May 2020 Movie Interpretation of a Crime Book



Murder on a Monday Record of MAY meeting, 2020Theme: Movie interpretation of a crime book Presenter: Jill Brigden BrownWell that was fun! Watching movies and reading books. Perfect way to while away the endless Autumn days of lock-down, or should that be home detention without the ankle bracelet?I started with a classic; Agatha Christie’s 14th novel, Murder on the Orient Express (original title Murder in the Calais Coach), published in 1934. I can’t remember the first time I read this book. Probably in the early 1960’s out of my great Uncle’s impressive crime fiction library, a couple of which he swore went with him to the Middle East in the Second World War. This novel, with its large cast, gave Christie plenty of scope for her brilliant ability to deftly draw characters in her inimitable style, with compact phrases that are both humorous and insightful. Not a wasted word.One traveller has “a long, mild, amiable face rather like a sheep.” An intimidating Russian princess commands the eyes because of her sheer unattractiveness: “It was an ugliness of distinction — it fascinated rather than repelled.” And when an English military man glances past Poirot without pausing, “Poirot, reading the English mind correctly, knew that he had said to himself, ‘Only some damned foreigner.’” There are incessant digs at the quirks and foibles of the English. And there is also plenty of scope to depict the national characteristics of the Italian, German, Swede, Hungarians, Greek, Frenchman, Russian, and Americans. Christie does it all brilliantly.I won’t go over the plot because I doubt any one of you wouldn’t have either read the book or seen a screen production. Suffice to say that it is a complicated storyline and quite a juggling act to get your head around all the characters and their place in the drama. I never try to guess “who done it”, I just leave it in Christie’s capable hands and let the plot, and Poirot’s little grey cells, bring it all to a satisfactory conclusion … however, in this one I’m not sure Poirot was happy with the final outcome. From the two film adaptations I watched at it would seem not.Film 1The first Murder on the Orient Express I watched was the 20th Century Fox production released in 2017 with Kenneth Branagh directing, and also starring as Hercule Poirot. A stylish production with an all-star ensemble including Penelope Cruz, Judy Dench, Olivia Coleman, Derek Jacobi, Michelle Pfeiffer, William Defoe et al.Oh dear, how can I find something nice to say about this production. Good scenery? But herein lies the rub, while it looks spectacular, the many scenes outside the confines of the train detract from the intended claustrophobic atmosphere and underling menace present in Christie's novel.I agree with Jonathan Romney?on?November 9, 2017 – Film Comment …a bunch of famous actors play[ing] eccentrics cooped up on a train, with secrets to be unearthed. There’s a lavishly superfluous prologue set in Jerusalem, which begins with a young Arab boy dashing through the streets just to bring the fastidious European sleuth his breakfast eggs—all to Patrick Doyle’s “full of Eastern promise” music, which would have been rejected as too corny for?The Mummy Returns.?After solving a mystery involving a priest, a rabbi, and an imam, the great Belgian sleuth … declares his findings to a wonderstruck crowd of diverse Eastern extras gathered at the foot of the Wailing Wall. [Oh dear] — And it really doesn’t improve that much after the weird prologue. Branagh has the emotional depth of a beer cap as he moons over a photograph of his lost love, one Katherine... [news to Agatha Christie I’m sure]. Judy Dench as Princess Dragomiroff discards acting for a regal dourness. Johnny Depp makes a comic rather than evil victim as Ratchett/Casseti, Michele Pfeiffer is totally unconvincing as Mrs Hubbard who plays a vamp on the prowl, rather than Christie’s …a stout, pleasant-faced, elderly woman who [was] talking in a clear monotone which showed no signs of pausing for breath or coming to a stop. An American.All accents are atrocious.Most disappointingly the professional and pragmatic attitude of Poirot at the conclusion of the novel is manipulated into an emotional and moralistic sludge at the end of the film. Toot/toot.Film 2It has taken me years to overcome a deep prejudice to David Suchet playing Hercule Poirot. Goodness knows why I took against him, but I have come around and now have trouble imagining anyone else in the role. For me he inhabits the character.In this 2010 film we do not see the fussy, human side of Poirot. He seems burdened, sad and very, very angry. The first quarter of an hour is spent watching a Lieutenant in the army commit suicide in front of Poirot, and, even more shockingly, the stoning of an adulteress on the streets of Istanbul. And herein lies the start of the moralistic thread running throughout the film. This philosophical strand is then supported by depicting Poirot as a religious man, kneeling praying by his bed and later fingering his rosary after he has lied to the police about the probable circumstances of the murder and allowing the murderers to escape justice. Hmmm. Lengthy period of purgatory for Poirot!Even though the actors on the whole do a good job of interpreting the original characters, (notwithstanding the odd amalgamations and slight background changes in their stories) this movie is totally missing the lighter touch of the author and the subtle humour that runs throughout the novel.If you had not read the book this interpretation would be entertaining, the setting well realised and costumes and designs in line with the high standard we have come to expect of the Hercule Poirot series starring David Suchet. Not enough for me I’m afraid.I just wish they could have foregone the heavy handed philosophical message, omitted Poirot’s out of character personal conflict, and not included the mystifying religious element. Leave Poirot to just solve the bloody murder!I also wanted to look at the dramatization of a contemporary novel to new media subscription. Big?Little Lies?is a 2014 novel written by?Liane Moriarty. It was published in July 2014 by?Penguin Publishing.?The novel made the?New York Times?Best Seller list and?in 2015 was a recipient of the?Davitt Award.At first blush could this be Chick Lit? Absolutely not. The complex issues underlying domestic violence are realistically and viciously played out to a shocking conclusion.It’s a novel about the dangerous little lies we tell ourselves just to survive. A murder...A tragic accident...Or just parents behaving badly? What’s indisputable is that someone is dead.Madeline is a force to be reckoned with. She’s funny, biting, and passionate; she remembers everything and forgives no one. Celeste is the kind of beautiful woman who makes the world stop and stare, but she is paying a price for the illusion of perfection. New to town, single mom Jane is so young that another mother mistakes her for a nanny. She comes with a mysterious past and a sadness beyond her years. These three women are at different crossroads, but they will all wind up in the same shocking place.Big Little Lies?is a brilliant take on ex-husbands and second wives, mothers and daughters, schoolyard scandal, and the little lies that can turn lethal.?