Poirot thread

[Ascoyne D'Ascoyne]

Does anyone here ever read the original stories on which the Agatha Christie Tv shows are based? I ask because in last night's new Poirot "Cards on the Table" Poirot's expose of the murderer included the shocking revelation that the culprit had been having a sexual relationship with another man. There was also the implication that the police inspector investigating the case had also been involved in relationships with those of exquisite tendencies. I find it difficult to believe that Dame Agatha would have broached such a subject as this, so what exactly had the villain been up to in the original story?

[samkydd]

(Jeff @ Mar 20 2006, 02:16 PM)

Does anyone here ever read the original stories on which the Agatha Christie Tv shows are based? I ask because in last night's new Poirot "Cards on the Table" Poirot's expose of the murderer included the shocking revelation that the culprit had been having a sexual relationship with another man. There was also the implication that the police inspector investigating the case had also been involved in relationships with those of exquisite tendencies. I find it difficult to believe that Dame Agatha would have broached such a subject as this, so what exactly had the villain been up to in the original story?

I read quite a few Agatha Christie's as a child but I found them to be too unrealistic and incredible. The TV shows and films of her books always seem to be parody, a bit like Midsomer Murders, and as a fan of detective fiction I don't enjoy any of them! Perhaps they wanted to spice up the original story by jumpng on the gay-is-trendy bandwagon.



There are thousands of better detective characters and books from which to adapt TV shows and films from, and IMHO, Poirot and Marple have had their day many times over!

[Ascoyne D'Ascoyne]

(samkydd @ Mar 20 2006, 06:08 PM)

I read quite a few Agatha Christie's as a child but I found them to be too unrealistic and incredible. The TV shows and films of her books always seem to be parody, a bit like Midsomer Murders, and as a fan of detective fiction I don't enjoy any of them! Perhaps they wanted to spice up the original story by jumpng on the gay-is-trendy bandwagon.



There are thousands of better detective characters and books from which to adapt TV shows and films from, and IMHO, Poirot and Marple have had their day many times over!

Thanks for that, Sam. If you had seen the look on Poirot's face (I think Suchet's characterisation is marvellous) when the camp photographer he visited called him handsome, I don't think he would have wanted to jump on any gay-is-trendy bandwagon.

Watching the Poirot series on a regular basis as they are now being broadcast on every weekday, one becomes aware of just how artificial and formulaic the stories are. I think the appeal of the Marple and Poirot TV adaptations is largely because of the fine acting of people like Suchet and Joan Hickson and the nostalgia many people feel for England's recent past. Perhaps also a sense of reassurance knowing that the sleuth will always trap the villain and good will triumph over evil - certainly not always the case in real life.

A few year ago I gave in and went to see "The Mousetrap." How it managed to play for 50 weeks, let alone 50+ years is beyond me. I liked Edward Hardwicke's equivocal reply when asked by a TV interviewer if he didn't get bored appearing in the play -- "I haven't been bored once."

[Tweedy]

(Jeff @ Mar 21 2006, 01:16 AM)

Does anyone here ever read the original stories on which the Agatha Christie Tv shows are based? I ask because in last night's new Poirot "Cards on the Table" Poirot's expose of the murderer included the shocking revelation that the culprit had been having a sexual relationship with another man. There was also the implication that the police inspector investigating the case had also been involved in relationships with those of exquisite tendencies. I find it difficult to believe that Dame Agatha would have broached such a subject as this, so what exactly had the villain been up to in the original story?

Hello. I'm reading them at the moment and absolutely loving them. "Cards On The Table" has been one of my favourites so far, so I watched the telly version with interest.



The solutions in these adaptations are not those of the books. The writing is very inferior to Christie's, and this one was particularly annoying to me, as I loved the original characters, and found the association of homosexuality with perversion and murder very offensive (Christie herself was far too humane and rational to entertain such nonsense). I recommend reading the book, but if you'd like the spoilers:



Dr Roberts was the murderer in both, but his motives were entirely different. He murdered the female patient and her husband to prevent a scandal after having an affair with her. He was a popular and succesful doctor with wealthy patients. Any trouble would have ruined his career and comfortable income. He committed murder opportunistically, being a natural gambler, arrogant and impetuous (just the way he played bridge).



There was no explicit lesbian element to the relationship between the two girls, Anne and Rhoda. It was pointed out that Rhoda was "tall, dark and vigorous looking," and Anne seemed to be very perturbed by the idea that Major Despard might fancy Rhoda, but I think this was more because Anne was so controlling and didn't want anyone to undermine her power over Rhoda. It was Anne who tried to murder Rhoda by pushing her in the river. She herself was drowned, however, and Rhoda was rescued by Major Despard (faced with a choice between the two, he saved Rhoda). Anne was a serial killer with at least three murders to her name. Mrs Lorrimer wasn't her mother; she had a terminal illness and was prepared to sacrifice herself to protect Anne because she felt sorry for her. She had killed her husband in an accident, the guilt haunted her terribly and she felt being hanged would be a way to pay for that tragedy.



Major Despard wasn't in love with Mrs Luxmore. She was a pathological liar and fantasist who became obsessed with him. He accidentally killed her husband in the Amazon and she held this over him, threatening to tell people it was murder.



Dr Roberts killed Mrs Lorrimer toward the end and left a forged suicide note to suggest she had murdered Shaitana.



There were no photographs of any kind, but Mr Shaitana was believed to know rather too much about everybody, perhaps a few Scotland Yard detectives included. "He was a man of whom almost everybody was afraid." Poirot was only challenged by Shaitana's moustache - "the only moustache in London, perhaps, that could compete with that of M. Hercule Poirot"- but decided complacently that his was superior.



Rhoda and Major Despard more or less rode off into the sunset in the end : "[Despard] had a sudden vision - of African scrub, and Rhoda, laughing and adventurous, by his side." It seems to be a bit of an ode to brave, physical womanhood, as opposed to the clinging, manipulative "feminine" kind of woman Anne Meredith was. I found the character of Anne Meredith very chilling and tragic, the ultimate expression of why the traditional notions of feminity are so toxic. I really like the use of Mrs Oliver, the cynical detective writer, and her Scandinavian detective. Christie had a lot of fun sending herself up there.



These older detective stories are very subtle, working on lots of levels. Christie looks at theories of psychology, economic problems, prejudice, political movements, etc. and always manages to steer a diplomatic path (no easy task in the '30s). I find her fascinating. Infinitely superior to the modern detective stories in every way. It's not meant to be realistic from a criminal point of view. That would just be nasty voyeurism, as most modern television series are. Detective stories are mind games, not criminological theses, and therefore the slightly camp approach is the only morally decent way, in my opinion. A serious, realistic approach would paradoxically only trivialise the subject. (Also, the police complain criminals are learning new techniques from the explicit forensic details. This information really shouldn't be in the public domain.) Murder mysteries are ultimately about the mystery of mortality, a philosophical question rather than a matter for the police. Agatha Christie handles these ideas with magical mastery.

[Ascoyne D'Ascoyne]

Thanks for that really interesting and informative post, Tweedy.

You've made me think I ought to read some of the original stories but I'm such a slow reader that I tend to avoid fiction.

I like what you said in your last paragraph. I came to the conclusion that another reason these TV shows are so popular is that the working out of the crimes is somewhat in the nature of a parlour game, the crimes themselves sanitised - but you have put it far more eloquently and intelligently in your post.

[Jackdaw]

Hi Tweedy,

Can you please check 'Cards on the Table' for the early description of Shaitana?

If I recall correctly,he is described in the most xenophobic terms,and is said to have 'a face that an Englishmen would like to hit',or similar.

It's over twenty years since I read the novel,but the racially perjorative tone still lingers.

Am I correct?



Jacky

[Steve Crook]

(jackdaw @ Mar 21 2006, 06:55 PM)

Hi Tweedy,

Can you please check 'Cards on the Table' for the early description of Shaitana?

If I recall correctly,he is described in the most xenophobic terms,and is said to have 'a face that an Englishmen would like to hit',or similar.

It's over twenty years since I read the novel,but the racially perjorative tone still lingers.

Am I correct?



Jacky

Agatha Christie quite often referred to people in terms that we'd find unacceptable today.

You have to remember them in the context of the time when they were written.



Steve

[Tweedy]

(jackdaw @ Mar 22 2006, 05:55 AM)

Hi Tweedy,

Can you please check 'Cards on the Table' for the early description of Shaitana?

