Monday, December 12, 2016

A Rant: Agatha Christie's PARTNERS IN CRIME (The NEWEST Version)

Jessica Raine and David Walliams as Tommy and Tuppence Beresford.

The actors are pleasing and professional and deserved better, especially David Walliams who does take getting used to after years of envisioning James Warwick (the ultimate Tommy) in the role. But once you get over the physical disparity, you do warm up to Walliams as the often hapless Tommy. AND I love Jessica Raine's (Tuppence) hair-do. James Fleet as Mr. Carter is superb in a thankless role - exactly my idea of a professorial spy master. But he's really the only bright spot in an otherwise dismal enterprise.

(Francesca Annis and James Warwick were the ultimate Tommy and Tuppence in the early series adaptation - relatively true to the book and short stories - from the 1980's. And available to watch on Acorn TV. In fact both series are currently available.)

But here's the problem: the two novels adapted for the newest Tommy and Tuppence endeavor, THE SECRET ADVERSARY and N OR M, were simply thrown overboard and replaced with newfangled modern-sensibility scripts based on who knows what research in the firm belief that you can take brilliance and somehow improve on it. Okay, maybe not brilliance, these are not Christie's best novels, but you know, even Christie at her less than ultimate, is better than the crap modern day writers get up to when trying to adapt her work. When faced with Christie's superb sense of timing and plot, they just cannot leave well enough alone.

This nonsensical need to IMPROVE or somehow make the stories more contemporary is completely wrong-headed. Christie's milieu is part and parcel of the Christie charm. Her people occupy a specific universe. They are who they are. You cannot improve or adapt or otherwise make them people of today. Though Christie used themes that are eternal, her characters populated a particular era. That world (long gone) with its own pressures and intrigues has a specific allure. THAT, my friends, is one of the main reasons why Christie is so enticing to so many of us.

Forgive me in advance for not being political correct: In a jarring note, in this newest version of THE SECRET ADVERSARY, a key member of the plot, Jules Hersheimmer the American millionaire searching for his niece, is played by an African American actor (Clarke Peters). The niece too is played by a mixed race actress (Camilla Beeput). No rhyme or reason. Totally disconcerting and adds little to the plot. I'm all for ethnic casting if it makes historical sense or adds to or improves the story in some way. But here it just adds confusion.

Even more interesting, Tommy and Tuppence do not even notice that Jules is black which, for the time, the early fifties (the series has been moved from WWI era) seems odd and almost stops the story in its tracks while we adjust. Wait - who is this?

Jules Hersheimmer is supposed to be a larger than life Texas oil millionaire - the third richest man in America. Here he is someone who has a company pushing synthetic sweeteners. some variation on early saccharine, I suppose. I mean - what? And the way he behaves towards Tommy is very odd. Jules was supposed to be around the same age as Tommy and Tuppence, here he is an older man. Not someone who will supposedly join in the adventure. WHY the change? No reason. It's just change for change's sake.

The original story takes place just after WWI (Tommy and Tuppence have recently been de-mobbed and they meet again for the first time after several years). The sinking of the Luisitania is a key element in the plot with its totally improbable beginning. It is meant to be improbable, not to be taken seriously - this is not a realistic spy novel. It is meant to be fun, the bringing together of two quirky young adventurers at the start of their long and devoted relationship - the 'macguffin' is an international treaty hidden away at the onset of war. For Tommy and Tuppence, it is a wild ride in search of a brilliantly devious master criminal hiding in plain sight. Which is why the attempt by today's writers to force the damn thing to take a serious 'cold war' turn is ludicrous.

It is the 1950's, Tommy and Tuppence are already long-time marrieds with a son away at school and a dog that nobody seems to be taking care of since, at the drop of a hat, both owners go off and leave the animal for long stretches of time. Once assumes someone is walking and feeding and watering the animal, but who knows? These are small details that should have been taken care of in the script. If you include a dog, then include the details of who cares for it. People notice these things.

Also, WHO are all these extraneous characters introduced in the first episode? And, oh by the way, a shooting takes place on a train and NOBODY NOTICES??? NOBODY hears the shots??? And later, was it really necessary to strangle a man in full view of Tommy and the audience? THIS is not Christie. This is someone ruining Christie - someone with ZERO understanding of the author's work. So why not just invent a new cast of characters and eliminate Christie all together? There is NO POINT to using Christie's title and a few of her characters names and then break up the plot so that it becomes unrecognizable. I suppose they are assuming that younger viewers are not familiar with the original Christie plot but then, it that's so, why use her name to begin with?? What is the point?

Was England in the 50's a successfully integrated multi-ethnic society? Probably more so than in the USA, I'd think, but political correctness is just an unnecessary element in these period dramas. Forgive me if I'm being insensitive, but there is a time for multi-ethnic casting - when it makes sense - and there is a time when it just doesn't fit. These are not stories about racial equality or inequality, they are supposedly light-hearted mysteries and/or thrillers. Modern day sensibilities adjust or they don't - if they don't, they don't watch. Simple as that.