[Goodreads]The structure of this book is complex. We know at the start that there is a murder/death but don’t know until the end who has died. The book is written from a third person omniscient point of view. Each chapter focuses on one of the three main characters Madeline, Jane and Celeste. For the most part each chapter switches to the view of a different character. Most chapters are told from the point of view of just one character. Sometimes certain sections will shift to the point of view of another character. Many of the chapters end in the present with different parents and members of the school giving an interview. On screen this acrobatic characterisation wasn’t possible and fleshing out the characters was left to some often clumsy dialogue.SeriesThis seven-part series is a subversive, darkly comedic drama that weaves a tale of murder and mischief as it explores society's myth of perfection and the contradictions that exist beneath our idealised facade of marriage, sex, parenting and friendship.For me the dramatization of the novel into a seven part series was not wholly successful. The first thing that was forsaken was the setting, which was transferred from suburban Sydney to Monterey, California with its more cinematic landscapes and uber wealth. Although drawn out, the series was compelling and easy to watch. However, the first series was obviously intended to create a vehicle to carry a second series and therefore wasn’t true to the book and subverted the ending. A great pity as the novel’s ending was believable and satisfying.ConclusionMost popular genres have a history. The crime film has none—or rather, it has so many that it is impossible to give a straightforward account of the genre's evolution without getting lost in innumerable byways as different crime formulas arise, evolve, compete, mutate, and cross-pollinate.Film Reference [website]But who cares? Let’s just enjoy them.Jill Brigden Brown------oOo------Members’ comments on the topic and their reading suggestions. (There is some further news from members at the end of this section.)Stephanie GarlandFILM: Murder on the Orient ExpressI have just had the pleasure of reading Jill’s excellent Report on Murder on the Orient Express. I don’t consider that I can add anything to her review so I have eliminated my own Report on both the novel and the 2017 Kenneth Branagh film. The 1974 film starring Albert Finney was also disappointing despite an Oscar win for Ingrid Bergman and a number of other nominations and wins. As with the 2017 film the cast is ‘star studded’ which I found to be a distraction in itself. Most of the characters were not ‘famous’ and in both films the fame of the actors distorts the weight of the characters in the novel who are drawn from every level of society and therefore would superficially seem to be unknown to one another.Albert Finney’s portrayal of Poirot was stilted and at times the character was portrayed as very unpleasant rather than annoying. Both Finney and Branagh were well credentialed actors. In the case of the 1974 film it is possible that the writers found Poirot a challenge to translate to the screen and tried to move the focus of the film to the resolution of the mystery. In the case of the 2017 film Suchet’s portrayal of Poirot was already considered to be ‘definitive’ leaving Kenneth Branagh with the options of being either an imitator or creating a new version of the character.The solution to the mystery is difficult to portray in a film. In both film versions if I had never read the book I would have felt that none of the ‘stars’ wanted to be the murderer so it was decided to end the film within the acceptable time frame of a film by making everyone guilty. In a film Poirot’s final explanation is too complicated to absorb. In a book there is time to reflect on the elements.There was a good musical score, the train is effective as ‘the locked room’ and the vintage appeal of the piece is captured. I did find these elements contributed to my enjoyment when I re-read the book.TELEVISION SERIES: The Mysterious Affair at Styles ‘The Mysterious Affair at Styles’ is Agatha Christie’s first published book and there are some parallels between the characters and those of Arthur Conan Doyle. Poirot uses psychology rather than physical sciences to solve crimes. Inspector Japp is a typical detective of his time but he admires Poirot and recognizes his abilities. Hastings like Watson is a member of the WWI military and is also the narrator of the story.Agatha Christie based Poirot on a Belgian doctor she met while working as a nurse during WWI and this experience also provided her initial knowledge of poisons.The plot has red herrings and clues that cancel one another out and is considered to be overly clever. Agatha Christie’s technique improved rapidly in her later novels.The story is set in a country house in England in the middle of WWI and Christie clearly recognises that this is a world that is coming to an end. Poirot opines the demise of the old style family servant.I will not give a precis of the plot as I know most of the group are very familiar with Agatha Christie’s novel.The script for the television episode remains close to the novel.Some scenes are added such as the opening scene where Poirot is attempting to educate his fellow Belgian refugees who are attracted to the pub beer rather than culture. A visit to the Institute of Pharmacology is introduced.Some scenes are also omitted: the search by Lawrence for a coffee cup, the letter to Evie from Mrs Inglethorpe, the gardeners who witnessed the Will and hospital visits to name a few.Captain Hastings is on sick leave from The Western Front but the addition of war trauma memories makes the character more complex while being consistent with WWI experiences.Poirot’s obsession with order and method appear to the annoyance of the post mistress in the scene where he seeks to rearrange the grocery supplies. ‘The Little Grey Cells’ make their appearance as Poirot concentrates on building a house of cards.A few characters are dropped: the maid Annie and Dr Bauerstein who was the protagonist in a subplot in the novel are omitted. The production values are high and the British access to locations, vintage vehicles and wardrobe to re-create the period are wonderful. The recreation of the time adds to the book itself which does not linger on what were at the time it was written contemporary scenes.Britain is blessed with so many talented actors that casting is superb. Unlike the film adaptation of Murder on the Orient Express and many film adaptations of Christies’ novels there is not a cast of recognisable stars to detract from the story. David Suchet was already synonymous with Poirot when this episode was written. He built the character from reading all the Poirot novels and developing a list of over 90 characteristics described in the novels. Poirot is not a static creation at a moment in time; he evolves over the life of the series. In this flash back episode we already know the characters and their future relationships.The major distinction between this production and the Murder on the Orient Express films is the opportunity that a very well made series with production values comparable to a feature film allows for the development of the character over years.I know that I have seen the episode of the Murder on the Orient Express and it would be interesting to do a direct comparison of the episode with the films.