I have been wanting to write this little piece in praise of David Suchet’s achievement for ages, but I have put it off because I have wanted to wait until he has done all Christie’s stories. Well, now I have decided that I simply can’t wait any longer – I will write it now, without having seen the final series. In fact, I think this is a fitting moment to forumulate my thoughts, simply because Suchet has just started filming Curtain, thus initiating the final year of filming for the series, after which he will have done all the stories and portrayed the character on screen for no less than 25 years!
David Suchet’s achievement with Agatha Christie’s character cannot be praised highly enough. I am still baffled by the fact that he has not received a BAFTA award for it! (Yes, he was nominated in 1991, and the series won four BAFTAs in 1990 for Best Costume Design, Best Graphics, Best Make Up and Best Original Television Music, but Suchet has never actually been awarded one for the portrayal of Hercule Poirot!). I sincerely hope he will at least receive a new nomination once Curtain has been shown on television. He certainly deserves it.
To me, David Suchet is one of the best character actors of our time. His approach to his characters is so detailed and refined. If he is playing a real person, he studies this person’s life inside and out (e.g. Sigmund Freud and Robert Maxwell). If it is a character in a play, he goes back to the original words of the playwright (e.g. Iago, Joe Keller and James Tyrone). And, as with Poirot, if it is a writer, he goes back to the novel(s) and attempts to portray and interpret what the writer has intended.
When asked, in an interview in 2001, to describe the process he goes through when approaching a particular role, for instance Poirot, Suchet explained: ‘You go to the book. With Poirot I had over 60 or 70 stories to draw on, so it was a far greater chance for me — or for Agatha Christie — to develop the character. […] When you’re doing characters from famous novels, you have a responsibility as an actor to make it what the writer intended. And then you add and expand from there to create a three-dimensional performance.’
In my mind, his main achievement with Poirot is exactly what he describes above: He has managed to bring a character to life that, for many, borders on the line of an absolute caricature, a cardboard cut-out (at least judging from pre-Suchet film and television portrayals). Not only that, through adaptations where changes have been made to the stories, he has managed to stay true to the character, to Christie’s creation, while still making it his own three-dimensional interpretation. As he put it in an interview with ITV.com in 2010: ‘I don’t have any say about where the adaptations of our stories may move, but I do have a say in how I play the character. And the way I play the character will be absolutely as near as I can possibly get to the tone, the flavour and, also, particular incidents that Agatha Christie will put in that particular novel. I am still the servant of my creator’.
(As to the particular incidents, a glimpse of his devotion was referred to in an interview: ‘When he compared the [Murder of Roger] Ackroyd script to Christie’s novel, he noticed the TV version omitted an early scene in which Poirot has a frustrating moment with a zucchini in his garden; Suchet asked for it be added. It was.’)
Suchet’s research for Poirot
Suchet was first approached about the role in 1987. Shooting began in 1988, and the first episodes were broadcast in 1989. The story of how he initially developed his interpretation of the character has been described very accurately by Suchet himself elsewhere (look, for instance, at the Poirot & Me documentary mini-series broadcasted a few years ago or one of the several interviews with him available online). Suffice to say that he went back to Christie’s original stories, noted any references made to the character, and created what he calls a ‘character dossier’ with key characteristics. Moreover, he perfected his Belgian-but-must-sound-French accent and the peculiar mincing walk, to mention but a few of the many nuances he brings to the character.
What I want to focus my attention on in this little review is the uphill battle he initially seems to have fought with the producers to be allowed to interpret the character. In conclusion, I will discuss some key features of Suchet’s interpretation in light of the criticism he has received from certain fans of the series.
In an interview in 1998, the journalist refers to Suchet’s decision to portray ‘Poirot as the novelist would recognise him, even in the teeth of opposition from worried television executives fearful of departing from the norm’. This is an aspect of Suchet’s achievement I have rarely seen mentioned. In fact, I was not aware of this opposition until recently.
A more detailed description of the producers' opposition can be found below, in an extract from the book In the Company of Actors: Reflections on the Craft of Acting, published in 2000, where Suchet describes, in his own words, the process of developing Poirot:
‘I started reading every single book that Agatha Christie wrote, from The Mysterious Affair at Styles, right through to Curtain, where he dies, and started filling a notebook with characteristics.
[...]
I picked up that Poirot would be totally anally-retentive [here: obsessive compulsive disorder]. […] I used the anal-retentive analysis from Freud on Poirot. […] It doesn’t make him lose his twinkle, his little fun and sense of humour. I also hope I’ve given Poirot a darker side as well.
[...]
What you saw over the course of the series was an actor trying to fight for his character from early on. Because when I first started, the costume and make-up designs turned Poirot into a buffoon. My first costume design was going to be check plus-fours, and hunting jackets, and moustache out there, and Sherlock Holmes caps. I remember one particular meeting when I walked away from the production before it even started, because I wanted to wear the clothes that he was famous for: his suits, his wing collar, bow ties, and most important of all, his morning jacket and striped trousers. I was forbidden to do so, because ‘the television public would find it boring and depressing’. At that meeting, I said, ‘You will have to cast somebody else. If you want me to play the role, I can only approach it in the way that I as an actor would approach the role. You are now taking away my individual creativity, and you must find somebody else’. I didn’t know at that time that the Agatha Christie estate only wanted me to play the role. I didn’t know the power I had. All through the first three years, I was fighting scripts that tried to make him jokey, while I was trying desperately to find the real man. Doing the short stories first – I wasn’t able to bring in the complexities of the character. But gradually, as the character evolved, I made him far more internalised in his mind, and less active physically. If he did any gestures, they wouldn’t just be gestures. He was doing something in his head, while he was active. And I allowed his darker side to come through. I won’t explain now, what his dark thoughts were. What was it like being a man, at that time, unmarried? He was not a homosexual. He was a true bachelor. Did he have any sexual frustrations? Was he lonely? All that, I began to build into the character.
