PBS Masterpiece Mystery 2010

[JoanK]

Masterpiece Mystery 2010 brings back favorite sleuths with new episodes. See the complete 2010 MASTERPIECE MYSTERY schedule. 

NOW DISCUSSING

A Study in Pink
October 24, 2010 at 9pm
One 90-minute episode
Sherlock Holmes teams up with former army doctor John Watson to solve a case of serial suicides and corner a killer who has mysterious powers over his victims.

COMING

The Blind Banker
October 31, 2010 at 9pm
One 90-minute episode
Pursuing the case of a banker and a journalist shot dead by a ghostly assailant, Sherlock and Watson uncover an antiquities-smuggling empire.


The Great Game
November 7, 2010 at 9pm
One 90-minute episode
In a gripping match of wits, Sherlock solves crimes at a dizzying pace for a mad bomber who threatens to blow up innocent people.


ALREADY DISCUSSED
List of series and episodes already discussed.

Discussion Leaders:  JoanP and marcie

I enjoyed it, too. I couldn't help smiling seeing him so thrilled to drive the train!

The corridors are the way I remember. I think they just refitted the staterooms to contain a bench on each side where about 3 people could sit. Evidently when I rode it, it was going downhill (the clogged-up toilets) and they had converted some cars to tourist class.

[serenesheila]

I just finished the Orient Express, as I had taped it.  Thoroughly, enjoyed it!  What beautiful scenery.  The train itself, is beautiful, too.  I would love to take a trip on it, however the price of a ticket, exceeds my budget.  Now, I am looking forward to the latest Poirout, tomorrow night.

Sheila

[marcie]

Sheila, I just looked up the price of a two day/one night trip from Venice to Paris on the Venice Simplon Orient Express and, of course, you have to get yourself over to the starting destination  . http://www.orient-express.com/web/vsoe/journeys/4_121968.jsp


Shared Occupancy of a Double cabin   US$2680
Shared Occupancy of a Suite cabin   US$3610
Prices are per person and include all table d'hôte meals and accommodation on board based on two people sharing.

I too am looking forward to the new version of  MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS tonight. It must have been helpful to David Suchet as an actor to have that train ride and background information before he filmed the mystery.

[ANNIE]

I am just now watching David Suchet's film about the Orient Express and his travels through those gorgeous countrysides!  When do we leave??? How about we go for a whole week???  I can barely afford going to NYC in September.  My gosh, $2600 a night!  I wonder how many meals they give you for those prices??

[pedln]

Well, that would be a magnificent trip, but I'll settle for just about any train ride.  I love them.  The one across the Canadian Rockies has sleeping compartments, I think, and probably is not as costly as the Orient Express.

I saw the David Suchet special the other night, but don't know if I'll get to see the Christie film.  Bloomin' cable -- one channel -- PBS -- has undecipherable captions, gobblydegook.  Good one day, undecipherable the next.  Okay yesterday, not ok today.  The local PBS has been helpful and cooperative, but say it's not on their end.  Finally got hold of some clout people with the cable company -- not easy -- so we shall see.  Of course I'm the only person in SE Missouri or even the world complaining about this. Baloney.

[Frybabe]

I watched Murder of the Orient Express last night. I was surprised by how much I had forgotten about the plot. Did anyone else think Poirot seemed to be in a constant bad, irritated, or impatient mood through the whole of the story? He only reluctantly got involved, and not one word about his little grey cells.

[Babi]

   There were some changes in the plot, though not too many.  And some of the characters were younger...and different.  I did think changing the character of Mrs. Hubbard was a mistake;
the original was much more amusing and believable.
  Poirot was a much grimmer character in this version.  I felt it was less in keeping with the character Christie created.

[pedln]

It's been a while since I've seen the Albert Finney film.  How do you feel this filme compares with it?  Were there many changes?

[ANNIE]

I remembered another man playing Poirot, not Albert Finney who was Poirot for "Orient Express" movie.  It was Peter Ustinov and here's part of the article that I just read.