------oOo------Annie KieferThank you so much for your wonderful discussion piece Jill, on one of my favourite Agatha Christie books. I totally agree with your comments re the latest ‘try-hard’ film. To me it was almost another story - note I use the word ‘almost’ - and was so disappointed in it, especially the Poirot portrayal. To me David Suchet epitomises the Poirot intended by AC.?As for your second book ‘Big Little Lies’ I must confess I have not read it, but will endeavour to soon. I haven’t seen the TV series either, however, I did enjoy your summarisation and look forward to getting involved with it!I have recently read a compilation of short stories titled ‘Thriller’ which promised me it featured short stories by “America’s foremost crime authors, many of whose books had been made into film”. It also promised “to terrify and tantalise” and that I would have to “lock the doors, draw the shades, pull up the covers and be prepared to be kept up all night”. Methinks they lied.?Most of the well-known I had never heard of (a failing on my part, not theirs - I’ve got to get out more). I endured the lineup of authors and certainly did not have to draw the shades and pull up the covers. This tome is three inches thick and weighty to read in bed! ?But, I did persevere. Reviewer Clive Cussler said “Thriller has no equal - it is intrigue, it is action and entertainment at the highest level”.?Don’t get me wrong - it was entertaining - but I felt let down by the enormity of what was promised and what was actually delivered.?I am away to read my second book of short-stories- ‘Love is Murder’. It too promises a lot, however this one has a variety of crime/murder authors that I have actually heard of!! (As well as a whole bunch whose names I have never laid eyes on!). ?This one tells me to prepare for ‘heart racing suspense’. I can hardly wait.?I am still in Batlow. It’s been raining not just cats and dogs, but elephants and rhinos. It was snowing last night and this morning. The temp on the front verandah just now is 2C and we’ve lit the fire.Hope you are all well, safe and healthy.? ------oOo------Pete MachinUnfortunately, I will not be contributing to this month’s MOAM “virtual” meeting. The isolation mainly due to Covid-19 has finally worn me down to the point where I can barely function. I have done all the research and selected the screenplay for Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid written by William Goldman which while strictly not following the topic is nonetheless a wonderfully crafted story that eventually was sold to 20th Century Fox for a staggering US$400,000 or nearly US$3 million today. The stories associated with Goldman both in terms as a writer of fiction, nonfiction, stage productions as well as his movie screenplays has uncovered another wonderfully talented author whom I enjoying reading about.I look forward to the lessening of personal restrictions as the impact of this pandemic continues to wreak havoc elsewhere across our planet.------oOo------Carolyn MartinApril in LockdownI do hope that everyone is keeping well and coping in these difficult times. I think I am quite lucky in that a number of my pursuits by their very nature are solitary, but I do miss being able to socialise with family and friends and to have a browse in my local library.Thank you Jill for your interesting discussion regarding translating books to the screen. In general I usually prefer books rather than their visual adaptations. I am usually disappointed by them especially as their portrayal of the main characters so rarely fit with my imaginings. As a result I generally avoid watching them - exceptions to this are Ian Rankin’s Rebus TV series; Ann Cleeves’ Vera and Colin Dexter’s Morse and EndeavourSo for this month’s topic, I opted for the easy option, to watch the film of a book which I hadn’t read: Gillian Flynn’s Gone Girl. In a nutshell I wasn’t impressed, in fact I found some of it quite distasteful, the ‘Gone Girl’ a rather unpleasant character ( I’m one of those who wants to like, or at least feel some sympathy for the main characters) and the storyline implausible , not to say ridiculous. I have read only one other of Ms Flynn’s works The Grownup. I don’t remember much about it, only that it was short at 64 pages and I was happy to reach page 64.I looked at some of the reviews of Gone Girl on the Goodreads website, many of which gave the novel 5 stars; one reviewer gave it a ‘reluctant’ 3 stars. She said that it took her 3 months and 20 tries to read it and that the first half was ‘PURE TORTURE’ her caps, I wonder why she bothered.I read Ann Cleeves’ latest The Long Call. I quite liked this, but it didn't grab me in the same way as several of her other books have. Strangely, she seems to have developed an inability to use, or strong dislike of, the third person personal pronoun. Rather she uses, the woman, the man or his husband rather than she or him, which to irritated me no end.I did begin to warm to her new character, Matthew Venn. The location of this new series pleased me as I lived in Cornwall for my first 11 years and am familiar with this area.This month’s reading has also included Dervla McTiernan’s third novel The Good Turn. , which I thought was a terrific read; and The Lantern Men by Elly Griffiths (kindly posted to me by Gaby) which was up to her usual standard. Also, something completely different Pianos and Flowers: Brief Encounters of the Romantic Kind by Alexander McCall Smith. Currently, I am reading and enjoying Grandmothers. By Salley Vickers.That’s it from me for this month. Take care & keep safe everyone. ------oOo------Boni MaywaldMany thanks to Jill for enlivening our May days in (spite of) COVID constraints. Crime fiction books and series that have been adapted to screens, large and small, have been nightly fare in my reading for many years. Most memorably:?* the very forensic women writers who love their bones, eg Patricia Cornwell & Kathy Reichs;?* the very legal John Grisham (bestsellers or not they are also good reads & thrilling viewing);?* reading after watching the much-repeated TV portrayals of the likes of Colin Dexter's Morse, Reginald Hill's Dalziel, and R. D Wingfield's Frost (though Wingfield, himself a screenwriter, apparently hated the TV portrayal so much he refused to write any more in his short series of books about Det. Insp. Frost);* I have read most of the Sherlock Holmes stories, and also all of Agatha Christie's stories,? but rarely watch the movies or TV portrayals of these as I tend to find them overdone, and too often remade for modern perceptions (rather than allowing the original story or conundrum to speak for itself in its own terms);* I quite enjoyed?the wonderful Precious Ramotswe?as portrayed for the screen (even if short and not much repeated) but really enjoyed the #1 Ladies' Detective Agency books more as a read because Alexander McCall Smith's writing is so full of humour & humanity;* and of course, the very present Vera. I have just finished reading all of Ann Cleeves I could get hold of, including her most recent book, The Long Call, which is the first book in her fifth series with a new protagonist, Det. Matthew Venn (so this has not yet been adapted to screen). Of the Cleeves books that have been adapted to screen, viz the Vera series and the Shetland series, I much prefer the former (the blurred brogues of the character screen portrayals in the Shetland TV series make it hard for me to catch the nuances of meaning - though I did enjoy the Jimmy Perez character in the reading of the books).My main impression from all the books I have read that I have also seen portrayed on the screen is that:?so much depends on casting choices for the role of the main protagonist. This is very much the reason for my deep enjoyment of the Vera