 |
| (c) ITV |
This episode was based on the novel Lord Edgware Dies, first published in 1933. It was adapted for television by Anthony Horowitz and directed by Brian Farnham.
Script versus novel
Horowitz stays fairly true to the source material, with several notable exceptions. First, he adds a scene from Macbeth (particularly fitting, both because Lady Edgware aka Lady Macbeth is an actress and because Lord Edgware will later be murdered with a dagger).
Second, there’s the scenes that re-establish the Big Four after the four-year hiatus. Hastings is called back from Argentina (having lost the farm in speculative investments, perfectly in tune with his previous business attempts), Miss Lemon helps Poirot moving back in and Japp (who returned in the last episode) comes to dinner. These scenes are nicely done and actually very much in character, so I don’t object to them.
Third, Carlotta’s impersonations include one of Poirot (unsurprisingly – that was begging to be added!). Fourth, Poirot and Hastings discover Carlotta’s body before the doctor and the police have been there (a sensible change). Fourth, Carlotta’s sister Lucie is in the UK, so Poirot gets to interview her face to face, rather than through letters and telegrams.
Fifth, Horowitz adds a significant number of scenes between Poirot and Lady Edgware – and creates the impression throughout the episode that he is falling for her (one particular scene between Miss Lemon and Hastings is particularly reminiscent of ‘The Double Clue’). Sixth, Jenny Driver is changed into Penny Driver (for no particular reason it seems), and so is the inscription on the gold case (CA from P, not CA from D). Seventh, several scenes are removed (including the visit from the Dowager duchess, the taxi driver who sees Geraldine and Ronald Marsh outside Lord Edgware’s house, the intended restaurant meeting that Lady Edgware attends disguised as Carlotta, and the scene in which Poirot tries to find out if the pince-nez belong to Edgware’s secretary (but the scene in which Ellis is tested remains). None of these scenes are missed, though. On the subject of the Duke of Merton, he is much more involved and much less reserved than in the novel, so there is really no need for his mother to get involved. Eighth, Horowitz adds a chase scene in which Alton the butler tries to escape (and like the previous episode, it feels completely unnecessary). All in all, however, the denouement does tie thing neatly together, so this script isn’t half bad.
Directing, production design, locations, soundtrack
Farnham’s direction is largely competent. However, I must point out that the first dinner scene is a complete cheat, since there’s no attempt made at trying to conceal SPOILER the fact that Helen Grace (Lady Edgware) actually is in two places at the same time. In the denouement, the camera mostly shows the back of her (or rather Carlotta’s) head, and that works well, so why couldn’t the same trick have been used at that first dinner scene. Very annoying – almost as annoying as the obvious culprit in Hickory Dickory Dock. The production design is good as always, and several of the locations are lovely. These include Shoreham Airport (previously seen in ‘The Adventure of the Western Star’ and Death in the Clouds), ‘The Peacock House’ in Holland Park (later to be used as Shaitana’s house in Cards on the Table), Addisland Court (previously seen in ‘The Adventure of the Italian Nobleman’) and Highpoint flats in Highgate (used as Lady Edgware’s penthouse flat – previously seen in ‘The Affair at the Victory Ball’). Gunning’s soundtrack is particularly memorable, but it has sadly never been released on CD (apart from the Argentinean sections, which can be heard in the ‘Poirot Variants’ track).
Characters and actors
It’s nice to see the old gang back together again, but more importantly it’s nice to see the sombre, darker quality continue (I know many fans object to this element, but I think it’s fairly obvious that I like it), for instance in Poirot’s lamentations on marriage. Of the guest actors, Helen Grace (Lady Edgware) is the standout – she actually manages to make the denouement almost creepy (but not on an After the Funeral level!).
The scene of the dinner, do you know where that was filmed?
ReplyDeleteThe actual dinner? I'm afraid not, I think it might be a set?