'EMI returned to Poirot in a theatrical release of Death on the Nile in 1978, based on the novel of the same name and starring this time Peter Ustinov as Poirot. The movie was actually filmed in Egypt under horrendous temperatures, and the poor crew had no hotel reservations. The cast was an all-star one also, with: Bette Davis, David Niven, Mia Farrow, Angela Lansbury, and Jack Warden. The movie poster (painted by Richard Amsel who did the "Raiders of the Lost Ark" poster) featured an Egyptian King holding a knife in one hand and a revolver in the other.

Peter Ustinov returned as Poirot in another production, this time by Universal of Evil Under the Sun, premiering in 1982. The movie also starred Diana Rigg, James Mason, and Roddy McDowall. The director of the movie was Guy Hamilton, also director of Bond movies like "Goldfinger", "Diamonds Are Forever", and "Live and Let Die". Another theatrical release of a Poirot movie came in 1988, starring Ustinov again as Poirot. This was Appointment With Death, this time an EMI production, also starring Carrie Fisher and Lauren Bacall.


Ustinov wasn't done, however, with portraying the Belgian detective. He appeared as Poirot in three made-for-television movies: Thirteen at Dinner (1985), Dead Man's Folly (1986), and Murder in Three Acts (1986). The first of these was based on Lord Edgware Dies and was made by Warner Brothers. It also starred Faye Dunaway and David Suchet as Inspector Japp, just before he himself played the famous detective. (Interesting note is that Suchet once said that playing Japp was "possibly the worst performance of my career.") The next TV movie of Ustinov's was Dead Man's Folly, again by Warner Bros. and shown in 1986. The role of Ariadne Oliver the novelist was portrayed by Jean Stapleton; Tim Piggot-Smith also starred. The last of the Ustinov movies was Murder in Three Acts in 1986 (based on Three-Act Tragedy). It starred Jonathan Cecil and Tony Curtis. Instead of the setting being in England, it was changed to Acapulco.


Before the current actor doing Poirot is discussed, another made-for-TV movie was shown on CBS in April 2001, starring the English actor Alfred Molina as Poirot in Murder on the Orient Express. He's the Poirot of the 21st Century, using his gray cells of the brain with modern technology. (Would Poirot really use a laptop computer? No, I don't think so.) For what Molina's given here, and a tough act to follow, Molina does a fair job of doing Poirot. However, the script is the main fault here, with Poirot getting a love interest, with the changes of characters and the way Poirot goes about his investigations. Of all of the Poirot stories to adapt, why was this one picked? It's nearly impossible to do a "new version" after the Albert Finney film: it was near perfection because it was so faithful to the novel. This TV movie received bad reviews from historians, fans, and critics alike. Although I like Molina as an actor, this movie really stunk."

[marcie]

Pedln, I'm sorry that your closed captioning is problematic. I hope that gets fixed. I prefer to use it with programs where the actors speak with accents and programs that have a lot of interesting dialog.

Thanks very much, Anne, for posting that information about the various actors who played the lead in "Murder on the Orient Express." I'm going to look for the 1974 film with Albert Finney. I don't remember it. Look at this list of stars from that version!! The film starred Albert Finney as Poirot, Martin Balsam as M. Bianchi, Richard Widmark as Ratchett and an all-star cast of suspects including Sean Connery, Lauren Bacall, Anthony Perkins, John Gielgud, Michael York, Jean-Pierre Cassel, Jacqueline Bisset, Dame Wendy Hiller, Vanessa Redgrave, Colin Blakely and Ingrid Bergman (who won the 1974 Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her role as Greta Ohlsson).

Fybabe and Babi, I plan to watch the episode on my "on demand" cable station today. I'll look to see if I too perceive a sterner Poirot. And I'll watch for the changes in characters from the book.

[Frybabe]

Speaking of Albert Finney, my favorite movie of his that I've seen is The Green Man. I remember liking the movie Tom Jones when it came out, but I haven't been interested in seeing it again.

[JoanK]

I saw the movie last night. I felt it was ok, but not great. The camera spent too much time focussing on Suchet, and not enough time developing the other characters. They just cluttered up the place, and didn't have the indeviduality that Christie gave them.