series; yet also the reason for my discomfort in trying to watch and enjoy the DCI Banks TV series (in spite of the fact that I have read and so enjoyed virtually all of Peter Robinson's crime writing).Reading - and that first good cuppa tea in the morning - helps us survive! Read on!?Cheers, Boni------oOo------Peter MaywaldMany thanks, Jill, for your thoughtful commentary on crime mystery books portrayed on the screen. Like several other members, I want to comment on Agatha Christie’s Murder on the Orient Express, one of the crime books which has been most often shown in the cinema or on television/DVD. The main reason for its popularity is no doubt that it is a cracking good mystery story, well told with great skill by a famous crime writer.Unlike other contributors, I really enjoyed the 1974 film version of Murder on the Orient Express, starring Albert Finney as Hercule Poirot, which did not embellish the text of the original novel with a dreary (if imaginative) prologue. And it had a genuinely all-star cast of well-chosen character actors, including Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman, Sean Connery, John Gielgud, Vanessa Redgrave, Richard Widmark and Michael York (among others). As well, the train itself had a cameo role, with the snorting, whistling, smoking engine both a magnificent machine in itself and a looming, sinister presence heightening the overall mystery (to the accompaniment of a haunting orchestral theme). This is one of the few times I have enjoyed the screen version of a murder mystery as much as the original book.The setting of the whole mystery on the train was a clever variation of the “closed room” puzzle, so beloved of Agatha Christie and now endlessly repeated in television series such as Death in Paradise (which also parodies Poirot with the denouement usually involving the detective gathering all the suspects together and painstakingly laying out the evidence against each one, before pointing the finger at the guilty party).I seldom watch a movie or television version of a crime mystery before I have read the book from which it is adapted. This might be a mistake, because I am usually disappointed with the clumsy editing of the original story and the portrayal of the main protagonist. When you read a good crime novel, you form a mental picture of the key characters, and it sometimes comes as a shock to see the casting of them as someone quite different. I had envisaged a quite different “traditionally built” Precious Ramotswe from the young bubbly woman who emerged in the televised series of The Number One Ladies Detective Agency. She was generously proportioned, but a mere slip of a girl compared with my mental picture of Precious devouring large slabs of Mma Potokwani’s delicious fruit cakes on her frequent visits in her little white van to the Tlokweng Orphan Farm.And for me, Stephen Tompkinson just doesn’t cut the mustard as DCI Alan Banks. I had envisaged a much more curmudgeonly, dogged, classical music and red wine aficionado than the television character described by IMDb: His character is so totally honest and charming and he just gets right into you mind and heart… Charming!!! Maybe that’s why I switched off 10 minutes into the first episode and have not been tempted back! But I have read and enjoyed every one of Peter Robinson’s superb 27 police procedural Banks novels. Some screen adaptations of successful murder mystery books have been quite acceptable, including Guy Pearce as the tattered but ethical and lovable Jack Irish and the delectable Essie Davis, who brings Miss Phryne Fisher to life with style and panache. And so we return to Agatha Christie and her love/hate relationship with her incomparable Belgian detective, Hercule Poirot. Although I enjoyed Albert Finney’s 1974 effort, it is impossible to read a Poirot book without envisaging David Suchet, who has made the role his own in so many movies and television shows. Similarly, when I think of Miss Marple, my mind invariably strays to the indomitable Margaret Rutherford, who in the 1960s made four full Marple movies and played a cameo role as Jane Marple in another. It is said that Agatha Christie was appalled at the depiction of Miss Marple by Rutherford as an eccentric, dotty and bossy old spinster, yet she dedicated her 1963 novel The Mirror Crack'd from Side to Side "to Margaret Rutherford in admiration". For me, it’s off to bed with a good crime novel – the movies and TV can wait!------oOo------Gaby MearesMay 2020 Movie Interpretation of a Crime Book [virtual meeting]led by Jill Brigden BrownThis is a subject that I feel we could discuss for a whole year’s worth of meetings! I am a real sucker for a good TV crime series, and the best ones are inevitably based on a series of novels. Thanks Jill for the many excellent suggestions to explore, and of course another big thank you to Peter for collating all our thoughts.Regarding Stephanie’s suggestion: If I happen to have another topic approved by the Group next year I was considering handing out the Reading Suggestions and a General Overview document at the end of the previous meeting and to give a copy to the Library two weeks prior to the handout date. I think this is an excellent idea that we could all embrace.There are a number of TV series where I haven’t read the books, so I’d be intrigued to hear what members think. In particular, I recently watched The Dublin Murders, which was based on Tana French’s In the Woods and The Likeness. I found the TV series impenetrable, and the two main characters bordering on psychotic! However, I believe the books are fabulous?I have just finished listening to Slow Horses by Mick Herron which I know is a favourite with many of our members. I believe it is being made into a mini-series by Apple starring Gary Oldman [] I loved the book, and have purchased hard copies of the first two novels for my husband for his birthday.A book I can recommend reading in our present situation is Julia Baird’s new release, Phosphorescence. Here’s my Goodreads review:‘Is there anything more beautiful than living light?’ Julia Baird asks the reader in the Prelude to?Phosphorescence. This is, in her view, a rhetorical question, as she had discovered in her early twenties the joy and abandon of swimming ‘under the moon, watching a silvery, sparking ribbon of phosphorescence trail behind [her] limbs.’ In?Phosphorescence, Baird explores wonders in nature, and connections to family and friends that can sustain and uplift us in the face of an uncertain and, at times, frightening world.Baird has cast her net wide, quoting scientists, astronauts, Indigenous leaders and psychologists. She refers to her own experiences and then expands her view to look at the bigger picture, often through a feminist lens. In particular, she looks at how women can waste so much energy on their appearance, rather than on what truly matters to them. She remembers hiking through the Himalayas and being so fascinated by everything she saw that she forgot herself and ‘rediscovered joy’. She can’t wait ‘to let herself go’, wearing what she wants, ‘hair askew, unkempt but cheerful’ and feeling ‘dangerously liberated’. Sounds most appealing!Her two chapters addressed to her children are sublime and eloquent. She celebrates her friends, referring to them as ‘the crossbeams of [her] resilience’. And she reminds us that the greatest antidote for loneliness is to help another ‘and in doing so you may happily forget yourself for a while.’ Baird has found comfort in her faith and explains that ‘it’s a kind of unfathomable magic’ and if you can ‘let your life be your witness to whatever it is you believe, grace will always leak through the cracks’.Baird says she wrote this book ‘in the hope that it might be a salve for the weary, as well as a reminder of the mental rafts we can build to keep ourselves afloat, the scraps of beauty that should comfort us, the practices that might sustain us’. When I finished this book, I felt an enormous sense of peace, and found that I approached the world with a renewed sense of optimism, awe and wonder.Book and TV series reportBarnes, Julian Arthur and George [SMSA call no. N/BAR]I listened to Arthur and George as an audiobook in 2017. Here is my Goodreads review…After reading many of the other Goodreads reviews, I understand that this is a novel that is better read in its original format - old fashioned print! It's hard to appreciate the structure of the novel unless you are holding it in your hands!Alternating chapters introduce us to our two main players: George Edjalji, an extremely bright Anglo-Indian who sees himself as a true Englishman, and Arthur, who of course we learn is the famous Arthur Conan Doyle, author of Sherlock Holmes. It is not until well past the half way mark that we learn how these two men are going to meet and relate. This is a clever device, bringing not only a tension to the narrative, but also letting the reader grow to know, understand and empathise with George and Arthur as individuals.Oh, but the terrible injustice that is served to George is horrible to read! It made my blood boil! So when George applies to Arthur for help, and Arthur rallies to his side, I let out a very loud Hooray!But no spoilers here.....This is a perfect book. If I have a complaint, it's a tiny one - I felt the end was rushed and not as confident as the rest of this wonderful book.Arthur & George (TV miniseries 2015, starring Martin Clunes & Arsher Ali)I read the book before watching the series, but with a few years between, so I find it hard to compare them in too much detail. I can say, with confidence, that I thoroughly enjoyed this adaptation of the book. If there is something the British do well, it’s period pieces! I have the DVD if anyone would like to borrow it - when we next meet face-to-face.Here is a link to an excellent review written when it was released: Real Story of Arthur & GeorgeArthur & George is based loosely on a real case. Apologies for quoting Wikipedia, but it does provide a sound outline of the original story.[]The 'Great Wyrley Outrages'In 1903, the place was the scene of the "Great Wyrley Outrages", a series of? HYPERLINK "" slashings of horses, cows and sheep. In October, a local solicitor and son of the parson,?George Edalji,[6]?was tried and convicted for the eighth attack, on a pit pony, and sentenced to seven years with hard labour. Edalji’s family had been the victims of a long-running campaign of untraceable abusive letters and anonymous harassment in 1888 and 1892-5. Further letters, in 1903, alleged he was partially responsible for the outrages and caused the police suspicion to focus on him.Edalji was released in 1906 after the Chief Justice in?Bahamas?and others had pleaded his case. But he was not pardoned, and the police kept him under surveillance.?Sir Arthur Conan Doyle?of?Sherlock Holmes?fame was persuaded to "turn detective" to prove the man's innocence. This he achieved after eight months of work. Edalji was exonerated by a?Home Office?committee of enquiry, although no compensation was awarded.Local myth remembers the Outrages to have been enacted by "The Wyrley Gang", although Conan Doyle believed that they were the work of a single person, a local butcher's boy and sometime sailor called Royden Sharp. Ironically, Conan Doyle’s suspicion was based on circumstantial evidence. It was an over-reliance on this type of evidence in the first place which had resulted in Edalji’s flawed conviction.Poison pen letters?in the name of the "Wyrley Gang" continued for another twenty-five years, but these were subsequently discovered to have been posted from outside the town by Enoch Knowles of? HYPERLINK "" Wednesbury, who was arrested and convicted in 1934.[7]This case has been related or retold:Conan Doyle's?The Story of Mr. George Edalji?(1907, expanded re-issue in 1985).1972 BBC anthology series?The Edwardians:?Arthur Conan Doyle?(one episode) centres on his involvement in the Edaji case. Written by Jeremy Paul and directed by Brian Farnham, it stars?Nigel Davenport?as Conan Doyle,?Sam Dastor?as George Edaji, and? HYPERLINK "" Renu Setna?as the Reverend Edaji.Arthur & George?by?Julian Barnes?(2005), nominated that year for the?Man Booker Prize. In 2010,?Arthur & George?was adapted for the?theatre?by?David Edgar[8]?and, in 2015, for a three-part?British television drama of the same title.A comprehensive non-fictional account?Conan Doyle and the Parson's Son: The George Edalji Case?by Gordon Weaver (2006).In Roger Oldfield's book?Outrage: The Edalji Five and the Shadow of Sherlock Holmes, Vanguard Press (2010),[9]?the case is set within the context of the wider experiences of the Edalji family as a whole. Oldfield taught history at Great Wyrley High School.------oOo------Loraine PunchI enjoyed this month’s topic! As I have every Agatha Christie book published and collections of their TV and movie interpretations it made perfect sense to choose two of her characters and their TV movie interpretations.Here’s my take on the subject.First up I chose MURDER AT THE VICARAGE written in 1930 and featuring Miss MarpleThe NovelColonel Protheroe has recently moved to St Mary Mead with his 2nd wife, Anne, and daughter from his first marriage, Lettice. He is quite pompous, very deaf and most people dislike him intensely. The Vicar, Clement, is the narrator of the book. When he sees Anne Protheroe with an artist who has been engaged to paint her portrait in a close embrace he is alarmed; and more so when the Colonel is found murdered in his study soon after.The artist, Lawrence Redding, admits to the murder, which has a number of anomalies, the most confusing being the actual time of death. The outcome of the murder becomes more confused when Anne Protheroe confesses to the murder. Neither of them is believed.There are a number of other suspects like Archer, a poacher who is treated harshly by the Colonel in respect of a custodial sentence, Mrs Lestrange a new arrival in the village who appears to only be familiar with the local practitioner Doctor Haydock, Dr Stone, an archaeologist and his assistant, Gladys Cram. There is also the curate Hawes, a rather anxious sickly man who has secrets to be kept.Inspector Slack investigates the murder overseen by Colonel Melchett. The Vicar oversees all the comings and goings and many red herrings are tossed into the salad! Miss Marple in her first complete novel by Agatha Christie is seen to be a slightly bossy older woman who has an opinion and demands to be heard. She appears in and out of a number of the chapters of the book but doesn't really feature until the final few chapters. The murder is solved finally after veering up many differing avenues where we see people observed for their strange quirky attributes that make a village. To find ultimately that the murder was committed by both Lawrence Redding and Anne Protheroe was quite a surprise as they almost fooled everyone, albeit a satisfying one and a testament to Christie's solid writing skills.I did however find the novel bogged down in places by pedantics and the number of