[…]
If I do continue [playing the part, this was published in 2000], I hope to develop him as Agatha Christie wrote him, not just going off on my own. Her books are full of these dark moments. Poirot would brood, and would take himself off into the corner of a room, to sit and think. He didn’t know why, but he became suddenly troubled as he looked at a young girl. Agatha Christie was really into all this, and yet he was turned into, what I consider, a playful buffoon. That’s not what she wrote, and it’s only by playing him that I realised the seriousness of that lunch where her own family turned to me and said, ‘We don’t want that. If we laugh at all, it is to be with him, and not at him. (p. 190-191)
I think this extract highlights two very important aspects of Suchet’s achievement. Firstly, the apparently fierce opposition he was initially facing from the producers, so fierce in fact that he threatened to leave the project. I must say I was completely amazed when I first read his anecdote from the costume fittings. To think that the producers wanted to dress him up in ‘hunting jackets’ and ‘Sherlock Holmes caps’ – obviously intending to make him a laughable character – does not only prove that the series could have taken a completely different form (arguably, it would not have lasted as long as it has either), it also suggests that the producers had a very different approach to Agatha Christie’s stories! Of course, we should take into account that this is Suchet’s side of the story, and some of it might have been exaggerated for dramatic effect, but I somehow don’t see any reason why we shouldn’t take his word on this. To me, the opposition he describes only makes me even more amazed at the process he has gone through with the character.
It should be said that the producers were probably persuaded quite early on – especially after that first series with over ten million viewers! Moreover, we should keep in mind that Suchet has been an ‘associate producer’ since 2003, so he now has much greater influence on the character than he – presumably – used to have in the early years. Interestingly, this is also when Suchet seems to have made his portrayal even more nuanced – just as he intended.
Secondly, the extract shows what care Suchet has taken to create a three-dimensional character; his use of Freud’s anal-retentive analysis to decipher the OCD aspects, his goal of finding ‘the real man’ and his thoughts on Poirot’s situation of life. All of these aspects point ahead towards what has become Suchet’s definitive Poirot.
The development of the character
Some viewers claim that Poirot has lost his humour in recent years; that he has been turned into something that contradicts what Christie wrote. On several occasions, Suchet has discussed his initial portrayal of the character, and how he found a reference to Poirot’s ‘twinkle’. In Peter Haining’s book, Agatha Christie’s Poirot: A Celebration of the Great Detective (1996), he says: ‘If Poirot twinkles, I thought, I can develop that. [...] As well as everything else, I believe that Poirot does sparkle. He can be fastidious and irritating, but he has the ability to appeal to the lowest as well as the highest in society. I decided to make him charming to even the lowest chambermaid – that would be what would make my portrayal different to the other versions’ (p. 64).
Moreover, he stated in the same interview that ‘[w]ith the development of the series I’ve tried to make him lighter, more humorous and witty. And although you must take his brilliance seriously, you can still smile and laugh with Poirot.’ (p. 71).
Now, this doesn’t mean that Suchet has aimed for a buffoonish “comedy angle” with his portrayal – that is evident from the extract detailed earlier in this article. On the contrary, I think he has tried to bring out the humour in Poirot’s eccentricities. Moreover, this humour has not disappeared from the series – in fact, Poirot comments on the size of his eggs for breakfast even in the most recent and undoubtedly most serious adaptation, Murder on the Orient Express (2010). The explanation for the tonal shift largely comes down to the fact that if you read Christie’s stories carefully, she clearly spent more time (and paragraphs) on his eccentricities early on in her short stories and novels, than in her later works. Moreover, as Suchet points out in the Poirot & Me documentary, the short stories have more (obvious) humour than the novels. Since the series has moved on to the later novels in recent years, it seems only natural that there is somewhat less humour, particularly as the stories themselves have become darker.
In other words, any claim that Poirot (or rather, the portrayal of the character) has lost its humour is largely a misunderstanding. The humour – which is mostly on eccentricity - was there because it was present in the short stories. There is less humour in the more recent adaptations, but it has far from disappeared. Any scenes with the two eccentrics Poirot and Mrs Oliver would testify to that. And the reason why there is less humour is largely that Christie spends less time on this particular character aspect in the later novels.
However, I will agree that the seriousness – apart from being a result of Christie’s move from short stories to novels and darker crimes (e.g. Hallowe’en Party, Five Little Pigs, Sad Cypress) – is also a result of Suchet widening his portrayal in later years. This is particularly the case with episodes made after the series was brought back by A&E in 2000.