I had planned to reread the book, first, but only got hlfway through it. The first half was true to the book, evcept for the stoning scene at the beginning. They did it to set up the moral dilemma at the end (This was a big change from the book).

I'd give it a "C", not up to other versions I've seen. The Ustinov version was very good (in spite of the fact that U was nothing like Poirot). I don't remember the Finney version.

[Zulema]

I haven't started the book yet, which I thank SeniorNet and WGBH for.  It has been many years since I read it, but I hope I will enjoy it more than I did the new TV production.  I have heard from other viewers in a different List/Serve and many were as disappointed as I was.  I found the tone to be off, no humor in it at all, Poirot terribly grim and out of sorts throughout, and his shouting and badgering so out of character.  I enjoyed the Suchet special on the "Orient Express" and all his intelligent and charming comments, so I know that his new Poirot was not because he's lost his acting abilities but more a directorial choice, no doubt.  And for me, a mistaken choice.

JOAN, it won't matter if postage goes up.  The Forever Stamps are just that, forever.

[salan]

I, too, was very disappointed in the program.  The story was slightly different and there was no humor. I wonder if the writers wrote it that way or was it Suchet's interpretation?  I prefer my Poirot to have a little humor!
Sally

[JudeS]

I just finished the book and found that this new PBS version has taken great pains to add things that are NOT in the book and to delete things that are there.

They added all kinds of religous overtones from the stoning of the Moslim woman to Poirots dependence on his beads and crucifix to guide him.  There is not an iota of religosity in Christies books.  Why was this added? It turned into a morality tale instead of a darn good mystery tale.

As some of you have mentioned they took away Poirot's sense of humor and made him a dour, aging person. His moustache
curled downward instead of being perkily uplifted at the ends.

I was left feeling that PBS has let us down this time.  I hope future episodes will stay closer to the original Christie mysteries.

[straudetwo]

Happy to join, have questions.

In the first post in this folder, this PBS endeavor is billed as David Suchet's adaptation, broadcast in consecutive episodes.  

My own first experience was on Friday, July 7.  I  enjoyed it, particularly  the  scenes from Venice, where I lived once.  Imagine my disappointment when yesterday, July 11, the very same one was shown.  This single episode, viewed twice,  is my only reference point.
 
The episode was, to me,  a (somewhat uneven) blending of Orient Express  history and lore, narrated by David Suchet  (latterly sans mustache), with random (often lightning-speed) scenes from the original movie of Murder on the Orient Express,  interspersed with David Suchet's return trip as a celebrity himself,  with the usual picture-taking and hand-shaking.  

I've come to this discussion late and without preparation,  and so I wonder how are we to take this "adaptation"?
 
As the prelude to a new Masterpiece Theatre movie (is one being planned?),
or as part of the celebration for Dame Agatha, and  recall this perhaps best-kown mystery?

In any case, it is a wonderful incentive to read the book, even for a non-mystery fan like me.  And I'm enjoying it.  
Thank you, JoanP.

[retired]

I viewed the PBS movie Murder On the Orient Express yesterday . I agree with many of the comments here.
I understood the moral dilemma but I was confused at the ending scene .
Could some one be kind enogh to explain the ending scene for me ?   That sneer/ smile on Piroit "s face really as he walks away from the Border Police really confused me .  Help Help 

[Frybabe]

Hi retiried. I thought the look on Poirot's face was more of distain or disgust. I couldn't tell from the scene whether or not he actually gave them all up or let them go. The guilty parties certainly all looked hopeful, but also like they were uncertain what he had told the police as he walked away from them.

Traude, you can view the episode you missed online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/poirot/watch.html until 7/25. They reran the David Suchet trip on the Orient Express right after the play production on the 11th here. Maybe your station plans to run the production later this week!?

They added all kinds of religous overtones from the stoning of the Moslim woman to Poirots dependence on his beads and crucifix to guide him.

JudeS, I noticed it but didn't think on it to deeply since I haven't read the book yet. Interjecting some kind of social commentary do you think?

[dbroomsc]

I haven't posted in so long, I have almost forgotten how.  However, I feel I must respond to the PBS Masterpiece version of Agatha Christie's "Murder on the Orient Express" shown on July 11. 

