|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
6/23/2010 3:23:01 PM
|
Leigh
Posts 211
|
In an eMail conversation with an English fan of mysteries, we talked about portrayals of Poirot. In the exchange, we wrote:
she:
I found Suchet a super-pedantic Poiroit - enjoyed the series. Peter Ustinov's Poirot was more comedic.
me:
Suchet's character seemed layered to me, as if Poirot (in a time of British chauvinistic arrogance) was sometimes "taking the ****", to use the shuddering English expression, or "leading them down the garden path," as Americans might say.
Ustinov grated upon me. I wonder what Yoshinori Todo's thoughts are on Ustinov? He's a major Christie fan.
so…
So, my question is, what do others think of Poirot portrayals?
|
|
6/23/2010 4:48:58 PM
|
stanbrown
Posts 16
|
I'm a fan of Suchet, too. I haven't watched a Peter Ustinov Poirot movie since I was a kid and watched those TV movies as they came out (and the Helen Hayes Miss Marple movies around the same time)--my mother and I always looked forward to those. They were real events in our house. That was before Mystery! started on PBS around 1986, when we finally got a regular, weekly classic mystery show. (Loved the American shows like Simon and Simon and Magnum PI too, but they weren't like Golden Age British mysteries.)
At any rate, I therefore remember the Ustinov portrayals very fondly. I might have a different opinion if I watched them again now. (I do remember being annoyed at changes in characters/plot in some of those movies.)
I find the Albert Finney version in Murder on the Orient Express (1974) fairly annoying, although the movie overall is great.
Miss Marple is whole other story. The perfect, never to be surpassed portrayals of Jane Marple were the 1980s series that aired on Mystery! starring Joan Hickson. The more recent series starring Geraldine McEwen were just horrible--major plot and character changes done to sensationalize the stories. (It seemed like they basically wanted to "uncozy" them--do startling stories that were very un-Christie-like.) The most recent series, starring Julia McKenzie, is not that bad, but still nowhere close to the pitch-perfect Hickson series. (The McKenzie series takes several non-Miss Marple Christie novels and rewrites them to use her as the detective. They are entertaining, but with altered plots they seem in the end more typically current and not like classic Christie.) The Helen Hayes movies were fun, and she of course is a legend, but they never felt as "authentic"--always like an American version of England rather than the real thing. I can't watch the 1960s Miss Marple movies that starred Margaret Rutherford.
|
|
6/24/2010 3:09:53 AM
|
Yoshinori Todo
Posts 233
|
Joshinator?  
Yes, I am a huge Agatha Christie fan, but I have never quite gotten into the movies and TV-series--I prefer the novels by far. I guess I am mainly fascinated--mesmerized! enthralled!--by Christie's unique writing style, which is really indescribably wonderful and effective beyond words.
I have seen the old classics with Peter Ustinov, of course, and if my recollection serves me right, these are what made me pick up a Christie novel in the first place--I was ten or thereabouts, and I have to admit, I was less than impressed by 4.50 from Paddington. I guess I was expecting a whodunit mystery thriller similar in style and conception to Murder on the Orient Express. Anyway, when I decided to give Christie another chance a year later and picked up Death on the Nile, I was blown away. I became a fan for life.
So, to get back to the topic at hand, the movies starring Ustinov are well made and fun, but I have fond memories of these mostly because they made me discover the novels. I don't even own them on DVD. As to David Suchet . . . he is arguably the better Poirot (more faithful to the spirit of the original author's intent, anyway), but so far I have seen only a few episodes of the TV-series on the internet. I try to steer clear of these adaptions because I like to see my own movies in my head as I read the stories. But in that respect, I am probably in the minority here.
edited by Yoshinori Todo on 6/24/2010
--
Josh
|
|
6/24/2010 3:14:59 AM
|
stephenross
Posts 24
|
David Suchet is my favourite Poirot. And oui, taking the P, does Mr P, often, in Mr Suchet's performances. My problem with Peter Ustinov is that he was always Peter Ustinov. Albert Finney was interesting in Orient Express. And since she was mentioned, my favourite Marple is Margaret Rutherford. My least favourite Marple was Angela Lansbury.
|
|
6/24/2010 3:42:18 AM
|
Yoshinori Todo
Posts 233
|
stephenross wrote:
My least favourite Marple was Angela Lansbury.
