Sun 19 Jul 2009
A TV Mystery Review by Geoff Bradley – AGATHA CHRISTIE’S MARPLE: TOWARD ZERO (2008).
Posted by Steve under Reviews , TV mysteries[10] Comments
AGATHA CHRISTIE’S MARPLE: TOWARD ZERO. ITV. Series 3, Episode 3. First telecast in the UK on 03 August 2008. Geraldine McEwan, Julian Sands, Paul Nicholls, Greg Wise, Saffron Burrows, Julie Graham, Tom Baker, Eileen Atkins. Based on the novel by Agatha Christie. Director: David Grindley (uncredited).
Agatha Christie’s Marple which is what it was called in the listings, returned with the penultimate outing for Geraldine McEwen in the eponymous role. It was an adaptation of Towards Zero, a Christie novel in which Miss Marple plays no part.
Here she was interjected into the otherwise fairly faithful plot (if my faltering memory of reading it some twenty odd years ago plus the vague plot descriptions in a couple of reference books can be relied upon), involving a gathering of people at the home of Lady Tressilian — played by Eileen Atkins in a fairly star-studded cast which included Tom Baker (former Dr Who and Sherlock Holmes), Saffron Burrows (of Boston Legal) and Alan Davies (Jonathan Creek).
I have been critical of previous outings in this series but I enjoyed this one. The post-WWII settings were superb, and I thought McEwen kept the knowing grins down to at least a reasonable proportion. There was an amusing gaffe when a scene showing the protagonist Neville Strange (Greg Wise), a tennis player, at Wimbledon (incidentally his opponent was played by Greg Rusedski), had the scores shown on an electronic scoreboard.
July 19th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
I’m not such a purist as to mind when they inject Miss Marple into non Marple books. Unlike Poirot her character is not part of the plot or the solution and truthfully even in non Marple books there is often a Marple like character even if they don’t function as a detective. Granted we might not want her trying to aide Tommy and Tuppence solve a case or wandering into a Harley Quin tale, but I think over all this is harmless.
The new Marple’s are airing as I write (Murder is Easy last week) and in general I find them entertaining and so far have no real problem when Miss Marple takes over a case she was not originally a part of.
And it isn’t exactly new. One of the Margaret Rutherford Marple’s was based on a Poirot book — and with less justification than this series has.
For that matter one or two of Simenon’s non Maigret’s wouldn’t need all that much tinkering in order to inject the Commissaire into the business.
So long as Professor Challenger doesn’t take to solving Holmes cases for him … though it strikes me he’d be just the man to turn to for that worm unknown to science …
July 19th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Injecting Miss Marple into stories she wasn’t really in, that doesn’t bother me either, David, for very much the same reasons you go into.
In general, the objections to the — let’s call them the MacEwan revisionisms — have been along the following lines, taken from one site on the Internet:
“The new Miss Marple has been adapted for ITV1’s 21st century viewers. She reveals a touching past relationship with a married man — and one of the films has a lesbian theme.
“And with the authorisation of Agatha Christie’s estate, the producers have even changed the identity of the murderer in one of the mysteries just to confuse those who remember the BBC series or the original book plot.”
Are the administrators of Dame Christie’s estate to be trusted on this last point?
July 19th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Steve
I don’t disagree with you, but I do always keep in mind that books and films are two different things, and neither is sacrosanct no matter how much we might want them to be.
And I would argue if there is already a good adaptation of the book available I have less problem with making changes — if they work.
Still, the MacEwen Marple’s seem to have sparked a bit of a fan backlash, and so far the new ones are veering closer to the originals — albeit with a bit younger Miss M.
Still, Dame Agatha herself offered different endings to her plays and the books or stories they are based on, so there is a precedent.
And I would also argue that some Christie novels probably can’t be adequately filmed. The Poirot episode of The Murder of Roger Ackroyd didn’t even try to use the famous (or infamous) twist of the novel, and with fairly good reason — it would be almost impossible to do on film. For that matter the play of the novel which starred Charles Laughton Poirot (and though I’ve seen him in the get up it is hard to imagine a 6’4″ Poirot)eschewed the famous twist as well.