DeleteMy complaint...and it may seem trivial, was the "ship tease" between Poirot and Jane, with dialogue implying he had never been infatuated before. It felt like the writers of this one didn't know the Double Clue had happened. I wondered if they would make Big Four or Labours and have them meet for the first time. While flirting to distract Poirot seemed like something Jane would do, I wasn't convinced by his going for it. That wasn't how Rossokoff behaved...I always thought, at least as played by Markham, she genuinely liked Poirot and wasn't just playing with him to up her chances of getting away with the theft. However, he did not seem angry to find out she was the thief...it was played as though he knew all along...yet he was very angry about Jane, implying his pride was hurt.
ReplyDeleteI agree that you might get the impression in this adaptation that Poirot had never been infatuated before. After all, Hastings says: 'It's never too late. If the right woman came along...'. While this is in tune with his romantic attitude to life, it does seem strange that he and Miss Lemon have forgotten all about The Double Clue. Especially since both adaptations were written by Anthony Horowitz! (But he is known for some inaccuracies both in Poirot and other series). As to the Rossakoff-Poirot relationship, I do think there was some affection between them, but it's never clear - neither in the series or in the books - whether Rossakoff genuinely liked him. Still, I agree that Markham's portrayal suggests as much. She (the actress) even added that kiss on the forehead, which apparently is what Russians do when saying goodbye to someone close (I asked a Russian fan about this a while back, and he had never heard of that tradition, but anyway). I am convinced, though, that Poirot knew she was the culprit all along (everything in the adaptation points to him dragging out time to get to see more of her). With Jane, I think what Horowitz was trying to do was to imply that Poirot was disappointed, in himself most of all, for being lured into Jane's trap, so to speak. And that is out of character, actually. So I really do think you've raised some valid points of criticism here. I've never explored these two adaptations together, for some reason.
DeleteThis does seem like an uncharacteristic lapse of the gray cells for Poirot...especially given that you'd think he'd pick up on the Catholicism issue. Even more uncharacteristically, Japp is ahead of him.
DeleteIt begins to seem as though Poirot is just susceptible to attractive women in general.
Just watching it again, and I think the filmmakers intended the apparent infatuation to be a misdirection. Suchet doesn't play his relationship with his client the same way as he did in his relationship with the Countess in The Double Clue (who was a suspect), which is why the OP wasn't convinced by Poirot going for it, and when Miss Lemon and Hastings worry over Poirot's "state" and Hastings directly tells Poirot that his feelings toward Lady Edgware are obvious, Poirot angrily tells him what he's really thinking. And the anger's justified, because he's feeling that his slowness allowed the murder of Carlotta Adams to occur.
DeleteTo me, Poirot acts as he normally does toward a female client in danger--he's protective, reassuring, and concerned for her well-being. Any suggestion that his behavior betrayed genuine interest on his part was projected there by Hastings, Miss Lemon...and Lady Edgware. Which is why it's important she takes his arm in the park, not that he offers it.
I also think he picked up right away on the Catholicism issue, as soon as the Duke mentioned the cathedral. You can see Suchet react to that. I think his issue in tying it all together was how she did it, not why.
This is one of the harder Christie stories to "sell" to a modern audience because it's hard to believe it didn't occur to ANYONE (not even Poirot, for a considerable amount of time) that it was Carlotta at the party and Jane at the house, especially after we are told that the people at the party didn't know Jane well.
ReplyDeleteHastings even opens the book by saying that Poirot doesn't exactly view the case as a great success of his.
Is Jane supposed to be so captivating that no one believes she can be a murderer?
I agree - it's obvious that Carlotta must have been at the dinner party.
DeleteCarlotta's a terrible impressionist! But I've always felt scenes like this and the theatre scenes in Four and Twenty Blackbirds might be designed to show how unsophisticated theatre shows could be at the time and how little audiences expected compared to today.
I'm surprised they got away with having a theatre producer called Ronald Marsh when there was a well known TV producer of the same name at the time. (I know he's in the book but TV shows are usually careful not to use names that could be misconstrued as referring to real people.)
I don't think it was obvious, or even logical to think that. Carlotta was at the dinner party for hours, sitting with people who supposedly knew Jane, even if not well. It seems ridiculous that when you're in close quarters with someone for that long, you're not going to pick up on something that gives the game away. Ironically, it was Jane herself. And notice that Duncan wasn't tipped off by her appearance, voice, or manner, but by Jane messing up with what they discussed that night.