What a disappointment!  As someone mentioned earlier, Poirot seemed angry and irritable most of the time.  The Poirot we have come to expect was missing.  Also, the character development was almost nonexistent.  The development of the 12 characters is so important to understanding the story.  Perhaps two episodes would have been preferable.  Ninety minutes, actually less than ninety minutes, is not sufficient time to do the plot justice. 

The Albert Finny version of the story takes more time to develop the story, although, I think David Suchet is the better  Hercule Poirot.  Neither version was a good as the book, which I thank those in charge for sending me a copy.  However, I'm looking forward to the next two Poirot programs which I hope will prove to be better.

[Tomereader1]

I had DVR'd the program, and as my luck would have it, the DVR froze up about 10 minutes before the ending, which meant I had to reset it, and it lost those ten minutes.  However, I found in the beginning, that Poirot was practically comatose, and exquisitely "boring".  I don't think I missed a whole lot by the DVR malfunction.  I have seen other D. Suchet performances, and he had more life and humor.

[Babi]

I had forgotten the Albert Finney movies, ANNIE. What surprises me is the all-star casts that were featured in those films. Most of the actors I've seen in these made-for-TV specials are people not familiar to me.
  I agree, JUDE. The emphasis was on the moral question of what constitutes true justice.  I hadn't noticed the bit about the down-turned mustache. That probably contributed a good deal to the grimmer effect we saw in Poirot. Sharp eye you've got there.
  I thought it evident, from the behavior of the police, that Poirot had said nothing about the mass guilt of the passengers. No startled reactions, no stern glances directed towards  them. The self-appointed
administers of justice were safe. Frankly, I don't think any jury would
have condemned them.

[JoanK]

Yes, Christie doesn't pose it as a huge moral dilemma. Nor, as was said, was there any religion in Christie. We know that Poirot was a practicing catholic, but he doesn't use his religion to help him make decisions, nor use a rosary. In the book, it is not he who makes the decision: he leaves it to the other officials.

The one exception to lack of religion in Christie that I can remember is an early book where the murderer "gets away" with it, and then is killed in a plane crash. The implication is that this is God's justice. (Rather hard on the other people in the plane!).

But there is a dilemma here. Does everyone agree with the decision to let them go?

[FlaJean]

I was also disappointed with the PBS "Murder---".

[straudetwo]

The PBS film was shown here on Monday night as well  on the second Boston PBS channel,  and that's when I saw it.  
The beginning was rbaffling :  for there's nothing  in the book about a stoning.    This prequel-like introduction  was apparently considered necessary by the script writers.
The characters were not as clearly and distinctly portrayed in the movie.  I much prefer the book. Are we going to discuss it or the movie, or both?  

[marcie]

Traude, let's talk about both the book and the PBS episode. Has everyone who wants to do so had a chance to view the episode and to finish the book?

[salan]

I was rather "jarred" by Poirot's reaction to the stoning at the beginning of the production.  He implied that she had it coming as she knew what consequences breaking the law had.  Now that I look back on it, this set the tone of Poirot.  I hadn't noticed the down turned mustache.  Those things plus Poirot's constant fingering of the rosary beads completely changed his character.  Don't you wonder why producers, writers and actors feel it necessary to change vital elements in the story?  The book and the original movie were much better than this production.  Why did they feel they needed to "modernize" the story?
Sally

[Babi]

 Well, now that I think about it, if you're going to film a story that's been done umpteen times,
I suppose the producers and playwrights would hunger to do something different.    If all the
characters were presented exactly the same way each time, would I really bother to watch it?

[Frybabe]

Found this interesting site about Poirot. http://www.poirot.us/

[marcie]

Frybabe, that is an interesting web site. I especially enjoyed the section on how David Suchet prepares for the role of Poirot at http://www.poirot.us/suchet.php.

As most of you (Frybabe, JoanK, Salan, Zulema, JudeS, dean69, Tomereader, Flajean, Babi) have posted, I, too, thought that there was no humor in the filmed version. The book had me laughing out loud in a few places (especially in scenes with Poirot, the director of the train company and the doctor). With only 90 minutes for the PBS version, it seems that the screenwriter and/or director thought that they couldn't afford the distraction of humor and Poirot had to remain solemn to keep the tone of "moral dilemma" that permeated this film adaptation.

