tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post7188691154916023006..comments2024-03-28T10:08:52.537+01:00Comments on Investigating Agatha Christie's Poirot: Episode-by-episode: The Murder of Roger AckroydEirikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06440717274193966716noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-43708609845941872552022-03-08T10:55:26.753+01:002022-03-08T10:55:26.753+01:00The scene where Poirot rolls up his sleeve and you...The scene where Poirot rolls up his sleeve and you see his bare arm came as quite a shock, it was like seeing him stark naked!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06753385644954887301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-69525830638864249452020-10-20T03:11:09.461+02:002020-10-20T03:11:09.461+02:00I disagree completely that a faithful adaptation w...I disagree completely that a faithful adaptation would have required Sheppard to narrate. They came up with a brilliant way to translate the conceit of the novel to the screen, and have Sheppard narrate through Poirot. The viewer would have been carried just as the reader. But then they ham-fisted it.<br /><br />Sheppard's journal is a badly written idea of what a "bitter" murderer would write, so over the top that it rhythmically thuds with every snarky remark. While I understand that they couldn't pull a lot of text straight from the novel--Sheppard is pretty matter-of-fact his narration--what they replaced it with has zero relation with Christie's novel or its central character. Japp is shoehorned into the story with scant explanation, which causes the local inspector character to entirely disappear from the movie a few short scenes later, despite he and Poirot developing an antagonistic relationship in the first part of the film. Character and plot developments that deadend are always a bad sign of an undisciplined script. <br /><br />What's worse, Sheppard's and Caroline's relationship, the heart of the story, only appears in vague outlines, and Poirot's relationship with her is utterly absent (he's on a first-name friendship with Sheppard, something that not even Hastings has, yet they couldn't find away to have that extend to Caroline?). That change even undermines the contrivance of the film's climax, where Caroline makes a decision that the writing hasn't supported.<br /><br />And that's the real problem with the Suchet Murder of Roger Ackroyd. Even without the conceit, the mystery and plotting of the novel is one of Christie's best; I read it full knowing what the twist is, and it's still the best Poirot I've read to this point. Even if Exton didn't believe the meta-text wouldn't have worked, he still tried a form of it with his own conceit of the journal. He failed, however, in understanding in what makes the novel work--the relationship of Sheppard to Caroline and Poirot, the root from which Poirot's own actions take shape. By extracting that, we're left with a husk of a lumbering and lurching mystery, with Poirot and Japp as the typical outsiders investigating the crime. Even though Poirot's friendship with Sheppard was carried over, their relationship was not, and everything becomes by-the-numbers, but painted by somebody who has a hard time counting.<br /><br />It doesn't matter that viewers would have guessed Sheppard's guilt. The twist is not the story here; it's the consequences of the twist. The movie tries to play up those consequences and their effect on Poirot, which only makes the absence of the novel's core engine even more stark. Suchet's performance is really the only thing that makes that character point work, but a good adaptation it does not make.billydakingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-11411028650076977102020-05-26T05:37:57.366+02:002020-05-26T05:37:57.366+02:00But the meta-text has to change. There's no p...But the meta-text has to change. There's no point to returning to television and reintroducing Poirot only to focus on a passing character who is trying to get Poirot (and the audience) to fail for most of the first episode. A new meta-text has to be created which explains where Poirot has been (retirement) and why (the desire to escape from dealing with evil) as well as what spurs his return to his previous life as a private detective. Exton uses the plot of Ackroyd, in which Poirot's new friend turns out to be a blackmailing murderer, as a crossroads for Poirot. <br /><br />I have no doubt that Exton could have created a near-perfect replica of the original 1926 novel. The fact that he didn't means that Christie fans need to explore why he didn't and accept the 2000 adaptation on its own terms: as the return of Poirot.<br /><br />Even on that basis, there are problems with the finale which have been discussed in the original post above. But the overall program is not bad and it serves its purpose as a device to resurrect Poirot for another 12 years of entertaining television. This episode is not my favorite, but it does the trick.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-15505961203494575512020-05-26T05:36:56.889+02:002020-05-26T05:36:56.889+02:00Exton must have decided that the 1926 meta-text wo...Exton must have decided that the 1926 meta-text wouldn't work in the 2000 context of the television series. The device of the confidante or the good guy being the murderer is no longer new. Since film noir, we have had "dirty cops", and modern audiences are accustomed to such betrayals by trusted figures. Even Christie viewers new to the story would not have necessarily ruled Dr. Sheppard as narrator out as a suspect. A faithful rendering might have led, merely, to a museum piece. It would also have taken the emphasis off the life of Poirot.