In fact, I would argue that Suchet himself would probably explain this change in the portrayal as a natural consequence of the situations the character is put in throughout the novels. In an interview for the MOTOE press pack in 2010, he said: ‘I’ve always said with Poirot, or indeed any character I play, I want to get to know them so well that I can put them in a thousand different situations and react differently to every single one while still remaining ‘them’. In the same way I can put myself in any situation and react differently but it’s still me’.
In my opinion, there are especially three characteristics Suchet seems to have focused on – or, been led to focus on by the situations Poirot finds himself in; loneliness, religion and disillusionment.
Loneliness
I will start this section off with two quotes from interviews with David Suchet:
‘The more I revisit the stories, I find a lonely person, which I may have missed in the very early episodes, where Agatha Christie has him wishing he had married, wishing he had children. I now play that strain, that tension.’ (from The Christian Science Monitor, February 2000)
'Poirot is a most interesting character - apart from anything else - because he is an outsider, in this country anyway, but he is also an outsider socially. He's also got a very dark side, he's a lonely man. I think I've said before that he believes the relationship between a man and a woman, a loving relationship, is the greatest gift of God, especially when it ends up in marriage. And he himself very often in Agatha Christie's books says, 'I wish I had married'. And I try and bring out this quality of Poirot more and more because I think that it is important. You know, he lives alone, he has a manservant, but he’s a loner in all ways. And he’s become self-sufficient, because he’s had to become self-sufficient. But when I do have the opportunity of ... not falling in love with another woman in the films, but those women that I’m with will often make me aware of my own solitude. (...) The way I try and play him – I’m not asking you to feel sorry for Poirot, because Poirot doesn’t feel sorry for himself, in fact he fights not to. (from Poirot & Me, 2006)
As the quotations above demonstrate, this particular character trait is largely based on what Suchet seems to describe as a lack of love in Poirot’s life – the lack of a woman or wife, that is. Now, Suchet has stated several times that he sees Poirot as entirely asexual (see, for instance, Peter Haining’s book p. 70), but he seems to be interested in Poirot’s regret at his inability to fall in love – or indeed having lasting friendships with women (apart from Mrs. Oliver, obviously).
Again, some critics have argued that this strays away from Christie’s character. However, as with Poirot’s twinkle in the earlier episodes, this is not something that Suchet has added from out of nowhere. Anne Hart, in her brilliant “biography” on the character, outlines the references from Christie’s books that I think Suchet has utilized. She alludes to his fascination with Countess Vera Rossakoff (p. 133), his comment in Dead Man’s Folly that ‘It is terrible, madame, all that I have missed in life’ when asked if he is happy to be a bachelor (p. 134), that he, as described in ‘The Third-Floor Flat’, once fell in love with a girl who couldn’t cook (p. 134) and that he was always very kind to orphaned young women or young women in distress (p. 134).
Suchet also details some of the instances where Poirot has been made aware of his own loneliness in the Poirot & Me documentary. These include a conversation with Jacqueline de Bellefort in Death on the Nile, his slight infatuation with Jane Wilkinson in Lord Edgware Dies, and the avuncular role he takes on with Katherine Grey in The Mystery of the Blue Train.
Interestingly, Anne Hart also points out that Poirot’s great hobby appears to be matchmaking (p. 131). There are several instances of this in the later episodes, for instance with Elinor Carlile in Sad Cypress, Norma Restarick in Third Girl and Maude in Mrs McGinty’s Dead. Undoubtedly, this is also a part of Suchet’s emphasis on Poirot’s lack of love. As Poirot puts it in the adaptation of Third Girl, as Norma and David are united; ‘are we looking at the greatest of mysteries that life ever throws on, a mystery that even I, Hercule Poirot, will never be able to solve; the nature of love’.
Religion and disillusionment
I group these two character developments together, because I think they are largely intertwined. Poirot’s Catholicism clearly comes as a surprise to many followers of the TV series. I don’t blame them. If memory serves me right, the only time we ever see Poirot even hinting at a religious attitude before the 2005-2006 series is in the adaptation of ‘Triangle at Rhodes’, in which Poirot makes the sign of the cross. Again, I think we have to consider this in terms of Suchet’s intention of developing the character through the situations he is put in. The three episodes that most clearly put an emphasis on Catholicism are Taken at the Flood, Appointment with Death and Murder on the Orient Express. As far as I know, Catholicism does not feature greatly – if at all – in any of these novels. So in this case, Suchet seems to have taken the small references there are to Poirot being a bon catholique (and, again, they are there – he hasn’t simply invented them!) and utilized those to delve into yet another aspect of his character. See Anne Hart’s book, p. 127-28, and the short story ‘The Chocolate Box’ for these references.
In the three aforementioned episodes, Poirot is put in situations that distress him and trouble him. In Taken at the Flood, he sees a murderer exploit the faith of a Catholic girl to commit a gruesome crime. In Appointment with Death, he learns of the abuse of orphaned children and in Murder on the Orient Express, he has to lie to the police to do the right thing and let the murderer(s) go free.
Now, it could be argued that Poirot has been in similar situations before where he has not turned to his faith for consolation. And this is where Suchet’s third and final broadening of the character comes in – his disillusionment.