If I recall correctly,he is described in the most xenophobic terms,and is said to have 'a face that an Englishmen would like to hit',or similar.

It's over twenty years since I read the novel,but the racially perjorative tone still lingers.

Am I correct?



Jacky

Hello. The main descriptive passages are these:



"The whole of Mr Shaitana's person caught the eye - was designed to do so. He deliberately attempted a Mephistophelian effect. He was tall and thin, his face was long and melancholy, his eyebrows were heavily accented and jet black, he wore a moustache with stiff black ends and a tiny imperial. His clothes were works of art - of exquisite cut - but with a suggestion of bizarre.



Every healthy Englishman who saw him longed earnestly and fervently to kick him! They said, with a singular lack of originality, "There goes that Dago, Shaitana!"...



Whether Mr Shaitana was an Argentine, or a Portuguese, or a Greek, or some other nationality rightly despised by the insular Briton, nobody knew. But three facts were quite certain:



He existed richly and beautifully in a super flat in Park Lane.



He gave wonderful parties - large parties, small parties, macabre parties, respectable parties and definitely "queer" parties.



He was a man of whom almost everybody was afraid.



Why this last was so can hardly be stated in definite words. There was a feeling, perhaps, that he knew a little too much about everybody. And there was a feeling, too, that his sense of humour was a curious one.



People nearly always felt that it would be better not to risk offending Mr Shaitana."



It seems to me that she's demonstrating the tragic possibilities of prejudice and assumption, and the dangers of not being aware of how deep they can go. The "insular Briton" doesn't care where Shaitana's from (he's actually Syrian), his being foreign, eccentric and flamboyantly dressed is enough to put his life in danger from the group of possible murderers he invites to dinner.



Poirot doesn't seem to think him a bad person, just foolish - "The stupid little man! Oh, the stupid little man! To dress up like the devil and try to frighten people. Quel enfantillage!" and, "Shaitana was a man who prided himself on his Mephistophelian attitude to life. He was a man of great vanity. He was also a stupid man - that is why he is dead."



Major Despard, the most widely travelled and broad-minded of the suspects, who prefers life in exotic countries away from the conservatism of Britain, doesn't think anyone could "take a mountebank like that seriously." (His lack of prejudice saves him from wanting to commit murder.) Mrs Lorrimer, a wordly woman, is also immune. She says she thought him "a poseur, and rather theatrical, and sometimes he irritated me," nothing more serious than that. Anne Meredith, who's lived a narrow life, is frightened of him, and Dr Roberts, the murderer, reveals a fanciful view of foreigners when he says, "he was such a fantastic fellow. Touch of the Oriental about him."



In all the Christie books I've read so far she has taken an ironic approach to various prejudices, which certainly leaves the question open for knee-jerk, PC-type reactions, but when you analyse it her position is pretty straightforward. "Death On The Nile" which I'm reading now plays on the arrogance of the rich European and American tourists who find the Egyptian beggar children irritating and never reflect at all on the reasons behind this desperate behaviour. Her subtlety (compared with the crude present-day "racism is bad" messages) is really refreshing. It does make the assumption that the reader has a brain and a heart too.



~Tweedy

[Tweedy]

I should have added that Poirot himself (A Foreigner, and a flamboyantly dressed one at that) frequently plays up his foreigness in order to trick suspects into revealing information. If he understands the power of prejudice it's a fair bet Christie does too ;-)

[film buff]

(Jeff @ Mar 21 2006, 03:23 PM)

You've made me think I ought to read some of the original stories but I'm such a slow reader that I tend to avoid fiction.

Perhaps you should take up an author that types slowly

[Ascoyne D'Ascoyne]

(film buff @ Mar 23 2006, 06:58 PM)

Perhaps you should take up an author that types slowly

Leave out "author" and it's a perfect description of myself.

[Robert]

Agatha writes about deception and truth, in my opinion, which is based on watching films and reading 8 of her books since 1989. Tisn't about good guys vs bad guys. First Hercule must discover the deception and then the motivation and then the person or people who did a crime thinking they would get away with it while evading detection forever.



The truth comes rambling, bouncing, and bounding into Poirots mind at many an odd moment of insight, much like a fox on the prowl roaming about the woods, pawing and sniffing at the earth and sky, knowing somewhere there will be found the quarry.