Yes, Angela Lansbury was much better as J. B. Fletcher!
--
Josh
|
|
6/24/2010 6:10:24 AM
|
stephenross
Posts 24
|
Yoshinori Todo wrote:
stephenross wrote: My least favourite Marple was Angela Lansbury. Yes, Angela Lansbury was much better as J. B. Fletcher!
Actually, I only ever liked her in The Court Jester
|
|
6/24/2010 11:40:18 PM
|
Leigh
Posts 211
|
You guys don't disappoint! You're all correct, in my opinion. I know Yoshinori would have something interesting to say! And I understand perfectly how you feel, Josh.
Stan, to me, Joan Hickson and her production team were perfect, virtually spot on. Geraldine McEwen… was that the version that had a 60s-70s look and feel?
Stephen, you penetrated the fog and put your finger on the problem I have with Ustinov… he didn't play Poirot, he portrayed Ustinov as he does in everything else.
Thank you, Gentlemen. It's good to learn new things.
|
|
6/25/2010 12:55:17 PM
|
stanbrown
Posts 16
|
Leigh wrote:
You guys don't disappoint! You're all correct, in my opinion. I know Yoshinori would have something interesting to say! And I understand perfectly how you feel, Josh.
Stan, to me, Joan Hickson and her production team were perfect, virtually spot on. Geraldine McEwen… was that the version that had a 60s-70s look and feel?
Yes--so a slightly more modern Miss Marple (but not contemporary--still a period piece), a more physically active Miss Marple. But what got me most was the rewriting of several plots to change the identity of killers or to change (and sensationalize) the motives of killers. Two entirely unrelated characters in The Body in the Library, neither of whom was the killer in the book, were turned into a murderous lesbian couple in this production. Another featured a deep, dark motive that was revealed to be that woman had been raped (and impregnated) by her mentally retarded brother. I think that was the new key to Easy to Kill, which wasn't a Miss Marple book, but a non-series mystery by Christie. I can accept plotlines like that in Elizabeth George's Inspector Lynley books, or even P.D. James if she actually wrote it herself--I wouldn't want some scriptwriter to rewrite her books, either--but they don't belong in Christie. (And certainly not in Miss Marple.)
The only complaint (and it's a very minor one) I have about the Joan Hickson Marples and the David Suchet Poirots is that they stick to one time period, rather than aging the characters over a broader period. The Poirots (and I may be wrong on this--correct me if I am, I haven't seen all those programs) seem to be all 1920s/1930s, and so you never see a more elderly Poirot in the 1950s or 1960s. Not a great loss, perhaps. The Joan Hickson Marples were essentially done as 1950s period pieces, as I recall. The Moving Finger, for example, which seems pre-war in the book, was done as post-war like the other titles in the series. You don't get the idea in these series that you get in the book about Miss Marple getting older and dealing with the problems of aging. I'm sure it simplified production details (sets, automobiles, costumes, supporting casts, and so forth) to keep to one period, but you lose something of the sweep of their careers.
|
|
6/25/2010 1:23:49 PM
|
Jon L. Breen
Posts 67
|
I'm with Suchet as Poirot, Hickson as Marple, and it's an easy call. After Hickson's sequence, there was no need to do Miss Marple ever again (or anyway not so soon) for any but crass commercial reasons. Margaret Rutherford was delightful, but the character she was playing wasn't Miss Marple. Albert Finney was a good Poirot I thought but far surpassed by Suchet, who brought a depth and humanity to Poirot that made him a fuller character than the one in the novels and stories, while still fitting perfectly with the period and the stories. The decision to keep the characters in the same time period was an inevitable one, though it may not work perfectly with some of the stories. Hickson was already old to begin with, so you couldn't very well do Miss Marple at different ages with her in the role. (If only they'd started with Hickson twenty or thirty years earlier, but not even British TV has perfected time travel.)
|
|
pages:
1 |
|---|
|
The Mystery Place:
Readers' Forum |
Order |
Links |
Contact Us |
Customer Service |
Advertising |
Home
Alfred Hitchcock's Mystery Magazine
Ellery Queen's Mystery Magazine
Privacy Statement
Copyright © 2010 Penny Publications. All Rights Reserved.
|
|