"And Then There Were None" - and other Agatha Christie adaptations

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I didn't find this good at all. Perhaps it was the general mishmash approach.

Isn't he a character in And Then There Were None?

[Nick Armstrong]

Isn't he a character in And Then There Were None?

No that was General Pile-O'Crap. Now that I've given up on, really terrible overblown boring stuff.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Isn't he a character in And Then There Were None?

The problem with the new Agatha Christie adaptation is that the villain is always the villain in these dramas.

Incidentally, I have a very old copy of this book, and would not be permitted to divulge its title, never mind the plot.

[vinteuil]

The problem with the new Agatha Christie adaptation is that the villain is always the villain in these dramas.

Incidentally, I have a very old copy of this book, and would not be permitted to divulge its title, never mind the plot.

... I don't see why you wd not be permitted to divulge its title : has anyone sought to change the title of Conrad's 'The Nigger of the "Narcissus" ' ?

[jean]

... I don't see why you wd not be permitted to divulge its title...

This is its original dust jacket. It is a bit shocking, don't you think?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

It's had other titles:

The little Indians
Ten little Soldiers

[vinteuil]

This is its original dust jacket. It is a bit shocking, don't you think?

... o, worse than 'a bit shocking' - it is nowadays distinctly uncomfortable / unpalatable. Even when we are aware of the version of the children's song from which it derives -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Little_Indians

My point was rather that we shouldn't be shrinkingly coy from referring to it. One could be silent, or one could refer to it coolly and explicitly : I don't see that one should furtively say that 'there is a book which I shall not name', which by itself draws attention to what is not being named.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The problem with the new Agatha Christie adaptation is that the villain is always the villain in these dramas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cFzABv0xMU

[Nick Armstrong]

The problem with the new Agatha Christie adaptation is that the villain is always the villain in these dramas.

Really? I have no idea whodunnit in this one, they all seem vile - I care only to the extent that I shall fastforward to the end of the third episode to see!

I think the problem is the style. When done 'properly', an Agatha Christie can be pleasurable indeed (especially if you're like me and - as with sports events - for some reason seem to be incapable of remembering the 'result' for more than about a week!!)

Those old Joan Hickson dramatisations continue to be rewarding watching (even I can now recall the outcome of some of those!); whereas I found most of the David Suchet adaptations of Poirot stories to be artificial and mannered (plus Suchet's 'Belgian' accent bore no relation to any accent a Francophone of any kind inc. Belgian would ever have had when speaking English). And as for Albert Finney Peter Ustinov, maybe... However, recently, on Radio 4Extra, I've discovered what I think are the best Poirot dramatisations, with John Moffat playing Hercule - a most credible and involving characterisation, the only one to sound 'right' with no mugging, Clouseau-esque caricature...

[jean]

I'm watching this because it's quite stylish, and has an excellent cast.

But I can't imagine why the book was so popular.

(I've never read it so I've no idea whodunnit, but the dénouement will have to be pretty amazing to reverse that opinion.)

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Those old Joan Hickson dramatisations continue to be rewarding watching (even I can now recall the outcome of some of those!);

I prefer those to the more recent ITV ones, which take great liberties with the plots at times, including borrowing Tommy and Tuppence Beresford for one episode.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I'm watching this because it's quite stylish, and has an excellent cast.

But I can't imagine why the book was so popular.

So far, I've found the adaptation to be rather dull, whereas the book really gripped me. But things might wake up a little in the final episode.

[Nick Armstrong]

I prefer those to the more recent ITV ones, which take great liberties with the plots at times, including borrowing Tommy and Tuppence Beresford for one episode.

Agreed - and the recent ones are marred by unsubtle direction and hammy acting by 'familiar faces' - the plague of the 'all star cast' from which I think the current one suffers too. Sam Neill and Charles Dance are among my favourite actors, but....

[mercia]

the altered title rather gives away the denouement. I doubt whether there was all the effing and blinding in the book [not having read it]. It mildly amused me that having just watched the Dickens thing I was now watching Tulkinghorn, Guppy, Pip and Poldark, if you see what I mean.

[Nick Armstrong]

the altered title rather gives away the denouement. I doubt whether there was all the effing and blinding in the book [not having read it]. It mildly amused me that having just watched the Dickens thing I was now watching Tulkinghorn, Guppy, Pip and Poldark, if you see what I mean.

Pip turned out not have especially Great Expectations this time, did he?

Still think Peter Vaughan was an even better Tulkinghorn than Dance, in the older adaptation...