Also, with only 90 minutes, I thought that the characters were not developed enough for me to have a lot of empathy with them.

[marcie]

salan, I've seen on some other sites that some people think that Poirot was condoning the stoning of the woman in the beginning scenes. When Poirot meets Mary D on the train and says he saw her in Istanbul and she realizes he saw the stoning, Mary D says she is outraged by it. Poirot says it's best not to intervene in other people's cultures and justice is often difficult to watch but he qualified by saying that he did find it upsetting. In one of the last scenes in the car when he is speaking to the 12 passengers, Poirot brings up the stoning as "vigilante justice" and not something he approves of.

JoanK, I agree that the writer/director did seem to me to be rather heavy handed in the introduction of religious themes/symbolism to convey moral issues. What do you all think about those elements in this adaptation?


SPOILER ALERT ABOUT ENDING
Retired asks what happened in the last scene. Babi thinks that Poirot didn't give away the culprits but blamed the murder on a stranger who dressed up as a conductor and fled the scene, as happens in the book, with the director of the train choosing that option. I think so too.I think Poirot is "doing his penance" praying on this rosary for his role in covering up how justice was done. How do you think the ending portrays what Poirot told the police? JoanK asks what we think of letting go those who took the life of Ratchett (if you think that is what happened).

[salan]

I don't think Poirot gave up the passengers.  He implied that it was someone dressed up as a conductor and let the inspectors draw their own conclusions.  Perhaps, he thought it was vigilante justice and 'twas best not to interfere.  If so, how do you think this compares to the vigilante justice of the crowd stoning the woman???  Interesting thought and sort of ties the beginning of the program to the end. 
Joan K.  I agree with the decision to let them go.  I would never be chosen to serve on a jury for a trial of anyone who killed a child molester.  If anyone harmed my child or grandchild in that manner, I would be tempted to seek justice.  The courts are far to lenient on these criminals imo.
Sally

[Frybabe]

Here is in interesting historical article on stoning from Wikipedia. I am surprised by what I read. It also has some lists at the bottom including "stonings in literature". It is a very short list but includes Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning

[Zulema]

Joan,

Just finished the book and I am so glad you sent it and again, thank you.  It is not the best Agatha Christie book, but then it is claustrophobic by its very nature.  Not much room to move around in.  There is no stoning of anyone and the suicide of an officer is mentioned in a by-the-way manner as having occurred in the background in a process of setting things right in Aleppo, nothing to do with Poirot.   He does not reprimand anyone and caused them to commit suicide.  I see it as a mistake to bring in extraneous material just to make it "relevant" to the present time.  I mentioned the mustache in my mystery List/Serve and felt I was being catty.  It actually seems to not fit too well on Poirot's right side and I'm glad it was noticed by others.  Poirot never lifts his voice, he is said to smile at various points.  He gets angry once, early, but it's shown by what he says rather than by having him shout and it is at the absurdity of the situation, not directed at any one person: "Ah! c'est rigolo, tout ça!"  There are many humorous comments, the doctor is certainly not involved in the murder, and the end is worked out very diplomatically.  Two solutions are offered  by Poirot, and after he shows the passengers that he knows exactly what happened and how, he then demonstrates to the train officers and to the passengers that the incorrect solution he offered first is the best under the circumstances and the one, that of an intruder, that will be passed on to the "Jugo-Slavian" authorities.  They agree.  End of affair.

There is no condoning of murder, but the tone of the dialogue is what conveys that, not unnecessary religious discussions and pitting Protestant Evangelism against Roman Catholicism.
I for one found the exchange between the missionary, who in the book never preaches, and Poirot who then pulls out his rosary (not remotely in the book), as blatantly cheapening the action.  Tone is what is lacking in this production.




 

[marcie]

SPOILER ALERT ABOUT THE ENDING

salan, in my mind, one way that the family and friends carrying out the death sentence of Ratchett differs from the vigilante justice of the crowd stoning the woman is that I think that Ratchett had been legally indicted for murder but let off on a technicality (something like that). The 12 people believed they were carrying out a just sentence. It was discussed and planned among them. The stoning in the beginning of the PBS adaptation looked like a frenzied mob.