If we think of this series as an evolutionary project over 25 years – and, in fact, the life of a character that will span from somewhere in the late 1800s to about 1950 – it’s only natural that Poirot’s attitudes to crime and people around him are becoming increasingly disillusioned. He has spent an entire life solving the most gruesome crimes. Any human being – even a world famous sleuth – will be affected by what he sees and experiences in life. Again, I feel fairly certain that Suchet has taken this from Christie’s novels. For instance, Poirot’s valet George tells Colin Lamb in The Clocks: ‘I think, sir, that sometimes he gets a little depressed’. In other words, Poirot wants to rid the world of crime – what Suchet has describes as his raison d’etre – but wherever he turns – even in retirement – he keeps stumbling over these horrible situations in which people do horrible things to each other. The world isn’t becoming a better place, even after a lifetime spent solving and preventing crime. To bring back the religious aspect, it seems fair that, as a bon catholique, he would eventually turn to faith for emotional support when faced with these terrible crimes.
In other words, Suchet’s interpretation perfectly brings out these nuances of the character; an individual who has evolved from his early, optimistic years (the short stories) to his retirement (the late novels), in which he becomes increasingly depressed and disillusioned, something which might be said to lead him to take the radical actions he does take in Curtain.
Conclusion
To summarise, I would put down the following reasons why I think David Suchet’s portrayal of Hercule Poirot is such an achievement:
1) His research and attention to detail
2) His constant desire to explore new territories within the limits of Christie’s characterisation, that is
a. The eccentricities and the twinkle
b. The loneliness
c. The religion
d. The disillusionment
3) His commitment to remain ‘true to Agatha’; the character that she wrote
As to point three, I have tried, through the references I make to Christie’s characterisations, to show that – in spite of criticism from producers and certain fans alike – Suchet has remained true to Christie’s character, while still developing his own portrayal.
I do, however, acknowledge that people are entitled to their own opinions and that certain decisions Suchet has made might be more controversial than others. In the end, though, what it all comes down to is interpretation, and I believe that Suchet’s portrayal is the closest one can possibly get to Agatha’s character – especially if we take the series’ long run into account. On that note, I would like to conclude with a quote from Suchet that clearly shows the process he goes through when interpreting the character:
‘One get sentences like ‘Everybody loves to speak to Poirot’, and you just read on, forgetting why that should be. As an actor one has to take those sort of sentences on board and think ‘Why does everybody like to talk to Poirot?’ What is that quality in a person that makes people want to talk to them?’ (p. 64 in Peter Haining’s book)
All photos © ITV, all extracts and quotations are linked to their sources.
A reader of the blog, Ian, sent me these detailed and very accurate floor plans of Poirot's apartment (see below). They are so much better than mine (see previous post), but we do have the same basic idea in terms of rooms and layout. The most difficult room to place is the kitchen (as I have discussed before). I do, however, find Ian's suggestion somewhat more likely than the one I have suggested.
Thank you, Ian!
.bmp)
.bmp)
The Lemesurier Inheritance (1923) is a troublesome little short story from the collection called Poirot's Early Cases (1974).
For those of you who don't know, this will most probably be the only Poirot story by Agatha Christie NOT to be included in David Suchet's definitive portrayal. If you haven't read it, here's a link to a blog with the entire text: http://katanageldar.wordpress.com/tag/the-lemesurier-inheritance/.
I think there are several reasons why we most likely won't see this story on screen:
1) Its length. Since 2004, all Poirot episodes have been approx. 90 mins long. To adapt this story, it would have to be expanded into a 90 minute TV film, which, to be honest, I don't see as an attractive option. The story itself is very conventional and almost a Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson look-a-like, and I don't see it working as an expanded film. Having said that, possibly the only ITV Marple episode I have truly enjoyed was a short story, 'The Blue Geranium', expanded and adapted as a 90 min film. In other words, this point is probably not the most valid one.
2) Its setting. I know the Poirot producers have become experts at relocating Christie's stories in chronology terms (see my other blog for more on this). However, this particular story is supposed to be the very first case Poirot takes on after Styles, i.e. immediately after WW1. One of the main characters is a friend of Hastings from the army. No disrespect to Suchet and Fraser, but they both look older now than they did 20 years ago. So I very much doubt they would manage to make them look close to 30 years younger... But again, settings could be changed and story lines could be bent a little to make this work as a 1930s adaptation.
3) ITV Marple. This may sound silly, but the adaptations of Poirot and Marple for ITV are clearly interlinked. They have the same producers and much of the same crew, which means whenever the crew isn't working on a Poirot episode, they are frequently working on a Marple, as ITV tends to commission the two series together. What has become the norm for the last couple of years is that ITV commissions 4 Marples and 4 Poirots, a total of 8 films, to be made at the same time, by the same production company. This time, ITV has commissioned 5 Poirots and 3 Marples. I think it is likely that ITV wants a certain number of adaptations from each sleuth in each series, so they didn't want to push their luck and go for 6 Poirots and 2 Marples. But this is pure speculation, and I have nothing to support my claim.
3) Money. Sadly, this is probably the most likely explanation. The final series of Poirot nearly didn't happen, because of these financial issues. ITV seemed unable to find the money to carry on making the episodes. Somehow, they changed their mind, probably because of the success of Downton Abbey, but they have probably still gone for as few expenses as possible. Meaning that if anything can be cut without it being too obvious, they would do it. I think this is the case with 'The Lemesurier Inheritance'. It was an easy way to save money and thereby make the remaining adaptations better. But again, I have no proof of this being the case.
