing to go along with the other changes but, when they made Rhoda the killer and then killed her off, that ruined the whole thing!
They didnt make her the killer it was the Doctor
@@LE-zy2od I should have said “ a killer “ because she tried to kill the other girl.
I literally (as in literally, literally, not figuratively literally) finished reading the book fifteen minutes ago and immediately watched the video.
I'm afraid, Miles, on this one we're going to MOSTLY disagree. I really love this adaptation. I saw it before I reread the book, though, which meant I really didn't remember the original, and I honestly just really, really love most of the actors (Zoe Wanamaker, Alexander Siddig, Lesley Manville, the women who played both Rhoda and Anne) in this one, so I do acknowledge that that might make me biased.
But now I've read the book, and I agree that it really is a great Christie, and such a perfect mystery for Poirot. Tailor-made for him, really, as psychology as revealed through bridge playing is really the only thing we have to go on (though knowing the solution, I did feel that the cardplaying really made it obvious who it was, but I really can't tell if that is just because I knew the killer ahead of time). Miss Marple, for instance, I don't think could have or would have solved it the same way.
It really is rather faithful, as you point out, especially in the first half. But I think most of the changes are either fine or improvements. For instance, I think making Mrs. Lorrimer and Miss Meredith mother and daughter strengthens the case for why she'd confess. It works in the book, but I do think I like the adaptation's rationale better. Also, I'm not really sure WHY they changed Rhoda and Anne around, but I think it works just as well and doesn't really change anything, actually.
Two changes, I agree, really aren't necessary. One, making Wheeler a suspect. Just don't really need it (and as I'll get to, the motive is a bit distasteful). And Shaitana drugging himself is, really, a bit much. They changed Shaitana's characterization a bit, and him being a burnt-out hedonist looking for a thrill by engineering a murder fits well enough with that. But why actually drug yourself? Or actually let yourself be murdered? Just pretend to be asleep and see who tries it; then you really have a thrill having hard proof to hang over someone's head. If they'd transferred the unused "dying anyway" motive from Mrs. Lorrimer to him, it would have made more sense, but as it is, it's a bit of a "Huh?" especially as, as you pointed out, Poirot figuring that out doesn't really make sense. I will say, though, I don't think the change in characterization is terribly dramatic, actually. I thought it was quite clear in the book that Christie was mirroring Poirot and Shaitana deliberately. They're rather alike -- rather ridiculous physical presences, foreigners looked down on by Brits, especially men, effeminate and arguably queer-coded (though I don't think Christie truly consciously did that, but they really are), extremely intelligent and perceptive, masters at getting information, fascinated by murder and murderers -- except for a key difference: morality and compassion. Poirot has both in spades; Shaitana has none of either.
Now on to what has apparently become my tiresome schtick when commenting on these adaptations: queerness. Always nice to see queer characters! And we all know sometimes I think it works beautifully in these adaptations! And sometimes it really doesn't! This one is a bit of a mixed bag on that front. On the one hand, making Shaitana and Rhoda (I'm totally with @Unownshipper; she's obviously lesbian-coded and obsessively in love with and controlling Anne) and Roberts and Wheeler all gay is fine. The problem, and again I'm totally with @Unownshipper on this, is they made them all sociopaths, murderers, and villains! (Well, Wheeler not so much in the end, but they do open the possibility of it, and I'll get to him in a moment. And, yes, this comment will have an end. 😁) Queer representation through negative tropes from the last century about degenerate and murderous queers! Thanks, I hate it!
And, at last, we come to the end of this even-longer-than-usual-for-me novel of a comment with Wheeler. How I despise the end where Poirot hands over the photos to him. First of all, and I'd have to rewatch to remember why I thought this specifically, but I thought the implication was that Wheeler was crossdressing in the photos and that's why the look "didn't suit him." Second, and it might have been the way Suchet played it, but Poirot said it so nastily that I just thought it made him look like a bigot and just not nice in a way I don't associate with Poirot. He's a very righteous man when it comes to murder, but he has, as I said above, oodles of compassion. And, yes, he didn't ruin Wheeler's life by handing the photos to someone else, but he didn't have to be so mean about it. Just left a horrible taste in my mouth and made me dislike Poirot.