Frybabe, that information about stoning is hard to read. It's very upsetting. I remember vividly reading THE LOTTERY by Shirley Jackson in school.

Zulema, thanks very much for the detailed comparison of the book and TV adaptation. It does seem that some of the symbolism (eg, pulling  out the rosary) was "in-your-face" and, as you say, not in keeping with the tone of the book. Also not in keeping with the tone of former PBS Poirot mysteries. I hope that the two new ones in the coming weeks won't disappoint us.

 

[pedln]

Well, my 2 am taping was not totally successful, so will try for the last option which is tomorrow night.  Re: the stoning scene -- perhaps just to emphasize moral issues and different methods of justice?  I thought the last scene was interesting, with everyone out in the snow, which was not the way I pictured it from the book. But it lets PBS add its own bit of creativity. This film offered a very severe Poirot.  Now I want to see the Albert Finney film again.

Wallendar series:  Yes, please put me on the list for the Henning Mankell books to accompany the upcoming PBS fall series.

[JoanP]

OK, Pedln, you are #1 on the list for free set of the new Mankell books.   Those other Wallendar books were really good - and the PBS presentations stayed close enough to Henning Mankell's characters.

SPOILER ALERT ABOUT THE ENDING
I thought that too -that the stoning scene was there to emphasize that different cultures had different ways of administering justice, and though Poirot found them disturbing, he had no business interfering.  So, isn't that what has happened at the end when the passengers are at last taken from the train in Jugo-Slavia - notorious for its justice system - Poirot has left it for the justice of the region to prevail.  He isn't happy to do this - but he has turned over the tangible evidence - the button, the pipe cleaner, etc  that he has gathered, and "prays"  (on his beads?) that they will reach the conclusion there is not  enough evidence to convict any of the passengers - and that someone else would have been able to get on the train, commit the murder and jump off.  

Poirot has avoided giving the police the evidence that ALL OF THE PASSENGERS were guilty...because, as Marcie says, "the 12 people believed they were carrying out a just sentence."  Poirot has avoided the issue - just as he has avoided the stoning of the woman at the start.  Let Justice take its course.  He is not the judge.

Ask me tomorrow, and I'll probably come to a different interpretation.  I'm eager to hear what you all thought!

[Zulema]

Joan,

You mean there will be Mankell books given away for the price of shipping?  Put me down too.  I'll send a check this time.  Unfortunately the best Mankell  TV adaptations are the Swedish ones with English subtitles.  I saw some of them at Scandinavia House in NYC a couple of years ago, and also some Karin Fossum films (Norwegian).  The Swedish Mankell films were also available quite a few years ago on a PBS channel in Virginia, but they never came to the NY area at all.

[JoanK]

Put me down for the Mankell books as well. I wish I had seen the Swedish Mankell films.

I understand the Swedish film of the first Larson book (The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo") is very good, but very violent. The rape scene(s) are quite explicit, I understand. I haven't seen it -- haven't decided if I want to or not.

[marcie]

JoanP, I too would like to be on the list for a set of Mankell books when you get them in September: Faceless Killers, The Man Who Smiled, and The Fifth Woman. Thank you and thanks for including the alert about them in the latest Book Bytes email news.

Zulema, I too would have liked to see the original Swedish Wallander but I do enjoy Kenneth Branagh in the part. There are two Branagh interviews at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4atF2-njnQ (you can select the second one after you view the first) in which he describes his impressions of the character of Wallander and what some of the directors are bringing to the new series.

If anyone here does not receive Book Bytes (the SeniorLearn newsletter that is emailed twice a month) and you want to be on the mailing list, please post here or email me. Thanks. marciei@aol.com

[marcie]

Pedln, I did think that the scene with everyone in the snow was interesting. I too plan to watch the Albert Finney version of Murder on the Orient Express.

JoanP, I like the fact that we viewers have varied interpretations of the ending and I agree with your thought that we sometimes change our own views of what happened.