But in all of this misery (even if it is slight misery, considering that we actually get almost all the Poirot stories filmed!), there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Possibly two lights even. Firstly, David Suchet was asked on Twitter a while back whether The Lemesurier Inheritance would be referenced in some way in the final series to make it complete. His answer was "I hope so." (see below).
This makes me hopeful that they have a plan in store somehow. Even if it is a passing reference like "remember that old case, Poirot", I would be happy. It would mean a sense of completeness after all!
Secondly, David Suchet keeps referring to the fact that he will have starred in every single Poirot episode ever written. A typical example of this was in an interview with BBC's Andrew Marr. In this interview, he even corrected Marr, stating that there was one "story" he would not be starring in, i.e. Black Coffee, before he explained that he would do that at Chichester (see previous post). Notice that he had every opportunity to explain that there was also a short story he wouldn't be doing. Of course, that's probably because he doesn't want to remind people that there is a story they have had to skip, but it could, again, mean that they have something planned for this story in the five remaining adaptions. Let's hope so and keep our fingers crossed! (As I have said before, though, this short story is a minor loss and we can easily live with the fact that it won't be done if that is indeed the case).
UPDATE: According to an article in Radio Times (2012), 'The Lemesurier Inheritance' will be incorporated into the adaptation of The Labours of Hercules! (See the link: http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2012-10-07/david-suchet--there-will-be-no-more-poirots--the-moustache-is-hung-up). I have no idea how they will make that work, but in any case - it means that Suchet's portrayal will be complete (in theory).
Also, I think it's important to point out that Suchet actually narrated the audiobook version of this short story. Consequently, he has "performed" in an adaptation of sorts of all Christie's Poirot stories - regardless of how the short story will be referenced in the television series.
Agatha Christie's Poirot has remained synonymous with a very distinctive theme tune, composed by Christopher Gunning, and the opening titles designed by Pat Gavin. Moreover, music is a vital element of the series in most people's eyes. I will briefly try to outline the three composers who have worked on the series over the years: Christopher Gunning (1989-2004), Stephen McKeon (2005-2008) and Christian Henson (2009-2013). Their names are linked to their respective web sites.
[EDIT FEBRUARY 2013: This post has been significantly expanded and altered due to the news of Christopher Gunning's release of a new Poirot soundtrack album - see separate post]
Christopher Gunning's music is available on a CD released in 1992. This recording has been almost impossible to get hold of over the years (and it still is!). But it does appear from time to time on places like YouTube. See below for the track list:
Hercule Poirot - The Belgian Detective (2:30)
One-two, Buckle-my-shoe (2:00)
The Double Clue (5:05)
The A-B-C- Murders (4:35)
Grey Cells (4:21)
War (2:30)
A Country Retreat (4:52)
Death of Mrs. Inglethorpe (2:29)
The Height of Fashion (2:08)
How Does Your Garden Grow (9:05)
Death in the Clouds (3:55)
To the Lakes (2:19)
The Victory Ball (4:55)
The Plymouth Express (9:29)
Two of these are available on YouTube at the moment: The Plymouth Express and The Belgian Detective. As of 2013, a new album has been released, featuring all the above tracks (apart from 'The Plymouth Express' and 'Death in the Clouds'), in addition to three previously unreleased tracks. See separate post.
The series changed tone quite drastically with Stephen McKeon. Some of his tracks are available on his web site. Below are some comments from a blog I'll most probably come back to in a later post.
"In only his second Poirot film, composer Stephen McKeon notably melds Shostakovich’s Jazz Suite No. 2 with notable Philip Glass-like highlights to create a most enchanting score that adds immeasurably to the proceedings." (Douglas Payne, sound insights blog, on the score for Cards on the Table (2006))
"Stephen McKeon’s score, a surprisingly successful mix of Philip Glass and John Williams, is remarkably effective in achieving these ends, though the curious use of the melodica, a keyboard instrument, now suggests the music of the Harry Potter films a bit more than is appropriate." (Douglas Payne, sound insights blog, on the score for Mrs. McGinty's Dead (2007))
Personally, having listened to his scores both on his website and in the films, I prefer the ones that are somewhat more sentimental in flavour, like the end music to The Mystery of the Blue Train, to the somewhat dark and moody ones that seem to scream MURDER in capital letters. However, in light of the stories he scored, I think the music works well within the context of the films.
I must admit, however, that Christian Henson is much more to my liking. He was asked to do the most recent series (2009-2010) and returned for the final series, too (2013). It seems a conscious decision - whether by him or the production team - to link his scores more closely to Christopher Gunning's, especially in the sense that several elements of the theme tune are retained throughout the scores of his episodes. Not that McKeon didn't include it, but Henson seems to be doing it more frequently. Personally, I find the music for Murder on the Orient Express some of the absolute best of the entire series.
In a blog post, Henson describes the process of scoring the episodes. Interesting if you like soundtracks/composing. He mentions his 'brief' from the producers, who instructed him to "offer hints of the period setting, coupled with the characterful nature of Hercule, and the cinematic ambitions of ITV’s flagship drama brand". Moreover, he explains that he thought the clarinet to be "very much the instrument I hoped to use to characterise Hercule". I find this rather amusing, because actor David Suchet has been playing the clarinet in his leisure time for several years!
