Appointment with Death
I have just started watching "Appointment with Death", another of my Christie favourites brought to the screen. This is the David Suchet version; I understand there's another version with Peter Ustinov. And I have to say: the best way to get mystery readers to watch a dramatisation of a mystery whose solution they already know? Change things. Christie herself changed the solution when she adapted this one for the stage. In the case of this dramatisation ... what? The Boynton patriarch is still alive? Is that Lennox Boynton and how is he so ... not apathetic at this stage of the story? Fiery, even, throwing his weight about? Where is Nadine, and who is this elderly "Nanny" character? Is the Polish nun supposed to be a replacement for Amabel Pryce -- I mean, I don't see Miss Pryce anywhere, and now here's this nun. And what happened to Lady Westholme -- oh, there she is. She's a lot cooler than in the book....
I am now dying to see how these changes affect the story. And that's how you get readers to watch dramatisations of mysteries they've already read.
Given some of the themes in "Appointment with Death", I guess it can be a little difficult to watch ... in the sense that it can be kind of "triggery". A book puts a certain amount of distance between the reader and the story, and I think Christie herself was not quite able to present the psychological abuse in a believable manner. She probably never saw that sort of thing first-hand, probably never even heard of it second-hand. But the movie ... use of images, acting and all, and actually showing some of Mrs Boynton's (Lady Boynton's, in this case -- suddenly, the family is British) tricks: she sends Carol to her room to fetch medicine which she actually has in her purse, and Raymond to fetch a book that she never brought with her on this trip to begin with. Christie never wrote these tricks, because I think Christie either never knew or never understood about them.
I can totally see this as a trigger for people with familial-abuse-related PTSD. Heck, by the time Carol realises that she was meant to fail her mission, I'm already thinking the old hag badly wants throttling.
Now to see how it pans out. As mentioned before, the stage version has a different resolution. I'm going to guess that the movie will follow the book, because the book is better known ... but ... you never know.
Edit: 21 minutes in ... huh, Lord Boynton looks rather a lot like Tim Curry. Sounds a bit like him, too. (Checks IMDB) Holy $#!^, that IS Tim Curry!
Edit: 36 minutes in ... it's a different murder weapon. This makes a HUGE difference in terms of how the solution can play out. It means that one of the Vital Clues in the original solution can no longer happen.
Edit: 51 minutes in ... Raymond: "Will she be all right? The nun?" Sarah: "God knows." I admit I snickered.
Edit: It is an hour in and I still have no idea how this is to be resolved! Argh!
Edit: End of movie ... this was awesome. Two thumbs up.
Some further comments:
A few touches are particularly effective if you've read the book, especially the relationship between Dr Gerrard and Jinny. That one was completely turned on its head and spun around.
Slightly too much focus on Jinny, I think, at the expense of Carol. With all the new stuff, couldn't Carol have gotten some love as well?
Evidence and clues seemed a little thin. I'm not sure how Poirot really came to the conclusions he did.
Anyway ... awesome!
I am now dying to see how these changes affect the story. And that's how you get readers to watch dramatisations of mysteries they've already read.
Given some of the themes in "Appointment with Death", I guess it can be a little difficult to watch ... in the sense that it can be kind of "triggery". A book puts a certain amount of distance between the reader and the story, and I think Christie herself was not quite able to present the psychological abuse in a believable manner. She probably never saw that sort of thing first-hand, probably never even heard of it second-hand. But the movie ... use of images, acting and all, and actually showing some of Mrs Boynton's (Lady Boynton's, in this case -- suddenly, the family is British) tricks: she sends Carol to her room to fetch medicine which she actually has in her purse, and Raymond to fetch a book that she never brought with her on this trip to begin with. Christie never wrote these tricks, because I think Christie either never knew or never understood about them.
I can totally see this as a trigger for people with familial-abuse-related PTSD. Heck, by the time Carol realises that she was meant to fail her mission, I'm already thinking the old hag badly wants throttling.
Now to see how it pans out. As mentioned before, the stage version has a different resolution. I'm going to guess that the movie will follow the book, because the book is better known ... but ... you never know.
Edit: 21 minutes in ... huh, Lord Boynton looks rather a lot like Tim Curry. Sounds a bit like him, too. (Checks IMDB) Holy $#!^, that IS Tim Curry!
Edit: 36 minutes in ... it's a different murder weapon. This makes a HUGE difference in terms of how the solution can play out. It means that one of the Vital Clues in the original solution can no longer happen.
Edit: 51 minutes in ... Raymond: "Will she be all right? The nun?" Sarah: "God knows." I admit I snickered.
Edit: It is an hour in and I still have no idea how this is to be resolved! Argh!
Edit: End of movie ... this was awesome. Two thumbs up.
Some further comments:
A few touches are particularly effective if you've read the book, especially the relationship between Dr Gerrard and Jinny. That one was completely turned on its head and spun around.
Slightly too much focus on Jinny, I think, at the expense of Carol. With all the new stuff, couldn't Carol have gotten some love as well?
Evidence and clues seemed a little thin. I'm not sure how Poirot really came to the conclusions he did.
Anyway ... awesome!