characters caused me confusion many times. One interesting red herring was that Mrs Lestrange turned out to be Lettice Protheroe's mother who had deserted the family soon after her birth. She is dying and wanted to meet her daughter.The TV Movie adaptation I watched the TV movie from 2004 of this title that starred Geraldine McEwan as Miss Marple. The movie spent a lot of time setting up the characters prior to the demise of the Colonel and also included a side plot of a younger Miss Marple who was engaged in a love affair with a married soldier. In the book Anne Protheroe and Miss Marple are merely neighbours, in the movie Anne is seen to be Miss Marple's closest friend.In the movie the Vicar's role is greatly reduced and Miss Marple's greatly enhanced with her presence at many of the meetings between Inspector Slack and murder suspects. There is also an incident where she takes a fall and sprains her ankle and many of the villagers visit her discussing the murder, something that does not occur in the book. In the book Miss Marple seeks out Inspector Slack and Colonel Melchett on most occasions.The movie eliminates the characters of Dr. Stone and Gladys Cram, replacing them with an elderly French Professor Dufosse and his granddaughter Hélène, who seek to rob and murder Protheroe as retribution for his deception of French Resistance members. I enjoyed Geraldine McEwans's portrayal of Miss Marple as she is the kind of person I envisaged her to be physically. Having said that I don’t believe her to be the type of warm grandmotherly person she is made out to be. I think she is somewhere between the character Christie portrays with a dash of the TV movie version.At times the TV version moved too far away from the novel especially in relation to the inclusion of the back story of a younger Miss Marple vision but I guess it was all about making the general public happy.My second novel was FIVE LITTLE PIGS written in 1940 and featuring Hercule Poirot.Poirot receives a letter from Carla Lemarchant whose mother Caroline Crane was convicted of the murder of her husband Amyas Crane, renowned artist, by poisoning and subsequently died a year after conviction. Once turning 21 Carla is in receipt of a letter written by her mother stating she was innocent. Carla also believes her fiancée will not marry her until the truth is found. Poirot takes on the case and finds that on the day of the murder there were five other people in the area who he names the “five little pigs”These five are Philip Blake, a close friend of Amyas, Meredith Blake his brother and amateur chemist, Angela Warren, Caroline’s much younger sister, Miss Cecilia Williams, her governess and Elsa Greer, a young woman and the subject of Amyas’ latest painting.The Police found that Amyas was poisoned by coniine found in a glass of cold beer that he had drunk. The poison had been taken from Meredith’s lab by Caroline who confessed to stealing it as she planned to commit suicide. As Caroline gave the beer to Amyas it was apparent she was the guilty party. Elsa became infatuated with Amyas who reciprocated those feelings for a time. It was believed that Caroline poisoned Amyas as she believed it was her husband’s plan to divorce her and marry Elsa; even though he had many mistresses before Elsa, she seemed to be more of a threat.Poirot interviews all the five individually and only her sister Angela believes Caroline is innocent. After his interviews and their testimony Poirot assembles all the “suspects” together and discusses their information and pieces together what led up to the time of death. He reveals that Caroline was innocent but chose not to defend herself as she believed Angela had committed the murder. She had earlier reprimanded Angela at the shed where beer was kept and took the bottle delivering it to her husband. When Amyas was found dead, Caroline assumed her sister had tampered with the bottle and wiped it of any prints, and placing it in Amyas’ hand to obtain his prints. When she was charged she took the blame and saw it as a way to pay back to her sister for injuring her leaving her blind in one eye and scarred for life after throwing a paperweight at her years before.Poirot found the murderer to be Elsa Greer. She honestly believed Amyas was going to leave his wife and marry her but she overheard a conversation between him and Caroline which proved he was only stringing her along until the portrait was completed. Elsa was shocked and wanted revenge. She had noticed Caroline taking a small amount of coniine from Meredith’s lab and went looking for it. Once found she had handed a glass of beer earlier to Amyas after tampering with it and the nature of the drug meant it took a while to take effect. When he was given another cold beer and stated that “everything tastes foul today” it made Poirot believe that he may have ingested the poison earlier in the day.Elsa admits the crime but states it is all supposition and that the event made her “die” just as much as Amyas and Caroline.I really liked the order of this story and the style used by Agatha Christie with the suspects gathered together when Poirot outlines his findings. This method was used by Christie on many occasions in novels featuring Poirot. With only five central suspects I found I could focus more easily.The TV movie adaptation The TV movie of 2003 starred David Suchet as Hercule Poirot, who, in my mind is the only actor who can portray the Belgian Detective accurately. There are a number of British actors portraying main roles such as Toby Stephens, Gemma Jones, Marc Warren and Rachel Stirling.Although the plot was basically the same, there were many differences. Carla Lemarchant is called Lucy and she has no fiancée, Caroline was executed in the film but simply died in gaol a year after conviction in the book. Philip Blake is a very close friend of Amyas and that is the cause of his dislike of Caroline. After Elsa is finally exposed, Lucy threatens her with a gun in the film but Poirot persuades her to put it down.Even with these differences I felt this book was more closely adapted to the novel especially in the portrayal of Poirot. I’ve really enjoyed this exercise this month and it made me take more notice of the characters I was reading and the differences in them and the plot and outcome in the TV movies. It was quite strange that I chose books that included an artist as a major character!I think I will pursue this exercise on a personal basis in the future. Now if there were only 36 hours in every 24… ?