Four of Henson's tracks are available on YouTube (at the time of writing):
1. Love Theme (from 'The Clocks')
2. Overture (from 'Three Act Tragedy')
3. Secret Garden (from 'Halloween Party')
4. Redemption (from 'Murder on the Orient Express')
Finally, there are some composers of additional material for the series, including Fiachra Trench (who I believe stepped in for much of Series Two because Gunning was unavailable at the time.
EDIT: this seems to be confirmed on Gunning's website in 2013, where his contributions for the series are detailed as series 1 & series 3-9), Neil Richardson (who composed additional music heard/seen on screen, e.g. 'I've Forgotten You' from 'Yellow Iris') and Samuel Karl Bohn (who composed additional music for Series Twelve, most notably the 'new' Poirot theme in Hallowe'en Party).
UPDATE FEBRUARY 2013:
Since Christopher Gunning has just announced the release of a new 'Poirot' album (see this blog post), I thought I might add a few more words on this post. Recently, I discovered that he has commented on the Amazon page of the previous album, responding to criticism that he has not included all the different variants of the theme:
"Every Poirot film for which I composed the music had its own sub-theme. Therefore it was natural to include these on the CD. Each track should remind you of a particular story".
"You could not POSSIBLY have a whole album of the Poirot tune itself - it would be a crushing bore. However, if you listen carefully, you will discover references to the theme (overt or less so) in almost every track".
Responding to criticism that so much of the later scores had been left out on the original release, he explains:
"The CD was made relatively early on in the series. The music was thus nearly all taken from series 1 - thus, I hadn't composed "Murder on the Links," "The Incredible Theft," or "The Underdog" yet, or several other films which I'd like to include in any future CD. There would be an incredible array of stuff to draw on!"
On the subject of recording and releasing another CD (this was written before the recent news):
"I would love to record another Poirot CD, and, who knows, it may happen. The problem is that soundtrack albums seldom sell more than 1000 copies or so, and are extremely expensive to produce. It's difficult to persuade record companies to stump up the cash for something that may not cover the initial outlay, for obvious reasons."
With the new release this month, it seems this issue has been solved. Personally, I would have liked some of the scores he did for the later films to be included as well, like the ones he mentions in the comment above. However, I am more than delighted to see the old album re-released with some undoubtedly great additional tracks.
On a different note, he explains the absence of a full version of the theme in his final scores (the 2003-2004 series):
"I was instructed by the production team 1) not to quote from the Poirot theme at all, and 2) not to use the alto saxophone. You will notice that in all productions since then any references to the theme are extremely obtuse and few and far between. I think it was silly on the part of the producers."
I'm not too sure if this is actually entirely true. Obviously, the theme is missing from the episodes, but it is definitely in the end credits of Five Little Pigs, so it cannot have been forbidden to use it. As to the alto saxophone, much as I love it, I'm not sure if it is entirely neccessary to create the 'Poirot' mood. The variations on the theme in the later series, particularly in the shape of the clarinet in Henson's Three Act Tragedy overture, proves that it can easily be created in different ways too.
More generally, I am divided on the issue of Gunning's theme and its presence in later episodes. I certainly miss the theme tune, and I love Gunning's scores, but I do symphatize with the view that a full theme at the beginning of each episode would create the mood of a TV series (yes, I know it is a TV series, but the producers seemed keen to portray the adaptations as 'television films', a stand that I respect). Moreover, the mood of most of the recent episodes has been so dark that the theme would seem somewhat out of place.
On the other hand, what Gunning did with the theme in his final series proved that it would not seem too much out of place if adjusted to the mood of each episode. Although I am not an expert on music, I found the way he made the theme blend with Erik Satie's Gnossienne at the end of Five Little Pigs absolutely magnificent. By using the theme in ways that only hint at it, you keep the essence of both the character and the series, while adhering to the producers' need to portray the episodes as 'films'. In other words, although I find the decision to abandon the theme altogether (if that decision was ever made) ridiculous, I think its semi-inclusion in later episodes works quite well, in light of the producers' preferences. Also, in defence of the producers, they seem to have reversed the decision quite early on, as hints of the theme tune have been present in adaptations in series 10, 11 and 12.
In any case, I very much hope that the theme tune features prominently in some way in the final episode, Curtain. Anything else would be a crime. It would probably have to be darkened quite significantly, but it should work. Also, please, please, please, use it in The Big Four as the 'big four' of Poirot, Hastings, Japp and Lemon are reunited. That would be a wish come true (and such a wonderful way of acknowledging the series' past!)
UPDATE MAY 2013:
Judging by the press pack for Elephants Can Remember, the first episode of the final series, Christian Henson is back for the final five episodes! As I've said before, Henson is the best they could have hoped for (after Gunning, of course!). I'm sure he'll come up with some very fitting music for the final adaptations.
Hello there! Let me first apologise for the silence - I have had less time to update this blog than I first expected. But I will try to make up for that now by describing an absolutely unforgettable Sunday afternoon in Chichester!
For those of you who do not know what I'm talking about; a very special 'rehearsed reading' of Agatha Christie's only Poirot play, Black Coffee, was performed in Chichester on July 15th 2012.
