Agatha Christie's murder mysteries are legendary. Miss Marple and Poirot are two of her most popular creations. Over the many decades, Christie has sold more books than many other writers.
Since the beginning of the film, popular books have been turned into films. I do not know exactly what was the first movie version of a successful selling book, but I can remember a film of Lewis Carroll's 'Alice in Wonderland' that was made in 1903. The first movie of a popular detective I know of is the short movie "Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" created in 1905.
It is therefore amazing that it was only in 1961 that the first Miss Marple film, with the somewhat eccentric Margaret Rutherford in the title role, was made. Three other Miss Marple movies followed with Rutherford. It's hard to understand for some people, but in most cases it's necessary to change the story to make a good movie of a book. The reason for this is that a story must be told in a limited amount of time, so the story must be less complicated than is usually written in the book. Another aspect is that you can skip back into a book if you forget who was who or how the story went again. This is not possible in a movie. Of course, you can make a more faithful version of the book if you make a (mini) series of the book because you have more time to tell the story.
Another aspect that affects how loyal the film version is to the book is the unpleasant but unavoidable factor; money. Investors want to make the most of their profits, so they invest in a movie that will guarantee a box office hit, a big name like Agatha Christie is of course a good guarantee. This can result in an unpleasant result for some people. With the Rutherford Miss Marple movies they decided that Christie's amateur sleuth had to be funny. This would make more money than when the film would have been more loyal to the way Agatha Christie wrote her, according to the investors surely. For the first story 'Murder, she said' (1961), they changed a lot in the original story that was titled '4:50 from Paddington’. But compared to the three other films it was the most loyal to Christie's book. The next two movies were not even Miss Marple stories. These were Poirot stories. They had already somewhat gotten off track whit those two, but with the latest Miss Marple film 'Murder Ahoy' (1964) they had taken the cake. This was not even an Agatha Christie story. For many people, enough reason to condemn these Rutherford movies.
It took 16 years for a new Miss Marple movie was made. The Americans made a film of 'The Mirror crack'd' (1980) like only the Americans can. The film had an all-star cast and Miss Marple was played by the far too young Angela Lansbury. Although I found the movie very fun, the acting, the direction, the lighting and editing were just excellent, I think the far too long and not vulnerable looking Lansbury, although I think she's a fine actress, was totally miss cast. But investors were not complaining because the movie was a box office hit.
It did not take long before two other Marple films were made. The talented Helen Hayes played Miss Marple in 'A Caribbean Mystery' (1983) and 'Murder with Mirrors' (1985). Since both films were made for television, they look a bit outdated. The lighting- and editing techniques that were used for television was different from that for cinema films at that time. This was because television stations did not have the budgets of cinema productions. But I enjoyed these versions none the less. Helen Hayes is just perfect as the 'dithering old lady’.
In the eighties, the BBC made ‘the’ Miss Marple TV Series which some people see as the best film adaptations of the books of Agatha Christies. Joan Hickson was and is still praised for her Miss Marple interpretation. Many people see her as 'the' Miss Marple as Christie wrote her. Hickson also played a small role in Rutherford's 'Murder, She Said'. The story goes that, when Agatha Christie saw her, she said she would be a good Miss Marple if she were older. Many people see this as Christie's blessing for this series. She has never seen this series, so it's a guess if she would have been happy with Hickson's interpretation.
Since this series was my first acquaintance with Miss Marple, this series is close to my heart and I look back at it with a sense of nostalgia. From time to time I take an episode out of the closet again and watch it with great pleasure.
As film techniques have changed and improved over the years, a new Miss Marple series was unavoidable. So a new series was made in 2004 under the title 'Agatha Christie's Marple'. Geraldine McEwan played Miss Marple. I have to say, although I love each Miss Marple version, that McEwan is my favourite Miss Marple.
She has fun in solving murders without showing off. I see this in her sparkling eyes. Everyone who is so often confronted with all these terrible murders must enjoy outwitting and catching the killer and get energy from it as to be able to emotionally handle all these tragedies. She made twelve episodes before her retirement.
The somewhat more serious Julia McKenzie took over her role and another 11 Miss Marple episodes were made.
For this series, the original stories are more changed than those from the Hickson series. More than is necessary I would even say. In some cases, the changes are very drastic. One episode even has another killer than in the book and the last few episodes are not even Miss Marple stories. There are many people who have an objection to that, but I'm not one of them.
Everyone involved in the filming of a book has his own vision of how the film should look like and how the characters should behave. Whether this is driven by money or ideals does not matter. Since the audience who has read the book also has his own opinion on how the story should be filmed, a film for those people will always be a disappointment. You can not make everyone happy.
There are people who say that when a good film has already been made (the Hickson series) a new filming is meaningless or bad if it's not exactly the same as the series / movie that they love. I do not agree with that. Although I love the Hickson version, the series is now a bit out dated. Think about the technical aspects like image size, image quality, lighting and editing. Indeed, with new techniques, you could make the same series as Hickson's. I do not see the point of that as I do not mind the obsolete film techniques.
I think it's really refreshing if actors give a whole new impetus to a role. I also don’t object to adjustments to the original story, although in some cases I have the idea that the reason for the change is only a commercial one. But I have absolutely no problem with modernising of the story. Agatha Christie wrote a lot of her bestsellers at a time when some subjects, think of gay people, just could not be spoken of. Another aspect is the way the characters interact and the attitude they adopt. Hickson is praised because it seems that people, in the time the stories were set, had the same cool emotionless attitude. In Great Britain at least, someone told me. That may be the case, but I find it harder to sympathise with Hickson's Miss Marple than, for example, McEwan's or McKenzie's Miss Marple because of that.
Another reason to make new movie versions of classics, such as Agatha Christie’a, is because young people get to know the great creations of grand dame du crime. Many young people watch movies that are not older than ten years. And maybe they even start reading the books after watching the movie.
I say; Let's make new versions of these brilliant stories especially so that they wouldn't be forgotten.
Miss Marple behind the scenes
Miss Marple clips
Comments
Post a Comment