------oOo------Catriona SviderskasStephanie and Peter did a wonderful job pulling the April meeting together and it was great to read the April notes and to catch up with what’s been happening in our group members’ lives, although I was sad to hear that some of you have had a difficult time recently and I sincerely hope that you are coping/recovering. I agree with Stephanie’s suggestion of providing some type of guidance in the previous meeting for those of us who would like it.Thank you Jill for your entertaining discussion starter.For the May topic I have chosen to go back to the books written by Daphne Du Maurier (1907 – 1989) and the movies/TV series of her books. My main review being The Scapegoat.Du Maurier published from 1931 to 1972. She was described by critics as a “romantic novelist”, a term she both disagreed with and deplored as she wrote many types of books and novels. Most people today would describe her best known novels as Gothic because of their dark and menacing undertones. She failed to impress the critics of the time and was dismissed as a “bestseller”, not a serious writer. But I think history has judged her work more favourably - as a modern-day publisher says, “She’s one of the most important and most neglected 20th-century writers - hugely popular and bestselling but often underrated.” A quote by a critic that he would rather forget (from Oneroomwithaview website)“Upon Rebecca’s publication in 1938, Royal Society wünderkind and critic V.S. Pritchett made a prediction that Daphne Du Maurier’s novel, which has never been out of print, would be “here today, gone tomorrow’.”For me personally, Du Maurier’s novels never fail to absorb, they are great mystery stories with interesting, often quirky characters, full of suspense, indeed some have claimed she taught Hitchcock what he knew about suspense! There have been many movie/TV adaptations of her books, the most famous being Rebecca, written in 1938. Who can forget the opening lines from the book and movie, ‘Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again. It seemed to me I stood by the iron gate to the drive, and for a while I could not enter, for the way was barred to me. There was a padlock and a chain upon the gate. I called in my dream to the lodge-keeper, and had no answer, and peering closer through the rusted spokes of the gate I saw that the lodge was uninhabited.’Rebecca, the 1940 Oscar winning film directed by Alfred Hitchcock and starring Lawrence Olivier and Joan Fontaine is regarded as a benchmark for mystery films and has stood the test of time. A BBC TV miniseries was made in 1997 and Netflix has filmed a new version (2020) starring Lily James as Mrs De Winter. I’m not sure if it’s been released yet.Another popular title for screen adaptation is Jamaica Inn (book -1936, movie - 1939). This was Hitchcock’s first collaboration with Du Maurier, the third and final being The Birds (1963).I watched the 1939 movie on YouTube recently. It is woeful, both by today’s standards and the general consensus of all involved in its making, with the possible exception of Charles Haughton who both co-produced and starred in it as a character written for the movie. Sir Humphrey Pengallen, local squire played by Haughton, took the place of the albino vicar Francis Davey, the villain in the book because unsympathetic portrayal of the clergy was against the Hays Code for motion picture production. Haughton, who was known for a rather large ego, then played around with the script to give himself a bigger part in the movie with the result that the movie bears little resemblance to the characters/plot in the book. This explains a lot!Du Maurier, writing to Selznick’s colleague Jenia Reissar, was “weeping bitter tears” over the film. Hitchcock later opined to Fran?ois Truffaut that?Jamaica Inn had been “an absurd thing to undertake.” It has earned a place in lists of the worst films of all time and I do not recommend you watch it, even out of historical interest!The latest version of Jamaica Inn was a miniseries (2014) starring Sean Harris and Jessica Brown Findlay. I enjoyed watching this but it was a couple of years ago. It was criticised for poor sound quality and inaudible dialogue.0000The ScapegoatI also decided to read a Du Maurier book that I haven’t read before. I remember seeing a book on the bookshelves at home as a child and wondering what a “scapegoat” actually was. The Scapegoat was written in 1957 and a movie made in 1959.The movie is available on YouTube and I have watched it up to the last 20 minutes as I haven’t finished the book yet and I think it may spoil the book for me if I watch the whole movie. The plot centres around one man stepping into the shoes of another – an identity swap made possible because both these men look and sound completely alike. But that is where the similarities end. An English university lecturer John Barratt, who is fortunately a Francophile, finds himself taking up residence in the chateau of a French Comte, Jean De Gué, whose aristocratic family has fallen on hard times, not least because of the personality/attitude of said Comte. It is an interesting study of character, circumstance and outcomes. It is said that “Du Maurier herself liked to play games of make-believe by acting, playing or being other people just like her father did in the theatre”. Things are complicated in the chateau (especially the extreme relationships with female relatives) and Du Maurier hooks the reader through the suspense she creates, slowly revealing the answers to our questions. As I read the book I’m wondering how John is going to work out who’s who in the chateau and how Jean is related to them all, how John will deduce what the huge family problems alluded to are or find out the history of the glass foundry and its employees, not to mention how he’ll manage to unravel Jean’s romantic attachments -plural- and charm the canines, the only ones to see through this scheme, without revealing his deceit. Du Maurier uses the most mundane details to play with our minds and build tension so that the reader begins to expect disaster is just around the corner every time John (as Jean) so much as asks for a coffee, but many intimations come to nothing. It’s not all smooth sailing of course as John feels his way through uncharted waters with little navigation equipment at hand which raises other questions about how or will he recover from the misguided bluffing and blunders when he gets out of his depth?I haven’t finished the book yet either so the question of Comte Jean’s whereabouts and whether he’ll return and how that will pan out are still to be answered.It seems the making of the 1959 movie starring Sir Alec Guinness and directed by Robert Hamer, like Jamaica Inn, was fraught with problems.Movie Trivia - According to Robert Osborne of Turner Classic Movies, the original choice for Barratt / De Gué was Cary Grant, but Daphne du Maurier insisted on Guinness because he reminded her of her father, actor Gerald du Maurier. It is said she later regretted her choice though Guinness did come in handy to direct when Hamer was drunk. Bette Davis played the role of Guinness's mother. It was definitely a supporting part, but Davis accepted it because she wasn't being offered any better roles. Her one shot at a comeback, as the mother in the Broadway production of Look Homeward, Angel, had been dashed when she broke her back in a freak accident. There were problems from the start on The Scapegoat set and some have suggested that she resented Guinness's success. He had recently won the Oscar? for Best Actor for The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957), followed by a knighthood. But others have suggested that Guinness was put off by her American brashness. In the Piers Paul Read biography of Guinness, the actor said Davis "refused all invitations to dinner etc. and had no desire to chat. She despised all the British film crew...and she obviously considered me a nonentity - with which I wouldn't quarrel greatly. But she was not the artist I had expected. She entirely missed the character of the old countess, which could have been theatrically effective, and only wanted to be extravagantly over-dressed and surrounded, quite ridiculously, by flowers. She knew her lines - and spat them forth in her familiar way - and was always on time. What is called professional. A strong and aggressive personality. After the film was shown (a failure) she let it be known that she considered that I had ruined her performance and had had it cut to a minimum. (From