Fin.
Thanks very much for your insight. As someone who hasn't actually read the source material, it was compelling to get both Miles' and your takes on it.
I hadn't thought of that, but I think you're absolutely right that transferring Mrs. Lorrimer's imminent death by illness to Shaitana would've made more sense. Not only would it have been a nice callback for novel-readers to catch, but it also would've explained his hastiness. Miles mentioned it seemed unlikely Shaitana would've selected *two* individuals who seemed guilty of murder but were actually innocent. That didn't actually bother me as there was no way for anyone other than Rhoda to know about Mrs. Benson's death, and regardless of the extenuating circumstances, Major Despard did get away with homicide. But if Shaitana were dying, then perhaps he'd be in such a hurry to set up his Card Game of Death, that he'd have rushed his research into his participants at the Suspect Table.
I think they swapped Rhoda and Anne around for no better reason than so Anne (a participant at the night of the murder) would make it to the parlor scene. Rhoda would've seemed out of place since she had no involvement.
You hit the nail on the head. It's a regressive trope about signifying "depravity" that's genuinely harmful, although I don't think the creators meant it to be (though that hardly makes a difference). I'm sure with Roberts and Wheeler, they were trying to underscore how different the times were, where the possibility of being outed could've ruined your career, your standing in society, your life, etc. But the fact they go to this trope twice, it really is unfortunate.
I didn't get the sense the photos were of Wheeler cross-dressing, though now that you mention the "didn't suit [him]" line, I could totally see it. I'm sure neither the showrunners nor Suchet meant for the final speech to come off so lecturing or mean-spirited, but that doesn't for a moment make your interpretation of it as such any less valid. All in all, I think this is a great adaptation that really could've benefitted from some sensitivity training.
@@Unownshipper Yes, I appreciate the attempt to show just how ruinous, even dangerous, it was to be queer back then, that the risk of exposure really was a RISK. But they definitely didn't think it all the way through, especially in conjunction with the queerness of Shaitana and Rhoda added on.
Excellent idea of why they switched Anne and Rhoda around. That's totally what it was.
Yeah, I think MIles was a bit off in the "Shaitana wouldn't make two mistakes" because Despard IS a killer, just one who probably would have gotten off if he'd been charged and tried. And Anne certainly FEELS like a murder (constantly reinforced by Rhoda). If all he had to go on was the way Anne responded to a comment, he was still remarkably close to the truth.
BTW, though I don't go as far as to find it less effective, I do share Miles's bafflement at why they changed a fever to hallucinogens for why Luxmore was acting crazy. Like, why? There's really no reason to change it.
I can see Suchet trying to play it like Poirot didn't approve of Wheeler's "lifestyle" while still sparing him from a public outing. As an older Catholic man of his times, it's probably realistic and in keeping with the adaptation trying to show the perils faced by queer people then. But it just went a little too far for me, and left a bad taste.
Hey Miles, wanna hear something? I was looking on the killer’s page on Villains Wiki and they mispelled Shaitana atleast three time without the a, and I’m starting to think that was on purpose 😂
Really enjoyed your video. Just one very small correction: I think the secretary hit on the doctor and he refused her and that is why Poirot thinks he is gay (still kinda dumb) and bot because he doesn't hit on her.
Miles, I don't mean to give you more work to do, but I wish you'd lengthen your videos. I'd stick around for a longer discussion especially if you give more of your opinions about the acting like you did here 8:03. I know you're primarily concerned with the adaptation of the written word, but I'd definitely tune in to hear you comment more on cinematic aspects like acting, directing, sets, score, etc.
I’ve been waiting for this review, it’s on Nostalgia Critic level of hate
My favourite episode
Ooooh. Did you finally manage to snag PushingUpRoses for a guest spot?
Which adaptation will you cover for Sleeping Murder btw?
Crossover of my dreams!
@@MaryanaMaskar I'm flattered. :) @MadameChristie I asked PushingUpRoses if she wanted to do a collaboration, but she hasn't responded. She might not be interested. I'm going to cover both Hickson and McEwan.