For those of you who still struggle to see the attraction of that; the cast included David Suchet. As Hercule Poirot. In full costume. The first (and possibly only) time he will portray the character on stage. And as if that wasn't enough - the performance meant that by July 2013, Suchet will have starred in every single Poirot story ever written (well, almost, there's still a short story, 'The Lemesurier Inheritance', I'll come back to that some other time).
I read about this production in January - Suchet posted a comment about it on his Twitter account. It did not take me long to decide that I had to get tickets for this event - so I did. Just in time, as it turns out, because a few days later all the tickets had been sold!
Now, I acted entirely on impulse with this thing. You see, I don't live in the UK. Far from it. So getting to Chichester (a place I had never visited before) involved both an international flight and a train journey - not to mention some serious planning! So for a long time, I didn't think I would be able to go. But I did, in the end. And I'm so glad I did.
When my friend and I arrived in Chichester, I really didn't know what to expect. 'Rehearsed reading' was a very vague description of the event, and I somehow imagined that I would just spend two hours watching David Suchet sit still on a chair reading the lines of all the characters. Luckily, I was wrong.
Suchet was joined by members of The Agatha Christie Theatre Company, as well as David Yelland (known to most of us as Poirot's butler, George) as Captain Arthur Hastings. As I got hold of the programme , the cast, in itself, made me jump with joy. But it was not until about half an hour later that I realised how special this really was. Because there he was - David Suchet aka Hercule Poirot aka David Suchet (they are almost one and the same by now) in full costume. And in character.
The official Agatha Christie website summed it up very nicely - 'Poirot in 360'. As the reviewer explained, it was absolutely incredible to watch Suchet/Poirot from every angle - not just the angles dictated by cameras on TV. What struck me about it all was how incredibly 'in character' Suchet was while he was on stage. I should probably explain that the 'rehearsed reading' meant that the play was staged as a BBC radio play from the 1930s, with a set of microphones determining where characters were standing and who was involved in each scene. This meant that the entire cast was on stage all the time. So we got plenty of time to examine Suchet's performance. And he really was Poirot from the minute he walked onto the stage to the minute he walked off. For instance, he sat neatly on his chair (in a very Poirot-like manner), walked with his famous Poirot walk, kept his legs together when standing or sitting still etc. It is almost impossible to describe it accurately.
Suchet rounded it all off neatly with a Q&A session. Amazingly, almost everyone in the audience (1000 people!) remained. It was a real treat, and he gave some clues on the final series as well.
In a previous post, I discussed similarities between Christie’s descriptions in novels and short stories and the two apartments created on screen by the production designers. In this post, I will examine the similarities between the two portrayals on screen – the first (1989-2001) and the second (2005-present) Whitehaven apartment.
The new apartment has been criticised by many fans, primarily because of the discontinuity between the two. As a viewer, one might ask the following questions: 1) Why was there a need to create a new apartment? 2) Why are both apartments situated in Whitehaven Mansions?, and 3) Why do they look so different?
I will try to answer these questions in due course.
Initially, though, I would like to draw your attention to the following paragraph in the current Wikipedia article on the television series. The article seems to suggest that the new apartment is a part of a significant 're-imagining' of the Poirot and Agatha Christie brand:
‘Following the launch of the ITV series Agatha Christie's Marple in 2004, the Poirot series was retitled Agatha Christie's Poirot. The previous titles and theme music were dropped. The visual style of these later episodes was noticeably different from earlier episodes: particularly, austere art deco settings and decor, widely used earlier in the series, were largely dropped in favour of more lavish settings (epitomised by the re-imagining of Poirot's home as a larger, more lavish apartment)’
As the article accurately points out, Poirot’s home is now a ‘larger, more lavish apartment’. But in context, the description feels more negatively charged than I think is reasonable. In this post, I hope to convince you that there are, in fact, several reasons to prefer this apartment to the first one (if one of them has to be seen as "better"), and that there is a sense of continuity between the two apartments, both in terms of layout and design.
Let us return to the first question – why was there a need to create a new apartment? I think there are several possible answers to this. Firstly, I think the Wikipedia article is partially right in claiming that it has something to do with the new direction of the Agatha Christie brand. The new producers (post-2004) seem to have made a conscious decision to distance themselves from the previous series; these adaptations should be considered as independent feature-length films rather than episodes from a television series, and therefore a ‘more lavish’ apartment seems appropriate. (see more after the jump)
However, and secondly, there is also much to suggest that the decision was made because of the stories ahead. Keep in mind that David Suchet (who since 2004 has been an associate producer) has been keen to portray Poirot ‘absolutely as near as [he] can possibly get to the tone, the flavour and particular incidents’ of Agatha Christie’s stories and descriptions. In this sense, the series would, at some point, have had to abandon the ‘basic family unit’, as former scriptwriter Clive Exton once called it, of Hastings, Miss Lemon, Japp and Poirot. This is in keeping with Christie’s books, as the Wikipedia article points out: ‘The absence of their characters (Hastings, Inspector Japp, and Miss Lemon) is consistent with the books on which the scripts were based’.