But what with all the padding and extraneous bits of supposedly sinister stops and starts (and Tommy and Tuppence behaving stupidly and deserving of being caught by the bad guys), the whole thing turns tedious and almost impossible to watch. I stopped about midway through, furious, yet again, at the way Christie's stories get yanked around to no purpose.

As for N OR M, a story which originally takes place during WWII, when Tommy and Tuppence's grown children are away at war and both parents are feeling useless, bemoaning the fact that they are too old to take part. When suddenly Mr. Carter shows up and offers Tommy a gig at a rooming house where one of the boarders is thought to be a German agent. Simple enough plot. But no, it has to be modernized to the point of absurdity with blood spattered corpses and wild shoot-em-ups in the streets of foggy London. Ugh.

PARTNERS IN CRIME has NOT gotten a second series start and no wonder. You cannot do this to Christie's work and expect good results.

P.S. I am hesitant to watch the newest version of AND THEN THERE WERE NONE, also available on Acorn. I understand that this too was re-fashioned to make it more entertaining (?!) for modern day audiences.

And now I've read that an even newer version of THE ABC MURDERS with, I am assuming, a new Hercule Poirot, is in the works. David Suchet is/was the ultimate Poirot. We've just finished 25 years of watching him brilliantly expand on the role and eventually die, in CURTAIN.

Now, we get another Poirot? Who on earth would have the temerity? One can only shudder.

24 comments:

  1. it makes me wonder what in the world goes on in that Hollywood place - or where ever - that they could mangle a great story this way... we tried to watch both episodes and gave up in disgust... as you say, it bodes ill for yet another Poirot; Suchet could never be excelled: he was just a wonder...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It makes me shudder to think what they will do with THE ABC MURDERS one of Christie's more brilliant stories. Yeah, I gave up in disgust too, Mudpuddle. Unwatchable. They did the same thing, unfortunately, to the Miss Marple stories (those NOT starring Joan Hickson) and also the later episodes of Poirot where they took THE BIG FOUR and changed the ENTIRE ending and took all the bite out of it. In fact, they changed several of the stories including another brilliant one, CARDS ON THE TABLE which was laughable. Of course, Suchet always transcended the scripts, but still, I had a hard time watching.

      Delete
  2. I did watch this series when it first aired here in the UK - hmmmm.....sorry, Jessica Raine is so wooden I could barely watch it. After seeing her in Call the Midwife I looked forward to seeing her 'out of uniform' but as Tuppence (and other TV roles since CtM) I find her acting skills sparse, to say the least! As for the scriptwriters - an utter confection of rubbish! :-/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rubbish is right, Sue. Utter. But I did like her hairdo. :)

      Delete
  3. Replies
    1. Exactly. And a total waste of talent and time.

      Delete
  4. I'm with you -- the reworking of Christie's plots has been going on for years (especially the later Suchet Poirots, which I think is where the problem started as they tore up a lot of stuff nd replaced it with less good stuff, new characters, different killers and motivaitons...at some point it must stop being the story they're claiming, right?).

    The change of temporal setting sholdn't make a huge difference if the original plots were retained -- I remember reading somwhere that TV shows are more successful if set during living memory, so the 1920s setting of TSA was probably pushing it for most of the audience -- but because Suchet was so popular and changes were made to Poirot I feel that someone lost sight of what they were adapting and, as they got away with making changes before, this moving them up a few decades was siply the first domino in the run and so more and more and more changes crept in...and before you know it, what you've got is the crud they served up, with no tangible way to redeem it.

    So it delights me to be able to tell you that the recent And Then There Were None is -- quite against the odds -- actually rather superb. Yes, there's a slight rejigging of some aspects, and a bit of sex added, but the key thin gis that it was adapted by someone (Sarah Phelps) who had a sense of the original story and actually retained that in their script. No change for change's sake, and a lot of the tweaks that were made do actually make a lot of sense. Give it a go, and I hope you'll be pleasantly surprised.

    And, if you're curious, I wrote about it here: https://theinvisibleevent.wordpress.com/2016/01/11/60-how-a-lady-commits-a-crime-and-other-reflections-on-and-then-there-were-none-2015/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh yes, I didn't mention the last few episodes of Poirot which were heavy on THE GRIMNESS OF LIFE and light on the light. If you know what I mean. Several of them were actually unwatchable even with David Suchet. And did you notice that his mustache changed? They made his face look haggard and menacing. NOT the Poirot we had come to know and love.

      I haven't geared up the guts to watch the 'new' version of MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS - I mean why tinker with such a perfect plot? Same answer - just because.

      Thanks for letting me know that AND THEN THERE WERE NONE was not horrible, I might give it a whirl. I'll check our your post.

      Delete
  5. I share your exasperation Yvette, I really do - in some cases, variation can work on their own terms (I actually quite like a couple of the new MARPLE films based on books in which she didn't feature, especially BY THE PRICKING OF MY THUMBS and ENDLESS NIGHT) but they really failed completely with this series, which ultimately feels like a massive waste of time and effort. Shame - but the new version of AND THEN THERE WERE NONE was rather good (if gloomy) and I am looking forward to the new version of WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, on your sayso alone, I'll watch the two faux Marples you mentioned. But I can't guarantee that I'll agree. :) Two recommendations for AND THEN THERE WERE NONE. Okay.

