#poirotposting

[mzannthropy]

You know what I've started watching? Agatha Christie's Poirot. You'd have thought I'd know this series by heart. I have seen most of the episodes already, over the years (maybe even all of them), also from time to time when ITV aired them, they were available to watch on their catch-up service, but now, since the series is on Netflix, I am finally properly going through them. Watched the first 2 so far and am like, holy shit, this is so goooood, the best show in the world.

[kyonite]

The Poirot tv show is so deeply unserious like why were they saying all this in the late 90's. I know this show was british but damn y'all can't be saying that on network tv!!!

Japp: There, now that is what I call food. That's your mashed potato, this is your peas - mushy peas we call them - you'll love 'em - and this, the piece de resistance - faggots.

Poirot: Faggot.

Japp: Faggots - and there's spotted dick for afters.

Poirot: - Dick?

Japp: Yes. It's called that because...

[awkward silence]

Poirot: This is tragic Chief Inspector.

Japp: No no, it's fine.

Poirot: I can eat none of this wonderful food.

Japp: What? Why?

Poirot: Because... I have an allergy of the faggot.

Japp: An allergy?

Poirot: Oui. I... I do not know how you say it in English, but in Belgian it is... known as... 'la phobie de faggot'.

Japp: I've never heard of that.

Poirot: I'm so sorry Chief Inspector, I should have warned you.

Japp: Well, this is a blessed upset I must say. Still, you can have some spotted dick... you haven't got a 'phobie de dick' have you?

Poirot: No.

[mzannthropy]

Murder of Roger Ackroyd Poirot Episode (7.1)

You all know this one, one of the best known and loved Agatha Christie books, famous for its twist. Many believe that it is not possible to turn into a good screen adaptation, but I insist it is. (I actually think that One Two Buckle My Shoe is harder to adapt, but that's a topic for another day and another post.) I could not find a way to keep this spoiler-free, so if you don't want to know, stop reading now.

If you know the book, you will know adapting it will be tricky and therefore likely forgive its transgressions. But that still doesn't mean that one cannot criticise the episode. The script was written by Clive Exton, who usually did a good job with the series, but this is not one of his shining examples. This book is my very special blorbo book, bc it's the first Agatha Christie book I've read and I have re-read it more times than I can count and I know the characters very well. I'm usually quite forgiving with her adaptations (like most of the episodes in the first 6 seasons, so far, have been good, with a few nitpicks here and there) and I know there is worse to come (Appointment with Death, not looking forward to that one, I can tell you!). It's not that the episode had no good points.

Here's my notes:

Roger Ackroyd casting - wrong. Sorry but Malcolm Terris was too old for the character. Ackroyd is supposed to be in his 50s, late 50s I'd say. I liked his acting in the scene where he confided to Poirot about Mrs Ferrars's secret (which of course doesn't happen in the book, it is Dr Sheppard he talks to about it), there was nothing wrong with his acting, but he is still not a good choice.

Mrs Ferrars we only got a glimpse of, but she was good. Good casting and her general look. In the book she didn't have a first name, here they named her Dorothy, which is okay; she had to be named something.

Dr Sheppard - I don't want to be cruel but I don't think this was good casting either.

Caroline Sheppard. Let me make something clear ***unpopular opinion*** I hate her. But as far as the episode goes--what a terribly awful hairstyle.

Parker - wrong casting. This is not ageism, I am not young myself, but Parker should be younger. Considering that they changed his character anyway, I can accept it.

Japp should not be there, obviously, but I still have to mention it. Part of the fun of the book is what an idiot Inspector Raglan is. You take something of it away when you replace him with Japp. Sometimes it doesn't matter (ABC Murders, for example, should have an Inspector Crome, instead of Japp), but this time it does.

They did have a nice reunion at the police station, though. (But that could still have been included if Raglan was there and Japp could have had a cameo when Poirot went to London).

Speaking of Poirot, he was in Kings Abbot bc he retired from private detecting and bought a cottage in the village to grow vegetable marrows. It's an early work of Agatha Christie, she didn't know at the time that she would end up writing Poirot for the next 40 years. She soon brought him back from retirement and back to London. The series does this later and the episode brings up points about retiring and crime in the city vs countryside. I'll file this under the good points.

Flora Ackroyd casting good, she look exactly as the book describes her.

Mrs Akcroyd was fine, she is described in a very offputting way (chains and teeth and bones), which the actress wasn't, lol, but the characterisation, you know the thing that actually matters, was good.

the Miss Russell/Charles Kent storyline is cut. An adaptation has to make decisions due to time constraints, so they had to cut something. It doesn't impact the overall story.