One of the few I haven't seen, so I guess I'm lucky. LOL. if I ever get the chance to get the book I'll read it.
100% agree with you about this adaptation.
I think Agatha must be spinning in her grave at how the later years of this series mutilated her stories, especially this one, to make them more "edgy," more "modern," and more sexually shocking. It's a travesty. I think David Suchet, who professed to be so loyal to Christie's vision, should have refused to do them.
That’s Miles Ledoux, he remembers crappy adaptations so you don’t have to!
After watching: OK, yeah, I'd forgotten half the stuff they'd changed (especially around Anne Meredith)
And I'd forgotten about film!Shaitana drugging himself - that's so dumb
I totally HATE when film adaptations change a really excellent book. I only watch them to see the book. Why change the names of people the readers know and love - just for nothing! And in this version as it progresses the story is really spoilt!
Have you read Magpie Murders?
It‘s a must for Whodunit Fans! 😀😀
Having never read the book, I really liked the adaptation -- although having three or four queer characters (Dr Roberts, Rhoda, Wheeler, and maybe Shaitana) stretched credulity. I liked Wheeler being a suspect because I genuinely suspected him the entire time. A solid red herring.
What really led me astray from Dr Roberts, though, was Ariadne Oliver's early suspicion of his guilt. "It's Dr Roberts! I know it! Never trust the Welsh!" She nails it on the head, but her character is shown to be impetuous and unreliable so of course we immediately dismiss her theory. Was this in the book?
Yes, that part was in the book.
Art. However I prefer "Santaflow-the cards on the table"
With a special-😳 *NO! NO! NO! NO! DON’T TELL ME THIS IS A JOKE!? YES! YES! FINALLY! FINALLY! YES! OH BOY, PLEASE YES!*
To let you down gently--no, it's not PushingUpRoses. A while back I asked if she wanted to collaborate on a future video, and she hasn't responded. It's quite possible she's not interested. I still hope you'll join me, though.
@@MysteryMiles Damnit! I’ll still be there, I love Agatha Christie
I like Alexander Siddig but I hate this episode! Everything that makes the book fun and interesting is removed from the episode. I don't know who the writer is, but I hate him. If I had to write my own top ten episodes of the David Suchet series that I hate (because of the changes made to the story, not because of the original), this one would be high on the list.
By the way, I guess with the Shaitana change, they tried to compliment the actor and it's terrible. Everyone should be ashamed, even Siddig if he asked for it!
I’ve only ever seen one or two liberal adaptations of Christie’s work that were any good. I’m more from the school of conservative adaptation. Don’t deviate from the author’s original work, because they’ve already flushed most of the problems out. The screenwriter has to make the novel into a film or TV play. Certain things from the book can’t be adapted to the screen because what works in one does not necessarily work in the other. But he should try to keep as much of the book as can be transferred to film. Rewriting the characters’ personalties and actions shows a certain disrespect to the late author, the only one who had the legitimate right to do that, in my opinion. To me, there’s a fine line between translation and writing an original piece of fanfic, and one must never start on one side and end on the other.
I genuinly don’t get how the Show managed to masterfully include a gay character in Five Little Pigs only to 7 episodes later completely fuck it up here.
Because they have nothing in common. "Five Little Pigs" was directed by Paul Unwin and written by Kevin Elyot; "Cards on the Table" was directed by Sarah Harding and written by Nick Dear. I'm not sure who amongst them was responsible for the nuanced or regressive depictions of gay characters in the respective adaptations, but different creative teams will always bring different results. The only constant here is David Suchet and his job is just to bring the work he's given to life, not judge its merits.
My greatest issue with this adaptation is that the changes were COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY,bcs the book was really well written. If it's not broken why fix it? I especially hate EVERYTHING they did with Anne, who was a very well developed character in the book. At first I was hopeful about the inclusion of gay characters, it could've added some good social commentary & depth (like in the 5 little pigs), but it was shallow & even offensive. It's a shame, bcs the acting & the atmosphere of the film were really great 😢
Nicely done. Completely agree with you - great book, lousy adaptation.