      I'm remembering again how they screwed up CARDS ON THE TABLE, one of my favorite books. Hard to forgive. So I think I'll just go read the book again. :)

      Delete
  6. While certainly not the best Agatha Christie adaptations on offer, my wife and I still enjoyed these enough that we were disappointed to see that there seemed to be no plans for making more. I liked both leads very much and agree that it is too bad they weren't given better scripted stories that used their talents. If so, we probably would have more stories coming our way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. '...better scripted stories...' Definitely. Well, at least, you didn't feel as if you were wasting your time. Last night I tried to watch a couple of the newer Miss Marple stories and couldn't get past the first five or so minutes. SIMPLY AWFUL. Except for 4:50 FROM PADDINGTON which was okay. These stories always have wonderful casts, but rarely do they do right by them. At least in my opinion. :)

      Delete
  7. Bravo to you, Yvette. I guess these are the "millennial" versions, or worse. I suppose someone decided the stories needed to be "updated" to be more "watchable" for "the modern audience. Bah.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I say BAH! as well. :) 'Millennials' are short on charm.

      Delete
  8. I thought it was just me! I wanted desperately to like the series and I particularly liked Williamson, but the changes were too jarring.

    A great rant. I cheered hear, hear several times.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Pat. Every now and then you just have to vent. :)

      Delete
  9. I don't understand the need to replace Dame Agatha's plots (a challenge for other series as well as this one). Like you, I liked the performers in this version. I was especially pleased to see the charming Jessica Raine post-CALL THE MIDWIFE (alas, her departure sucked the life out of that series). Too bad this Tommy & Tuppence was so ho-hum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ho-hum? It was unrecognizable. I have a great deal of affection for Tommy and Tuppence, hate to see them messed about with. :)

      Delete
  10. Yvette, had I read all the Tommy and Tuppence novels I doubt I'd have watched these new screen adaptations. I don't know which markets they're made for, they're certainly not mine. You can't replace an original classic no matter how well done, which is the reason I find it hard to accept superhero movies. By the way, I have been watching David Walliams on "Britain's Got Talent" on Youtube. Until then, I had never heard of him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're not missing anything, Prashant. But if you do get a chance to watch the early version of the Tommy and Tuppence episodes with Francesca Annis and James Warwick, please do so. They are FUN! And stay mostly true to the books, more or less.

      Is Walliams a judge or a contestant??

      Delete
    2. Thank, Yvette. Walliams is one of the judges. I'm watching some of the earlier seasons. He's quite funny.

      Delete
  11. The most recent PARTNERS IN CRIME was awful. Those trying to come up with fresh 'period' crime series have something of a problem, in that not only have the majority of both the Poirot & Marple stories been well adapted (the Suchet and Hickson versions) but they are still generally available thanks to DVD, satellite and downloading. TV companies are almost having to compete with their own back catalogue. The obvious answer is to do the non-series books and lesser characters. Pauline Collins starred in an interesting adaption of SPARKLING CYANIDE in about 2003 where the structure of the book was retained, but the setting was updated and new detective characters introduced. It sort of worked, but the new PARTNERS didn't because the makers didn't trust Christie enough to stick with the plots, and decided that their tame hacks could do a better job. On top of this they semi-updated the stories, not seeming to care that the original novels have plots that hinge on their setting (General Strike, WWII and so on). I do wonder it the catastrophic reception to this series from the public will lead to more reverential adaptions, treating Christie as a proper writer rather than a novelty act. AND THEN THERE WERE NONE from last Xmas showed how it should be done, and if this years WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION works, then this could point a way to the future.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...and decided that their tame hacks could do a better job." Exactly. When will they learn that you cannot improve on brilliance? Christie was brilliant at what she did, so why even bother to film her stuff if you can't accept that? You're right though, ggary, they are having to deal with a back-list of previous Christie adaptations. One would think there might be other writers deserving of being 'improved' upon. Ha. Give Christie a rest for now. As much as I adore her work, there were other Golden Agers worthy of being adapted for television. But maybe that would require someone to have to actually read a book or two.

      Delete
    2. Back in the '80s/'90s the Beeb did stuff like Ngaio Marsh and Margery Allingham, and I'm currently enjoying an ITV show from the very early '70s called THE RIVALS OF SHERLOCK HOLMES. This series includes characters like Max Carrados, the Blind Detective, or Carnacki, the Ghost Detective, and you realise just how many writers there are deserving of the chance to be better known. John Dickson Carr ticks all of the boxes, being period, ingenious and having series detectives. The only thing against him is that he wasn't called Agatha Christie. A lot of TV Producers are scared of doing anything that isn't already pre-sold to the audience, and Christie has become a sort of 'brand' as far as they are concerned, to be stuck to any rubbish that the decide to produce. She deserves better, as do we.

      Delete

Your comment will appear after I take a look.