Mr Hammond, the lawyer - he's ancient, but the casting is good.

Inspector Davis was fine, but that's a moot point, since he doesn't have a large part in the story.

Poirot addressing Caroline as Madame Sheppard. WHY IS HE ADDRESSING HER AS MADAME SHEPPARD, SHE IS NOT MARRIED. She is sister to Dr Sheppard, not wife, they didn't change that, so why was he calling her Madame?

the scene with Mrs Folliott was good

Poirot meeting Japp and Hammond at an Italian restaurant, where Japp doesn't like any of the food - boring and unnecessary. You've already harped on about food enough throughout the series.

Poirot and Japp visit Poirot's flat at Whitehaven Mansions, which he has kept. Bc they knew they would bring him back. The scene adds nothing and wastes valuable time that could be spent on investigating. They do discuss the wedding ring found in the garden of Fernly Park, but they could have done so anywhere.

Parker is killed, which does not happen in the book. Like I said above, his characterisation is different. He has no taste for blackmailing, but he is a drinker--something he wishes to hide from his employer. The motive here is that he noticed the chair being moved and could have figured out who did it--but he noticed it in the book, that's how Poirot even knows about the clue, and there was never any danger of him realising the significance of it. Bc nobody realised the significance of the chair aside from Poirot. Nobody cared about some chair being moved, that's the point, that it was on the surface a completely trivial matter, and nobody considers it to even be a clue. Nobody even knew about this being an important clue for Poirot, bc nobody knew the details of his investigation, apart from Sheppard in the book and Japp in the episode.

Now, Parker comes to the study with a tray later that night, as was his custom. In the book, Ackroyd told everyone not to disturb him after dinner, when he and Sheppard retired to the study. So Parker coming there with the tray later (even if that was something he did every evening), raises suspicion, making the mystery more intriguing. This was not a point in the episode, so there is nothing sus about Parker coming with the tray. But what if he inadvertently discovered the murder? The door to the study was locked, but he may have found it strange, certainly something would be on his mind. It is only bc he encounters Flora at the door, who tells him Ackroyd doesn't want to be disturbed. But what if he didn't encounter her? He could have stumbled upon the body too early and if you know the details, you will know that the time the murder is discovered is a crucial point for the killer.

Mr Raymond - I'll say this was one the good parts. His motive here was that he wanted more control over Ackroyd's factory, which I like better than him having debts.

Ralph was cast well, so was Ursula.

Poirot using the same line to Dr Sheppard "did I not tell you 36 times that it is not possible to conceal anything from Hercule Poirot?" doesn't work here bc he doesn't speak to Dr Sheppard enough to say anything 36 times. Sheppard should have been his sidekick, not Japp!

the framing device of the journal is just--no. Sheppard was never this nasty about the people of Kings Abbot. He even apologised for his description of Mrs Ackroyd. He made a bit of fun of Mrs Gannett, and thought that Colonel Carter was telling tales about his service in Asia, but those are minor characters who have no part to play in the murder. He was never, never ungenerous to Flora or Ralph in his narrative!

that last showdown at the factory - perhaps a good dramatic value, but I can't really get enthusiastic about it. Once he is found out, Dr Sheppard tells Poirot and Japp how he did it--this takes away from Poirot, who should have been the one to uncover it.

The facts of the case were concealed for the sake of Caroline Sheppard--why? What makes her so special that she deserves to be shielded? Many murderers had families and yet they didn't get the same treatment. Only the previous case, Dumb Witness, had a murderer who was a mother of two young children. Murder is a crime, nobody is that precious that they have to have details of a murder committed by their relative hidden. I know the book did it, but that doesn't mean the episode does (they have no problem changing anything else) and also, we don't actually know what happens bc the book ends with Sheppard's narrative. For all we know, people did find out it was him. Caroline is nasty, bitchy gossipy woman who has no good word to say about anyone aside from her precious Ralph (who is not a good person, even if not a murderer, Ursula will not have a happy marriage). She deserves the taste of her own medicine.

The fact that Poirot is reading the journal proves that the book could have been adapted well. Just make Dr Sheppard be the one narrating. Sure, it would be unusual, but everyone would understand why, once it gets to the end! It is not usual for Poirot to narrate a story either (he only did so in Chocolate Box and for a bit in Yellow Iris), but nobody minds the narrative technique change if it makes sense in the end.