He is a man of faith, even his faith to fool people, which appears from time to time. Agatha created a grand character to show deception rarely lasts.



I can only hope today's people can see her real world.



Agatha writes carefully showing the reader the true and embarrassing foolishness of people. That doesn't mean she agrees with such traits.



My own grandmother was born in 1887 and displayed her British heritage often. Seems to me she reminds me of characters in Agathas works, even Agatha herself. Yet she was honest about her fears, fortune, and foolishness, I give her that with all my heart.



My granny's world and Agatha's were old fashioned. The smell of fresh baked foods, chicken coops and rabbit hutches, horses, gardens, smoke houses, cheeserys, and all parts of a rural life escape from us these days but Agatha knew her way among them in her childhood days as so few can today.



I prefer the movies stay quite close to the books but one must wonder if the modern world sees all her words and imagination in old fashioned understandings or in making corrections to match their concrete and plastic perceptions.



In my opinion, we are lucky many of her stories were adapted and filmed 20 years ago. The newer productions are still charming and well acted but to my judgement lack depth and that is such a hard subject to define.

[Wilfried Mueller]

Browsing thru the Internet I found a page with a report about Agatha Christie's Poirot starring David Suchet. As all the fans will know he really is the perfect belgian sleuth and it would be a shame not to produce the last 12 missing stories.





So there is a page where you can sign to continue the production. At the moment there are more than 3800 signatures worldwide. So if you are a fan of this series take a few seconds and sign as well!!!



Here the link: http://www.petitiononline.com/Poirot06/petition.html

[winsfordtown]

Has anybody know what year this series of 'Poirot' is supposed to depict? All the early episodes were set in the early to late thirties with an impending war referenced regularly. But after the two episodes broadcast the show in style bares little or no resemblence to the late forties or early fifties. It seems to me like the design as been cobbled together.

[Gazza]

I thought I heard one of the characters say 'we're in the midst of a depression' which suggests early thirties.

[Freddy]

Cat Among The Pigeons (Sunday's Episode) was written after WW2. I got the impression it was post WW2.



Listening to David Suchet on the radio a while back he said "that they were filming the HP books including his last case where he dies". This will be Curtain which was published in 1975, (though written 4 decades earlier) a year before Agatha Christie's death.



Thanks to Wicki for the above



FReddy

[winsfordtown]

David Suchet is wearing a lot padding which I assumed was to make Poirot look a lot fatter through age and years of good living however the whole set design doesn't look post-war.

[Dave B]

"Cat among the Pigeons" was written about a decade after the end of WWII, so it made some kind of sense that Mrs Upjohn had been an Intelligence Officer during the conflict. The TV production seemed to be placed pre-War, which made the revelation that Mrs Upjohn had been a Secret Service agent less plausible.



The book, of course, doesn't introduce Poirot into the action until near the end - by which time murders had been committed and the police had asked all the questions. Shoe-horning Poirot in at the start of the TV show made him look somewhat unnecessary - with violence happening around him while he wandered around corridors, peeking in at the schoolgirls.



And how utterly laughable that the headmistress of a top boarding school would ask a visitor to help her choose her successor. Even more laughable that Poirot would agree!

[image45]

I thought it was always early 1930's butt he series has been going longer than 'Heart Beat' so you often wonder if it will stay in the sametime!

[Windthrop]

Poirot was over 60 when he retired on the 20s so during the last new Poirot novel in the 70s he would have been well over 100. There are things which indicate the passing of time in the novels - TV sets, 60s drug culture etc but Poirot does not grow old. It is a problem thats crops up alot in long running series of crime novels - Wexford who is still going strong would be in his 90s now if the books were being accurate. Ian Rankin has aged Rebus during the novels but he is one of the rare ones. I think it could be argued with the TV series of Poirot that they have kept them in the 30s because essentially Christie was an interwar writer whose novels conjour up a world of deference and country house parties. Though her novels have as I have mentioned contain pointers to the passing of time she never really accepted changes in the social order. In this sense the TV ahve got it right I think and of course ageing Suchet from his 60s to his 100s might prove difficult.



Tommy and Tuppence aged in real time but then they were only in their 20s when they first appeared.