<br /><br />After a four-year hiatus, the Poirot series has to explain his absence and why he is returning. Since "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd" clearly has Poirot retired, living in the country, and not thinking of returning to crime, the novel's story line benefits the television series as a springboard for the return of Poirot. Moreover, the storyline is authentic from the Christie canon and does not have to be invented.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-66369902149538631102020-05-26T05:35:33.272+02:002020-05-26T05:35:33.272+02:00A faithful rendering of the story would have requi...A faithful rendering of the story would have required Dr. Sheppard to narrate, using Christie's own words. We would have seen Dr. Sheppard traveling with Poirot, talking to suspects, acting his role as confidante. We would have heard Sheppard's perspective and his arrogance in regard to Poirot. Remember, Sheppard's goal was to outsmart Poirot and his written journal was to be the story of Poirot's one great failure. Instead, Sheppard's journal recounted his own failure to fool Poirot. But Sheppard was not entirely unsuccessful: he did succeed in fooling the reader. The last pages of Sheppard's journal point out, with some satisfaction, where the reader went wrong. For example, Sheppard shows how easily he glossed over the actual murder in the text (with a simple sentence) just before leaving Ackroyd's study. Sheppard (and Christie) are saying: "Here is the paragraph where I murdered him and you didn't even see it!" The end of the story, then, is about the meta-text: Christie, through Sheppard, is pointing out her cleverness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-10654297070169916512020-05-26T05:34:41.780+02:002020-05-26T05:34:41.780+02:00The dilemma of the 1926 reader is actually reflect...The dilemma of the 1926 reader is actually reflected in the character of Caroline Sheppard: intelligent, inquisitive, alert, and able to piece together the words and actions of others into a coherent whole. But like the reader, Caroline is blind to any clues of her brother's multiple crimes because she has never even considered her brother an object of suspicion. It is unthinkable for her or for the reader. <br /><br />The 2000 adaptation is missing all of this meta-text which was the point of the original book. This omission is odd, considering that Clive Exton, of all the Poirot writers, was the most faithful to the original stories. If there was a reason Exton deviated so far from the original, it had to be a good one, especially with the criticism he was bound to receive. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-57691207021282049962020-05-26T05:33:41.657+02:002020-05-26T05:33:41.657+02:00The only way to really appreciate the Clive Exton ...The only way to really appreciate the Clive Exton adaptation is to entirely forget the original novel. <br /><br />The 1926 novel was brilliant because it transgressed an established convention of detective fiction at the time: the detective's confidante is never the murderer. The original Christie reader was lulled into a false sense of security with Dr. Sheppard's character because of his Watson/Hastings role in the story, underscored by Poirot's own overt references to Sheppard substituting for "mon ami Hastings." Even intelligent, well-read mystery readers entirely overlooked Dr. Sheppard as a possible suspect, and some readers felt "betrayed" by the revelation that Sheppard was the blackmailer and (multiple) murderer. In the original novel, both the literary text and the "meta-text" (the accepted practices and conventions of mystery writing) became the blocks to the reader solving the mystery.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-55655735580504666392019-11-30T23:40:07.792+01:002019-11-30T23:40:07.792+01:00And Jamie Bamber as the stepson-- very young!And Jamie Bamber as the stepson-- very young!Alicia Rasleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13143623145712619511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-53027020780238166802017-11-14T08:27:06.112+01:002017-11-14T08:27:06.112+01:00In America, the safe deposit box doors are thick a...In America, the safe deposit box doors are thick and don't flex and bend when keys are inserted and removed. Surely real boxes in the UK are made of sterner stuff? -Toby FlendersonRonboJinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13849644267900944261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-1157557899050911172015-08-22T22:15:53.726+02:002015-08-22T22:15:53.726+02:00It's not naivety, it's just about volume. ...It's not naivety, it's just about volume. There's crime all the time in cities, but villages are much quieter.Stuart Farquharnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-34879572590228838632015-08-12T21:08:54.358+02:002015-08-12T21:08:54.358+02:00Another mistake that Exton had made was to allow C...Another mistake that Exton had made was to allow Caroline Shepphard stumble across the journal before Poirot could reveal the murderer. If Exton was trying to hint that she was killer, it was clumsily handled and ineffective.Liz's Journalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13443856425679339434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-84040357671702139822015-07-01T12:34:34.569+02:002015-07-01T12:34:34.569+02:00I think the point with those lines was to start re...I think the point with those lines was to start refocusing the character a little. As Suchet has mentioned several times, he tried to darken Poirot as the series went on, and bring out his disillusionment and loneliness. I've always seen this as the most obvious starting point for that. Of course, he has never been naive before that, and more than s few of the earlier cases proved that villages could be ideal places for murderers :P But here, he feels betrayed by a friend and neighbour, by people he has grown to like and care about - and still murder seems to follow him around. That's the realisation - that he can't escape it. As Suchet puts it, he sees it as his duty to rid the world of crime, and he understands that he can't simply move away and retire from that duty. If that makes sense.Eirikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06440717274193966716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-31324756081826095292015-06-14T03:49:37.893+02:002015-06-14T03:49:37.893+02:00Poirot gets some lines at the end about how he tho...Poirot gets some lines at the end about how he thought he could escape crime by moving to a village, but the Ackroyd case taught him that the supposed peacefulness there is fake. That doesn't seem to quite work. I mean, it doesn't seem like he would have been that naive up until the Ackroyd case...had he never seen a murder in a village before this? Even in the earlier cases, didn't he always harp on everybody having something to hide?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-42096249516903794432015-02-06T23:16:53.015+01:002015-02-06T23:16:53.015+01:00Directly to the VIEWER not the listener! Sorry.Directly to the VIEWER not the listener! Sorry.Stuart Farquharnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-49063947387950378942015-01-29T19:21:14.801+01:002015-01-29T19:21:14.801+01:00I think it would have been possible to retain Shep...I think it would have been possible to retain Sheppard's narration by eg having him apparently telling the story to an unseen listener, only for it to be revealed at the end that he's speaking directly to the listener and giving his confession.<br /><br />Strange that the adaptation leaves the crucial scene of Sheppard in Ackroyd's study until the end.<br /><br />For someone who always claims to be at odds with the class system, Suchet's Poirot is always ready for the servants to take or return his hat and coat - and even expects Raymond to do it in their absence!<br /><br />The scene where Poirot asks Sheppard to repair his clock is a nice way of introducing the doctor's hobby of tinkering with gadgets.Stuart Farquharnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-18601679030713230102014-12-29T02:18:50.034+01:002014-12-29T02:18:50.034+01:00Is it implied that the chase scene ruins the facto...Is it implied that the chase scene ruins the factory, so Ralph won't get the inheritance he thinks he's going to get?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-61140035066025366882014-07-29T09:07:49.169+02:002014-07-29T09:07:49.169+02:00Yes, that's what I meant. Thank you Norma! :)Yes, that's what I meant. Thank you Norma! :)Eirikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06440717274193966716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-41412443403987980962014-07-28T15:19:43.514+02:002014-07-28T15:19:43.514+02:00La casa usada en Ackroyd es “Kit’s Close” diseñad...La casa usada en Ackroyd es “Kit’s Close” diseñada por Nicholson Christopher David George para el Dr. Crowe Warren 1936-1937, inspirada en un piano de cola, está ubicada en Henley-On-Thames, Wycombe, Buckinghamshire<br />La casa usada como casa de “Martin Alistair Blunt” en “One, Two, Buckle my Shoe” y en “The Double Clue” es “Shrub’s Wood” diseñada por los arquitectos Mendelsohn y Chermayeff, construida entre 1933-1935 está ubicada en Chalfont St Giles, Buckinghamshire, UK<br />NormaUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13289340673496166830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-41441404559718417762014-07-18T15:49:37.540+02:002014-07-18T15:49:37.540+02:00I don't think they used that particular house ...I don't think they used that particular house in other episodes, but it's quite similar to the one used in "The Double Clue" and "One, Two, Buckle My Shoe".Eirikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06440717274193966716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-37422097791941158512014-06-24T03:57:12.571+02:002014-06-24T03:57:12.571+02:00Can you tell me if the white house used as Ackroyd...Can you tell me if the white house used as Ackroyd's home was used in other Poirot episodes? It looks very familiar.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-6792956045503039262014-04-04T01:03:49.263+02:002014-04-04T01:03:49.263+02:00["It also provides us with one of the most ri...["It also provides us with one of the most ridiculous chase scenes the series has ever seen (and that’s saying something).]<br /><br /><br />The "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT" series is filled with many ridiculous and unnecessary chase scenes, but this one took the cake.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com