Even so, only making Sheppard Poirot's sidekick would have been enough to make it a better adaptation. And a better TV episode altogether. Leave Japp out of it. In Death in the Clouds, Jane Grey acts as a sidekick for Poirot, so it's not like no one else but Hastings or Japp could fill the role. In Branagh's Orient Express film, it was Bouc. A detective's sidekick turning out to be the murderer is a good twist, if you can't, or don't want to, give the episode a narrator.

Oh and also--no Major Blunt, so no love story for Flora. I like them as a couple, I like that he came to her defence when Inspector Raglan confronted her about the theft of the £40. So she's alone here, but at least she has her inheritance. But, they could have done better, they could have paired her with Raymond, and make Raymond a sort of a junior business partner instead of a private secretary. They could have merged his and Blunt's characters together. Why should Flora be deprived of love?

It's not the first time the series does this. In above mentioned Death in the Clouds, SPOILER, Jane's love interest turns out to be the killer, but in the book, she has another suitor, who is a better man. This other guy is in the TV episode, and they share a scene together, but he is not interested in her. She ends the episode crying and Poirot assures her that the killer guy loved her, it was in his eyes--what good is that to her??? Blue Train pulls the same shit too, IIRC (a later episode), what do these people have against happy love stories?

the setting is nice, the house looks good, except all that modernity doesn't fit with the dude who plays Ackroyd. See my first point.

So that is it, that's all I have to say about the episode. Which turned out to be a lot, lol.

[mzannthropy]

Hercule Poirot with a doll

Agatha Christie's Poirot, S1.E7 Problem at Sea

[mzannthropy]

The ABC Murders (Audible Original)

It was a good audio play, good adaptation of the book. The production is fine, except I thought sometimes they overdid it with music, like the sinister sounding score when something was being revealed, it works on the screen but feels distracting when you need to concentrate on the dialogue. Also--yeah, we get it, we know we're listening to a murder mystery! I also at times couldn't distinguish between Franklin Clark and Donald Fraser (also just realised it's similar names: fra-fra, but that's on Agatha Christie). Joel Fry's voice is quite distinctive, for example, so you could not mistake him for anyone else. Peter Dinklage does a decent job voicing Poirot.

And Sam Claflin, of course, full marks for voicing Mr Cust, one of the most memorable characters in Agatha Christie's canon! He's the one you remember from this story, not anyone else (not counting Poirot and Hastings, obvs). For me, a long time Agatha Christie fan, hearing Sam say "Poirot" made my heart leap. If I can't have him in a live action adaptation (and I'm being careful about wishing that, what with so many poor adaptations lately, plus keeping in mind that terrible Mycroft in Enola, like having your fave stars in something adjacent to your interest doesn't always turn out right, it's better to have nothing that have a bad thing), I will take this. Thank you, Audible, gods of the entertainment industry, Agatha Christie's estate, and whoever else was responsible!

[mzannthropy]

It actually occurred to me today that Sam Claflin would make an excellent Hastings in a Poirot adaptation. The outdoorsy, sporty English type, likes cars and golf, most courteous to the ladies. He's also a WW1 veteran and Sam has played a WW1 soldier. I have thought about him in an Agatha Christie adaptation, but I never thought of Hastings bc I don't often think about Hastings; I tend to prefer the Hastings-less Poirots (Five Little Pigs, Roger Ackroyd, Orient Express, Death on the Nile, Sad Cypress, The Hollow) and the shippers put me off. I even prefer Ariadne Oliver as a sidekick bc she's relatable, though the works that feature her are the weaker one from late in Agatha's career. ABC Murders, though, is among the best ones, I just sort of always forget about it.

Anyway, Sam as Captain Hastings. It just remains to find a Poirot, lol.

[mzannthropy]

I'm coming round to the idea of Edward Bluemel's Poirot. It's not that I had a problem with him being cast (I am not a David Suchet purist), it was more that I don't trust BBC to put out a good Agatha Christie adaptation. But hopefully it will still have something going for it; if it a series that is meant to go on for a while, then they need to put some effort in. I don't expect it to be very good, but I'm not opposed to it existing. I can always switch off.

[mzannthropy]

I don't need to remind anyone that Agatha Christie's Poirot is a great show, but I still want to say that Agatha Christie's Poirot is a great show!

I've just finished S1 and aside from everything else, I also love the little details. All the episodes are adaptations of short stories (idk if at that time they planned, or they'd get to do, the novels, it was 1989) and bc the runtime is often longer than it needs to be to adapt the story, the time is spent on expanding the plot and the characters. Hastings and his enthusiasm for cars, for example. Miss Lemon's trouble with the typewriter. Hastings and Miss Lemon generally, I love how they're such buddies. It's like opposite of what it is usually with book adaptations--things added instead of cut out.