A natural consequence of such a shift would be that Poirot goes into semi-retirement (as my chronology suggests) and engages George as his valet. Admittedly, Miss Lemon is present in a few of the books (but not adaptations) filmed after 2004, but her role is very small in the original text, and I would imagine that the producers would rather give David Yelland (George) a greater part to play (which is quite understandable, given that they secured an actor of his calibre). Also, considering that the previous producers excluded George’s part to expand Miss Lemon’s, I find this perfectly acceptable.
In other words, there is no need for Miss Lemon’s typing room, which was an integral part of the first apartment, and there is a need for a room for George. With these aspects in mind, I find it perfectly understandable that the production crew wanted a new apartment to build Poirot’s semi-retirement life around.
Finally, the decision to create a new apartment may have been made because production designer Jeff Tessler wanted to create a flat that was more faithful to Christie’s descriptions (though I do not claim to know his intentions). As I have detailed earlier, several (if not all) of Christie’s descriptions are taken into consideration in the new flat – everything from colours and layouts, to bookcases and desks. The similarity between what is described on paper and what is portrayed on screen is so striking that I refuse to accept that he has not taken these descriptions more literally than the previous production crew.
Whatever the reason, the fact remains that TV-Poirot has lived in two different flats in Whitehaven Mansions. Let us leave it at that, and appreciate the fact that they are both excellent representations of Poirot's domestic life.
Now, let’s move on to what this post is really supposed to cover: the similarities and differences between these two on-screen flats. See the floor plans of the flat below of the 1989-2001 apartment and the 2005-20?? respectively. The first floor plan is linked to its source and the second has been made by me (bear with me on my severe lack of artistic skills!)
(Let me clarify a few things first: The floor plan in black is from a Japanese fan site. I have renamed the rooms from Japanese (without knowing the language!), so any mistakes are entirely mine. The image is linked to its source. Also, the exact location of Poirot's bedroom is somewhat of a mystery in the first flat, but I feel fairly certain that it is next to the living room (i.e. where the 'office' of the second flat is located). See, for instance, the ending of the adaptation of 'The Third-Floor Flat'. Finally, in the second flat, there is some uncertainty as to the location of the kitchen. In 'Third Girl', George seems to be walking towards the red room, while in 'Three Act Tragedy' we see him exiting (presumably) the dark grey room on the floor plan. I find the second option more likely than the first.)
I want to start with a specific aspect of the living room; the niches/alcoves on each side of the fireplace. In the first flat, this is where Poirot’s bookcases (if you can call them that) are situated. These have, intriguingly, become “entrances” to Poirot’s office. In my opinion, that is an ingenious solution for two specific reasons. First, we can assume that there would indeed be a room behind that wall in Poirot’s first apartment (see the floor plan above, linked to its source), and those niches could easily be transformed into the openings we see in the second flat. Also, if the new flat is a slight ‘upgrade’ of apartments within the same building (which I find likely), it would be natural that the layout of this slightly larger flat would be based on the same structures and walls as the ones above or below it. Finally, by using these niches/alcoves, the production designer not only creates a link with the first flat, but he almost makes the “office extension” into a part of the sitting room – which again is in keeping with Christie’s descriptions! Quite impressive, if you ask me.
Another structural similarity is the placement of the doors to the sitting room. Both in the first and second apartment, there are two sets of doors (see below). They are slightly different in layout (but remarkably similar nonetheless), and this could easily be explained by the fact that Christie describes a redecoration and restructuring of the flats in The Clocks (see my last blog post). The only addition in the second flat is a door leading to Poirot’s ‘office’ further down the corridor – which. again, is quite acceptable if one considers this a slightly larger apartment in the same building.
Any other structural similarities should be evident from the two floor plans above, outlining the two flats.
Let us move on to the main layout of the living room itself. Apart from the desk area (which has been given a separate ‘room’), nearly all elements from the first apartment have been maintained (though mostly not in their original shape and form) in the second apartment. Firstly, the dining area (see below). A large table with chairs is situated in almost exactly the same spot as in the first flat.
Secondly, the sitting area. In both flats, this is situated close to the fireplace. The chairs seem to have changed throughout the series run in the first flat, but they have remained the same in the second. The chairs and sofas all have similar rounded (and square) shapes.
Thirdly, the ‘office’ area. Despite the new location in the second flat, there is a remarkable sense of consistency. Notice, for instance, the green desk sets in both flats. Not identical, but they contribute to a sense of continuity. Also, the two desk lamps and the jacket stand/hanger (see below); dissimilar, but still a continuity of sorts.
Finally, let me address some elements of décor. As described in the earlier blog post, Poirot’s taste in art is highlighted in both flats. Moreover, the second flat builds on the first flat’s use of (white) ceramic figures and bronzes (see below). Notice also the folding screen behind Poirot’s desk in the first flat, and then behind the dining table in the second flat.
Also, notice that the two tables/shelves/cupboards behind the table in the second flat seem to be inspired by the sideboard behind the sofa and the sideboard behind the table, both in the first flat. The two vases/lamps are also strikingly similar to the two vases in the first flat (see below).
To conclude, there are significant continuities between the two on-screen flats; doors, layout and objects. They are both faithful to Christie's description (as outlined in a previous post), and both can believably exist within the same building (almost - there's not enough windows on the outside to match the second flat, but I will ignore that and file it under 'artistic liberty'). All in all, there is no reason to dislike any of the flats as they showcase different elements - and phases - of Poirot's domestic life.
.bmp)
.bmp)