DeleteIt is obvious that impersonating Jane at the house was a much easier and less risky trick, and thus the obvious way to use an impersonator in a murder. She only had to fool two people--one of them who met Jane only once--for a minute or two, rather than a room of a dozen people for an entire dinner.
I get that Hastings had been farming in Argentina...but why was Poirot moving back in to his place? Where had he been?
ReplyDeleteRetired to King's Abbott, in The Murder of Roger Ackroyd (which preceded this on TV).
DeleteMiss Lemon actually says, "I've never seen him like this before," when Poirot is sitting at his desk seemingly mooning over Jane. Hastings said that very line in The Double Clue!
ReplyDeleteI absolute love this episode - it's my favourite of the all for so many reasons. A London setting (so we see Poirot in his flat all the time), the gang of Lemon, Japp and Hastings back again, and a mystery with all the traditional elements. The soundtrack is amazing, I wonder that Christopher Gunning hasn't "published" it. Lots of colourful suspects all in thirties London, love it.
ReplyDeleteDo you know where the interior of Lord Edgware's house was filmed? I know the exterior was Debenham House but the interior there doesn't match at all.
The interior of Lord Edgware's house was filmed in 2 Temple Place, London.
DeletePS can I subscribe to this blog?
ReplyDeleteThe actors, writers, etc talk about Japp having to get it wrong so Poirot get it right. But in this one, Japp gets it more right than Poirot does: Japp is rather fixated on Jane's guilt while Poirot becomes her champion (not exactly the brain that's driving Poirot there). And although Japp later focuses on the nephew as a suspect, it's kind of Poirot's fault he does that.
ReplyDeleteThey managed to come up with something different here regarding the chase scene - there IS one - but the person being chased is, although "up to no good" in Japp's words, is NOT the main villain/killer - and the chase scene is not the climax.
ReplyDeleteThe real killer doesn't, (as Hastings would say) make a run for it.
Japp's one of those TV detectives who can recognise drugs by their taste. Presumably they get sent on a drug tasting course - which would be much less expensive than letting them learn through experience.
ReplyDeleteThis episode was great character-wise and the story was somewhat surprising (both in the reversal of the roles and in the fact that nobody thought of it sooner). However I feel that the motive, as shown in the film, was really weak in the sense that people in the west usually don't take their religion as seriously as the duke is said to. But even if we grant it to him, his religion should have been much more emphasized, as was in the book, for the motive to be really convincing.
ReplyDeleteMany religious people in the west do take their faith very seriously. And in the 1930s, there was still a lot of social stigma attached to divorce. Even now, the Roman Catholic church won't marry divorcees without an annulment from the church, and divorcees who remarry (without first getting an annulment) aren't allowed to take communion.
DeleteSure, but as I said, Duke's religiosity should have been much more strongly emphasized.
DeleteThis really isn't the case in the context of 1930s Britain - just a couple of years after Christie wrote this novel the King had to abdicate the throne because he wanted to marry a divorcee.
DeleteThe Windsors are decidedly not Catholic, though.
DeleteThe Anglican community shared the Catholic view on the indissolubility of Marriage until very recently, therefore the promise that Camilla Parker-Bowles would not be crowned Queen in conjunction with her remarrying the separated but widowed prince of Wales.
ReplyDeleteJane Wilkinson is rather more sympathetic here than in the book. Makes Poirot's sympathy more convincing.
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised that no-one else seems as impressed as I was that they sought out two actors who were actually real-life brothers (Christopher and Dominic Guard) to play Alton and Bryan Martin, the two characters who resemble each other.
ReplyDeleteDuring the reveal that Carlotta was the one who attended the dinner (I had assumed she was the one who went to the house), I rolled back to that scene and I'm fairly certain it's not Carlotta's performer in the wide shot. Here's and Wilkinson's have fairly distinctive features, especially in the nose, and I just don't see it.
ReplyDelete