![]() It's as if all those involved were aware of the travesty being committed and therefore their jobs and how well they did them suffered from embarrassment. Nothing is note worthy in this failed production. A pox on the head of the man or woman who came up with this stupid exploitive idea. It is not Marple, it is not the Beresfords and Christie's beautiful tale is lost. The original story has been "frankensteined". How they meet, when they married, had twins, Detective agency, government involvement and is the stuff that life is made of. In five novels (one that's a group of well written short stories) we are given a birds eye view into their lives - entirely. This is not a Marple story - it is a part of a greater tales, that of my two favorite characters penned by Mystery Maven Christie, Tommy and Tuppence. That is until a golden rule was broken with this piece of uck. Welcomed the series and enjoyed most of them. anymore than I saw Rutherford as the famed detective. Let's start off by admitting I do not like McEwan as Marple. Especially by screen writers who couldn't hold a candle to her, and are not fit to hold her pen. Which is all the more reason why they should not be taken apart and tarted up. (Let's face it, one of the founders of the "whodunits" genre was Wilkie Collins, a contemporary and close friend of Charles Dickens, and even the latter dabbled.) I'm sure Christie worked out her plots in precise detail, which is probably why they've stood the test of time, whereas lesser authors' works have been forgotten. I just cannot understand why there is a pathological insistence, particularly in this series, of wanting to change something purely for the sake of change? Will there next be an attempt to have Poirot solving Marple mysteries, and vice-versa, or will Superintendent Battle solve the lot? And will someone then come up with the idea of the collecting together Hercule Poirot, Jane Marple, Supt Battle, Parker Pyne, Mr Quinn, Tommy & Tuppence, and calling them "The Seven Scanner Eyes"? Why can't they leave Dame Agatha alone? Would they have the gall to treat Charles Dickens in such a scandalous way? Can I suggest Wilkins Micawber to solve "The Mystery of Edwin Drood"? I don't think that anyone can deny Dame Agatha Christie's place in classical literature, even if most of her works are "only" murder mysteries. ![]() Overall this production is only slightly better than "Sleeping Murder" (which was nothing but utter carnage). It was only a yawn or two that actually kept me awake. Plot-wise, "By the Pricking of my Thumbs" is not a bad whodunit, but the under-played performances from the top stars on display here were sadly lack-lustre. I read this Tommy and Tuppence tale years ago, but it's storyline has faded from my memory, so I can't tell (apart from the fact that Jane Marple wasn't in the novel) how much this production has veered from the original. Whilst Tommy is away on MI6 business, Tuppence and Jane Marple (who had also been a-visiting at the home) join forces to solve the mystery. Then she learns that Ada's friend Mrs Lancaster (June Whitfield, the BBC radio Miss Marple) had suddenly disappeared that same evening. A week or so later Tuppence is told of said Auntie's sudden death and treats the news with suspicion. The Beresfords visit Tommy's Aunt Ada at the nursing home in which she is living, where they hear of a supposed murder of a child in bygone years. If anything Tuppence was always the brighter and more forthright of the married couple, and there was never ever a suggestion by Dame Agatha that such a weakness existed. However the transformation of Tuppence Beresford into a bored housewife with a drink problem, is somewhat at odds with the character that Agatha Christie created. ![]() I had reservations about the combining of Tommy & Tuppence with Miss Marple, and wondered how it would be achieved.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |