Fri 19 Dec 2008
TV Movie Review: THE MURDER OF ROGER ACKROYD (2000).
Posted by Steve under Characters , Reviews , TV mysteries[6] Comments
THE MURDER OF ROGER ACKROYD. TV movie/episode of Agatha Christie: Poirot. First shown in the UK on 2 January 2000 [Season 7, Episode 1]. David Suchet, Philip Jackson, Oliver Ford Davies, Selina Cadell, Roger Frost, Malcolm Terris, Nigel Cooke, Daisy Beaumont, Flora Montgomery. Based on Agatha Christie’s novel of the same name. Screenwriter: Andrew Grieve. Director: Clive Exton.
It’s been a long time since I first read the book — something like 55 years ago — and it was also the last time. This is one of only two detective novels for which I remember the ending and who did it, and the other was by Agatha Christie also.
Which is why the book has been only a one-time affair for me. The details I don’t remember, but I do remember Hercule Poirot — it was probably my introduction to him, but I couldn’t swear to that — and once you’ve read a novel he’s in, if you’re a detective story fan of any kind, he’s a character you’ll also never forget.
Confession time. I’ve never seen David Suchet as Poirot until now. Pure negligence on my part, or a certain lack of resolve, whatever. Right now, at the moment, I am typing this, I’m a convert. 100 percent. Suchet is Hercule Poirot, to the ultimate and finest detail.
If you know the story about Roger Ackroyd’s murder, and without my saying more, I am assuming that you do, you might wonder how it could be filmed. If it were up to me, I’d do as direct an adaptation as I could, but Andrew Grieve goes at it sort of sideways and this misses the point of the tale entirely. (At the beginning of the film Poirot is reading from the killer’s diary.)
The characters in this film are among those that are also in the book, but some research into other reviewers’ commentaries say that not all of the characters in the book are in the movie, present and accounted for.
There is also an extra murder that is not in the book (or again, so I’m told). And on my own, with no help from others, I certainly did not recognize the shootout in the chemical factory between the killer on one side at the end, and Poirot and Inspector Japp (Philip Jackson) on the other. Good grief. What were they thinking?
I also wondered about the scene in Poirot’s old semi-abandoned city apartment (the movie begins as he’s “enjoying” his retirement far out in the country). Poirot seems choked up about the place, the furniture covered in sheets, with bad memories flooding his mind. What was that all about? (Perhaps it has to do something with the fact that I started watching the Suchet series with Season 7?)
All in all, I suppose one could easily enjoy this made-for-TV movie if one did not know the story, nor the character, ahead of time. I can usually tune things out so that I can watch the film the screenwriter and director want to tell while I’m watching, which I did just fine. But why on earth did they want to tell this one?
I exclude David Suchet from blame. Even if he had something to say about the story, I’m going to say he didn’t, and I’m looking forward to his next outing in the boxed set I just bought myself as an early Christmas present.
December 20th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Why do it all? Well…:
1 ‘Completism’ – Suchet has said he wants to be the first actor to film all the Poirot novels and short stories.
2 Because ‘Ackroyd’ is famous for the controversy it caused, and to leave it out as too difficult to adapt would look like a cop-out.
3 80-90% of the its audience won’t have read the book, So they will have no idea of how unfaithful the adaptation is to its source. Nor will they care. A television series exists in its own time and space.
4 The Poirot series is a worldwide hit on screen and dvd. The producers are there to make money. Not to do ‘Ackroyd’ would be to forego a a hefty chunk of income.
Having said, that it did strike me as one of the worst of the whole 19 year series. Like the dire new ‘Marple’ series it ignored the spirit of the original work. Most of the other Suchet/Poirot adaptations have inevitably has to make changes in plot and character, but almost always with a strong emphasis on recreating Christie’s world view – in large part, I guess, at the insistence of Suchet, whose preparation for and playing of the role have been extraordinarily painstaking and hugely to be commended.
IMHO, anyway!
December 20th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Robin
I should have been clearer, and re-reading that portion of my comments, it’s my fault. To clarify: I wasn’t asking why they did Roger Ackroyd as part of the Suchet series. What I was wondering was why they did their version of Ackroyd instead of Agatha Christie’s.
There’s nothing in what you say that I disagree with at all. You’ve obviously seen more of the Suchet adaptations than I have, so if you think that Ackroyd was the worst of the Suchet shows, I feel reassured about watching all of the rest.
Obviously I picked the wrong one to start with!
Best regards
Steve
December 20th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Steve
No, no, that bit of your comments is perfectly clear – I read it carelessly! Yes: it’s a very pertinent question as to why they did stray so far from the original. Like you, I haven’t read the original for years. Maybe in terms of plot and characterization it’s a bit of a one-trick pony, relying on a stunning bouleversement of ze expectations (as HP might say) rather than a strong narrative arc culminating in the sort of visually exciting climax television needs. In which case, it might have been better if they’d treated it as one of the short stories and compressed it into the one-hour format.
I remember (not necessarily rightly) that the early series were the most stylish – ie, the ones that started with the wonderful 1930s opening title sequence (eventually dropped because it was feared modern audiences would switch to a rival channel if the story proper wasn’t up and running within seconds of the start) They also have the lion’s share of stories featuring Hastings, Japp and Miss Lemon, whose actors give excellent support to David Suchet.
I’ve just watched a repeat of “Death in the Clouds”, which is from the fourth season, and the onboard plane sequences wonderfully evoke the unhurried delights of inter-war air travel.
Cheers
Robin
PS I’m guessing ‘Orient Express’ is the other title you don’t re-read?!
December 21st, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Robin
I just bought three boxed sets of Poirot movies with David Suchet, and I’ll report on them periodically as I go through them. As I do so, I’ll keep all your comments in mind.
(At 50% off at Barnes & Noble, bargains such as that cannot be resisted.)
As for “Orient Express,” you nailed it. You might be interested in the review I wrote of the Albert Finney superstar version. (Follow the link.)
I see that I mention having watched one of the David Suchet films. For the life of me, I can’t remember now which one it might have been.
That’s why I have to write reviews. If I don’t write things down, by the time several months go by, it is as if they didn’t happen.
— Steve
August 9th, 2010 at 11:05 pm
I have seen many if not all the actors who have assayed Poirot. Suchet is clearly the best – better even than Ustinov. As someone said, Suchet has done so much preparation that he IS Poirot. Hope you got to see the program he did on the Orient Express before the broadcast of his version of Murder on the Orient Express. It was a treat to watch and gives one insight into Suchet and how he prepares for a role.
August 12th, 2015 at 2:13 pm
I didn’t care for the Suchet version of “Murder on the Orient Express”. Overdone . . . even the performances.
“The Murder of Roger Ackroyd” could have been good if screenwriter Clive Exton had left out some major changes that really marred the production.