Some things only work in print.
July 19th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
On a scale ranging from 0 to 10, where 0 equals complete laissez-faire, and 10 represents a total purist as far as adaptations are concerned, I’d say that I’d rank myself as a “6.”
Depending on the book and/or author in question of course, and whether I enjoyed the adaptation anyway!
— Steve
July 19th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
From what I’ve read of reviews of Murder Is Easy, it sounds like quite a bit was changed from the book. A Pocket Full of Rye was close to the book, but veered too much toward camp, I thought. I much prefer the Hickson Marples, though these tended to be rather stodgily filmed. I wish they could have done more faithful new versions with the often excellent camera work and editing of today (though sometimes the latter can get too frenetic and self-consciously showy).
July 19th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
[…] the comments that follow Geoff Bradley’s review of Toward Zero, David Vineyard have been discussing the viability of movie and TV adaptations, as […]
July 20th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Again, the changes in Murder is Easy didn’t really bother me that much since they remained fairly true to the spirit of Christie and the character of Miss Marple.
I agree that Pocketful of Rye started out on an uncomfortably humorous note for no real reason I can see, but more or less redeemed itself before the end.
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed how often happily married couples in Christie end up concealing one or more murderers? Maybe a throwback to that infamously bad first marriage of hers.
Anyway, it points to something I have always argued, that Christie has never been as ‘cozy’ as she might be portrayed. In fact almost every actress who has played Miss Marple, including Joan Hickson, strikes me as a good deal nicer than Christie portrays her.
July 20th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
I don’t know, critics of the film complain how it significantly changed characters and motivations and added a rape/incest motive? I can’t really agree that making significant changes into motives and characters is really “true to the spirit of Christie.” Most genuinely true to the spirit of Christie probably would be actually filming what she wrote, with at most modest alterations. I haven’t seen Murder Is Easy myself, however.
A Pocket Full of Rye had this whole arch tone I just disliked. The female characters seemed indistinguishable, Miss Marple aside, whose latest incarnation is quite bland, it seems to me. Only Hickson really captured the true Marple bearing, I think. Miss Marple Mach 2 would have been a good character, had she not borne the title “Miss Marple” (who she clearly wasn’t).
July 20th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
In regard to the rape/incest motive in the adaptation I suspect it was there for the simple reason that the original motive for murder and hiding all the secrets may have seemed a little weak to the people adapting the book who may well have felt (mistakenly or not) that modern viewers would find the original motive for multiple murders a bit weak. At the time the book was written that wasn’t so, but modern viewers might not understand the realities of village life in England in the Marple era.
I actually thought the female characters were well enough defined in Pocketful of Rye once the mystery proper began and the comic tone was set aside.
Yes the Hickson adaptations are superior in all but production values, and nothing done by later productions can take that away from us. We have her version of Marple, whether anyone ever equals it or not, and frankly even she is nowhere near as cold and ruthless as Christie portrays Marple.
Frankly I always found Jane in the books to be not a very nice person. MacEwan was a bit dotty in the role and this incarnation is a bit kindly and young, but I don’t think anyone would watch on a weekly basis if someone gave us the nosy and not particularly likable old biddy of the novels.
As for the spirit of Christie, I meant it literally, the spirit of the work and not the word. In that I felt Murder is Easy was acceptable. And it isn’t holy writ. Christie herself made major changes in adapting her own books and stories to the stage.
For that matter I can’t for the life of me find that cobra in Poirot’s lavatory in the book of Death on the Nile.
And Christie is far from perfect herself. At least one of her stories turns on a ventriloquist throwing his voice to someone who has his back to him.
Ventriloquism is an illusion. It only works if you are facing the ventriloquist. That particular story would have improved if someone had been less faithful to Christie.
July 20th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
I agree with David that neither Christie nor Marple are as “cozy” as people generally use the word today.
I suspect that many of the people who think of her as cozy have never really read one of them.
Cozy now means cute and fluffy. Christie books are never cute and fluffy.
— Steve