Hey, Miles, remember when you said “Taken at the Flood” was the worst Poirot movie, how’d you think of it now compared to this?
I still think it's the worst.
First off:
Hi Alexander Siddig! Please come back to Star Trek, we need a DS9 follow up, badly, and it won't be the same without Bashir.
Secondly: You want to talk wasted opportunity with this adaptation? If you were going to replace two of the detectives anyway, why not replace Ariadne? Don't get me wrong, I love the inhibitable Ms. Oliver, but you had a Marple movie running at the same time. And there is a wing of the fandom that desperately wanted these two to meet!
Easily the worst of the Poirot adaptations. Despite the fact all the actors look right for their parts. Big shame - as the novel is quite brilliant.
It would’ve been better if they made it six suspects or seven instead of four, the book kills off two suspects, leaving with only two left
I don't play bridge, but I don't think that many people can play at once.
@@UnownshipperYeah, but if you have four characters and kill off two, and you’re left with someone who already confessed to their murder (Despard) and someone who hasn’t yet (Dr Robarts) you’ll more likely guess the latter than the former
@@lukacunningham342 To be fair, at the moment of the reveal we were led to believe Anne did it. But I'm still not that impressed with Christie's experiment either. It's good, but I think it's slightly lacking. It's strength is the crossover between the four investigators and the bridge game, while the solution itself is pretty easy to see through (IMO of course).
@@Sebastian-lw5qb Ah, I see what you mean! 😊
I was hoping you would similarly ridicule the ghastly, superfluous, and utterly out-of-character scene at the end in which Poirot chastises the superintendent. That scene was absolutely revolting trash. It lowered my opinion of David Suchet that he even agreed to portray it.
As someone who has adapted several works by others into stage plays, I must tell you your philosophy of an adaptor being nothing more than a translator is rubbish. LIterary and dramatic media are very different, and sometimes the most "faithful" adaptations (the ones that blindly follow the original) are the worst. Presuming a good work to begin with (this is not always the case alas) then faithfulness to the heart of the story, whatever you yourself find most compelling about it, that is what is most important, most effective. Generally. That is a rule of thumb rather than a law.
However, I agree this one is a mess. It has some compelling moments, some fun details, several very good performances, but yeah as a work of adapting this story it just doesn't work. Not due to straying from the original per se, but because the result simply is not good. It is too muddled IMHO.
The love story, for example, feels really very sudden and out of nowhere. Ditto the identity of the killer. The relationship between Ann and Mrs. Lorimer seems fine to me. I don't mind that at all. But the whole business of the Inspector's photos feels tacked on just to give his character something to do. More, I cannot buy Shaitana as any kind of challenger to Poirot when he fundamentally behaves so stupidly. Nor do I see any real evidence of his being tired of life. That would be an interesting idea, but there's no evidence of it anywhere.
Yeah and totally agree the so-called evidence about the killer's orientation is so very, very weak. Like, ridiculous. I would not have minded it, to be honest, if only we had some real clues in that direction. But...well, you already know.
If the message that got across was, "Adaptors are simply supposed to take the events of the book and put them on a screen," then I must have chosen my words poorly because that's not what I meant to say at all. There are definitely some Christie adaptations that copy-paste like that--for example, The Agatha Christie Hour--and that's why I'm never covering them. Their "faithfulness" is what makes them suck. When I say translator, I mean exactly what you said, getting across the heart of the story, the core arc and themes, by making whatever changes are necessary within the new medium. There's no "nothing more than" about that job! For this adaptation, I thought many of the changes seemed arbitrary, made (most likely) for the sake of novelty rather than to strengthen the plot and characterization. Even though a lot of other elements stayed the same, the heart of the story got lost.
That's awesome that you've had the chance to adapt literary work for the stage! That's the kind of job I want!
Saw the film long before reading the book, I like both versions and the film is a go to time killer or pick me up. Also I believe Battle was changed as the actor who played him previously was unavailable, which I assume is the same reason why the Anne and Despard characters didn't reappear for The Pale Horse(despite swapping her and Rhoda, it could have worked). Also I am glad others also picked up on the similarities in the Death In Paradise episode.