Turner Classic Movies) I agree, Bette Davis’ acting in this movie was desperate (yes, she was supposed to be but….) and plain awful and she wasn’t the only one. The rest of the movie I would describe as bland and I had difficulty following the plot. It did not come close to building the suspense that is in the book and slowly peeling back the layers to get to the answers, which is why I thought it best to defer watching the ending.There is also a more recent movie of The Scapegoat made in 2012 but I could not get access to it. A major difference is that this movie is set in England, not France. It gets good reviews on IMDB though.In general I never expect a 90 minute movie about a great book to do the book justice. The characters and plot cannot be developed in this time. (My biggest exception to this is Sense and Sensibility with Emma Thompson but that is 136 mins). For me, miniseries are more successful because they can go into greater detail and nuance, even using direct lines from the book. The question of whether to read the book first or watch the movie really depends on both book and movie. Sometimes it is better to read first, sometimes to watch. My feeling for The Scapegoat and probably most mystery books is to read first.------oOo------Claire TilleyHello Everyone, I hope you are still all coping well in these unusual times.Thank you, Stephanie, for that wonderful librarians at play clip, and thank you also for the clever suggestions for handling meetings after the lock down is over.? It looks like you are handling the global pandemic in a very positive way.And thank you, Jill, for the topic and helpful notes you have provided.? I hope you don't mind, but so that I could use the resources available to me from home, I am comparing a short story and a play, rather than a film.Almost the last social engagement I had before we went into isolation was to see the play "Sherlock Holmes and the Death on Thor Bridge" at the Genesian Theatre.? I went with Jeff and Terry who came to the February meeting with me, and who are both real "traditional"?Sherlock fans.? Terry had read the story, "The Problem of Thor Bridge" just before he came and commented that it took him a lot less time to read than the running time of the play.? I asked him if they had added things to the play and he said that it followed the story pretty well but they had to do some things "differently", and that I should read the story myself to see what he meant.So here was the perfect opportunity.? Reading the short story took exactly 32 minutes, and the running time of the play was two hours, including a 20 minute interval, but the play was pretty faithful to the original story. One obvious way the story saves time is that we only hear about the death on Thor Bridge at the same time that Sherlock and Watson do, when they are hired to clear the name of the governess who has been charged with the murder of her employer's wife, whereas the play opens with the governess and the wife arguing on the bridge and, as the governess is running home, we hear a shot and see the wife crumple to the ground.??We already know that the governess couldn't have shot the wife, but who did?? It is Sherlock's job to work this out, and indeed he does, but I won't spoil it by revealing all in case you ever happen to read/see it yourselves.?The first thing that struck me when I started comparing the story and the play was that the two main characters, the governess and her gold mining magnate employer, were much more psychologically complex in the story than in the play, and so was the relationship between them. The employer in the story is quite a nasty man, used to getting whatever he wants.? He had once been passionately in love with his wife, but the thrill has definitely gone and he is now very verbally cruel to her. There is definitely an attraction between the employer and the governess although, on the part of the governess, it is more intellectual than physical.? She is a very compassionate, ethical person and is trying to use her influence to persuade him to use his money to help those in need. In the play, the mining magnate is not made out to be nearly as nasty as he really is, and it appears to be only old-fashioned Victorian propriety that stops the governess swooning into his arms.? At first I thought this was just laziness on the part of the playwright, after all it only took Arthur Conan Doyle a few well-worded sentences to say it all, but then I considered what the audience of that sort of play really wants, we want a couple of hours of light entertainment with the added excitement of pitting our wits against the great Sherlock Holmes.? A reader of a detective story, on the other hand, wants a bit more depth and "fleshing out" of the characters because this adds to the pleasure, particularly when you are in the hands of a master of his craft like Conan Doyle.I then started thinking about whether the story would work made into a film.? Certainly the wife/corpse (calling her a victim is inappropriate for reasons I can't explain without divulging the plot), could have her own voice, either by starting the story earlier, or by the judicious use of flashbacks.? And the relationship between the other two could have been explored better with more in-depth conversations, and long slow shots of the employer lusting and yearning, and the governess cogitating and possibly yearning just a little, but, all in all, I don't think there is really enough action for a modern film.? However, I really enjoyed the play I saw, and the story I read, and being able to compare the two of them has added to my enjoyment of each.?Best wishes to all of you, Claire------oOo------News from members and SMSAFrom Kay Templeton (SMSA Library and Saturday mystery group):Sad news,?Maj Sj?wall (co-author of the seminal Martin Beck series) has died aged 84.From Fayette Lundgren:This activity was sent to me and I think it sounds great. I am too lazy to actually take up this activity but someone else in the murder club may be interested.It is run by Alliance Francaise and they have a series of Mystery Box Games, 5 in French and 4 in English. ?After purchase (from $15) the games are mailed to you, ready to print or play virtually.Contact Alliance Francaise at .auOn their website more detail. ?It looks like funBest wishes ... FayetteFrom SMSA Library:Click and collect available from Monday 11 MayHow to Click & CollectSearch the Library catalogue or view the New Books list and find the details of the book/s you would like to borrow.Then email the Library your request with “Ciick and Collect” in the subject.The Library will email you to let you know when or if the books are available.Your books will be bagged and ready for you to collect on the day specified.Collecting Your BookLibrary Hours for Click & CollectMonday, Wednesday, Friday10:00am-1:00pmWhen you come to collect your book, you are required to comply with the following health and safety measures:Only two people are allowed in the lift at one time.There will be standing room in the lift lobby on level 2 for 4 people at a time.Please be patient if there is a queue and observe social distancing rules.Strictly no browsing in the Library (or use of computers, etc.)Please follow all health and safety instructions from staff.Book ReturnsThere will be a box on Level 2 for you to deposit returned books safely.Returned books will not be available to borrow for minimum 24 hours for health and safety reasons. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download