Agatha Christie: Adaptation...Or Not? - The Sittaford Mystery
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 окт 2024
- A comparison of Agatha Christie's novel, The Sittaford Mystery, to its TV adaptation. (This is a re-upload of an earlier video.)
Footage used is from:
-Hercule Poirot's Christmas
-The Sittaford Mystery
-Murder Most Foul
-Sherlock
-Knives Out
-Doctor Who: "Blink"
-The Secret of Chimneys
-The Alphabet Murders
-Mrs. McGinty's Dead
-Death in Paradise
I’m not a Christie puritist and really enjoy much of the recent Marple series ALOT, but I’m not really fond of this “adaptation”. Maybe it’s because the book is so ingenious in its simplicity. Making the killer a long forgotten son in a different identity is a very Agatha Christie-an twist really, but what makes her so immensely readable is that she always found new ways of surprising and here the straight-forwardness is the surprising part. The one person who doesn’t have an alibi is the killer, the one person who seems most fond of him and it is for a simple, straightforward reason like money along with deep-rooted envy. The plot is so simple and yet so perfect and they managed to ruin it. Not really with adding Miss Marple, but with making it too complicated.
Exactly! The mystery is so... uncluttered compared to much of her work. Like the red herrings actually felt like they could have tied into the murder, and weren't just random distractions. I usually don't mind the small changes because they want to keep the people who know the source materials engaged as well, but it's a crime that this novel was erased almost completely, when it's so special on its own.
purist?
I really like the Christie standalone novels. Secret of Chimneys, Man in the Brown Suit, Endless Night, and more. That they are adapted to include Marple, Poirot or Tommy & Tuppence when filmed is okay because I am familiar with the source material. But some adaptations really change the flavor of the story. In the original Sittaford, the 1930’s era lends so much to the characters and the story. The film places events more in the 50’s. This alone changes the atmosphere so completely that I cannot really consider it an adaptation. And don’t get me started on the film adaptations of And Then There Were None. Yeesh!
And they change the characters almost completely, which is especially a shame because this book has one of the strongest and most likeable casts to begin with. I just can't get over how dirty they did the female characters, and Emily most of all!
I think Murder most Foul is the definition of in-name-only or, at best, a very loose adaptation. If sharing the central theme is the only criteria, Elephants Can Remember is an adaptation/retelling of 5 Little Pigs😂 and Titanic is an adaptation of Romeo & Juliet (a young girl tries to escape an arranged marriage & be with her soulmate but it ends in tragedy) 😅
Three act tragedy has some interesting changes from book to screen.
Funny, I'm actually working on the script for that one right now. I just started re-reading the book.
@@MysteryMilesdon't forget add in that the US and UK editions of the book have completely different endings (specifically the killer has a totally different motive in each edition).
The show one or the film one?
@@ThornOfSociety Spoilers! :)
@@ThornOfSociety The David Suchet Season 12 Ep1. The show creates a relationship between Poirot and Sir Charles making the case more "personal?". I'm not aware of any other adaptation. I enjoy finding out about other ones here!
Love your videos!! Would love to see a video on the two screen adaptations of Evil Under the Sun :)
This adaptation was one of the worst. I didn't recognize the book at all. Surprised this wasn't directed by Branagh.
Love your work and analyses.
Hooray! You got it back up again!
@0:30: It doesn't beg the question; it raises the question.
To beg the question is to commit the logical fallacy of assuming the conclusion of an argument.
I love the acting and atmosphere in this variation, and that's enough for me,. The gravity of murder gives any plot cogency, whether I or not I comprehend who's who, how they're related, and even what happened. For me, the reveal at the end is often a letdown, like disturbing an entangled quantum system, where the murderer is truly indeterminant until named.
I kind of enjoy all things Christy so I enjoy the adaptations even if they're not quite source I love the primary sources love everything about it
You can go as far as you want, but you won't carry everyone with you
I suggest you might do a Book-Film comparison on “The Labors of Hercules.” (Or “Labours” in England).
Some of these adaptations change the era from post WWI to post WWII, I believe, to engage the audience and not seem so “old fashion.” In the US, the same was done with Rex Stout’s Nero Wolfe in that TV series. The NW series sort of moved in time shifting from the 40’s and the 50’s (w/ occasional styles from the 60’s) and Archie sounding like a fugitive from a Damon Runyon story, but all done to appeal to a wider audience no doubt.
Yes, I agree.
That agreement extends to the comment on “Death in Paradise”.
By the way, please refrain from saying “this begs the question”, as you do as 00:30, when you really mean “this leads us to ask”, and are not criticising the invalidity of an argument. Begging the question, also known as •petitio principii•, is the name of a logical fallacy of circular reasoning wherein the argument’s premises assume the truth of the conclusion, and should be used only when discussing arguments, I respectfully submit, and not when noting that further questions are natural or inevitable.
This one was a jumbled mess. One of the few things I appreciated about it though was casting Zoe Telford as Emily Trefusis. She plays her part well. She was also Rosalie Otterbourne in the 2004 adaptation of “Death on the Nile.”
When I saw the film version on PBS years ago, I was disappointed that it began with a visit to "James Bond" by a ghost and that it ended with "James Bond" becoming a ghost. In all of her books, Agatha Christie never resorted to the supernatural and portrayed her characters that did as kooks. It became hard for me to suspend my disbelief with an unnecessary adaptation that Christy would never have used.
I am far less of a purist than your own good self, but I looked this up and agree--it is rather a mess. Great cast, though.
I am up to direct a lesser known Agatha Christie play, TOWARDS ZERO. Methinks it nicely highlights her skills as an author, especially since it all comes down to character. Which presents a difficulty, because in a play the audience is not "filling in the blanks" the way a novel reader does.
This story was changed so much, but they changed the ending, the murderer was changed.
The radio adaptation with John Moffat is so much better and more to the original although Poirot didn’t appear it originally.
Did you run into copyright trouble or something with the original upload?
Yes, five of my videos recently got blocked. This is the first one I've successfully re-uploaded.
@@MysteryMiles dang, that's a shame. Was it from itv or one of the others?
@@justinnyugen7015 ITV
@@MysteryMiles The swine
That sucks, this very clearly fits the elements of Fair Use: criticism, comment, teaching, scholarship, research. I wish RUclips didn't automatically side with big companies over content creators in disputes such as these. Keep fighting the good fight Miles.
Personally I love this piece, they throw in everything but the kitchen sink and just see what sinks or swim… it’s like an adaptation of a game of Cluedo … or a dream you have when a slight fever is common on… but I quite understand why others might find it a tad ‘bonkers’. Oh and the cast just go for it full amateur dramatics at its best and Emily is definitely a babe….
5:04 Did you miss his Dr Who call out here?
This is definitely not an adaptation, but a variation on a theme. Plus, when they changed the murderer, the ending became so predictable. As soon as they showed the ghost, it became immediately clear that some offspring was simply trying to take revenge. We have seen such motivations in so many episodes!
you should do a list of the best Death in Paradise episodes that's adapted from Agatha Christie.
Oh crap. That's severely tempting.
@@MysteryMiles I'm not as well versed in Agatha Christie as you, but I have seen every episode of Death in Paradise more than once. 😊
@@TheLadySilverMoon I don't blame you, it's a great show! Which inspector is your favorite?
@@MysteryMiles Oh that's a tough choice, I think either Neville Parker or Jack Mooney.
@@TheLadySilverMoon Lol I prefer the other two.
Having not read the book, but still quite liking the film (though Miss Marple really is totally superfluous, as she often is when she's shoehorned into "adaptations" where she wasn't originally in them, and I personally don't care for Geraldine McEwan at all as Marple), I had no opinion on the question of whether or not it was a true adaptation, but you've convinced me. I wonder if Timothy Dalton was cast before the script was actually finalized, and the focus on Trevelyan was because you don't get Timothy Dalton and not beef up the part.
I'm sad you didn't comment on the queer twist at the end. I noticed particularly in the newer Marples a tendency to add more queer relationships. In at least one case, I think it's rather brilliant, and I prefer it to the boring straight version of the book. In this case, I think it's kind of cute, but a little out-of-nowhere, and strange considering that it seems like the book HAD a queer element between Burnaby and Trevelyan that got changed in the movie.
I didn't see any queer element in the book. Both men are more like friendly neighbors than lovers. They do not live at the same house. Not even shown to be affectionate one towards another.
“Shoehorned into adaptations” is the perfect way to express it.
This was so puzzling to me because I think this story has one of the best mysteries and casts. Why change this one out of all the weaker stories? And they changed *everything* from the plot to the murder, to the characters. And why turn one of the coolest female protagonists into an impressionable simp who falls for the murderer?
It's fun as a story on its own, but it just isn't Sittaford.
Miss Marple wasn't In the book .....sad they change so much to make a film ..the book is so much better !
Now do the newest A Haunting In Venice and why it's so... blah.
No. Utter drivel. Poor Agatha.