|
Manalive |
"I mean to keep those bullets for pessimists—pills
for pale people."—G.K. Chesterton
An Open Letter to the
Agatha Christie Estate
By Chris Chan
As a longtime admirer of Agatha Christie's work, I wish to express my concern regarding recent trends in adaptations of it. I realize that it is presumptuous of me to tell you how to act, but I also know that if a critic is concerned about cultural attitudes, he can either speak out and explain his feelings or sit back quietly and forever lose his self-respect. The Christie estate has expressed a desire to "bring Christie into the twenty-first century." I can understand the motives behind this goal, but I feel that often, the result is detrimental to the spirit of the original books.
I think that a problem plaguing many "updated" adaptations is a misguided application of Robert Barnard thesis, as expressed in his critique of Christie, A Talent to Deceive. There, Barnard suggests that Christie's popularity is due to her creation of a nebulously defined fictional world and vaguely delineated characters. These characteristics, he postulates, help her to appeal to a wide audience who read her books only for the mystery and impose their own worldviews on the tales.
I disagree with this, but screenwriters, possibly unaware of Barnard's speculations, commonly use the essence of Barnard's beliefs to produce severely flawed Christie adaptations. The problem is this: screenwriters have a habit of treating Christie novels as though they were in dire need of radical alteration. This is not a recent phenomenon; it has plagued Christie purists for some three-quarters of a century. Naturally, it is necessary to change books if they are to be made into watchable films. Christie herself said that her plotlines needed to be simplified in order to work on the stage or screen. Unfortunately, few of the changes in Christie adaptations are done for the sake of lucidity. It increasingly seems as if screenwriters believe that the only way to appeal to modern audiences is to introduce sex and violence.
The recent Geraldine McEwan Miss Marple series and Kevin Elyot's new stage version of And Then There Were None (ATTWN) are cases in point. The McEwan Marple series introduces innumerable sexual references not present in the books. The website for the new ATTWN dramatization proudly boasts that it will give Christie a "Tarantino attitude" and will "attract a younger audience more used to horror and violence than gentle whodunits." (While I do not disapprove of these productions in themselves, the McEwan Marples having many positive attributes though I have not seen the play, the ATTWN website suggests there is a misplaced attitude that Christie's style is irrelevant to modern tastes.) It is not mere caprice that the Agatha Award for mystery writing is given to works that do not feature explicit sex or violence. I would love it if new Christie adaptations were enormously successful and critically respected, but I do not believe that altering them into something unrecognizable is a wise decision. By changing Christie to appeal to perceived tastes, the result will probably leave everyone unsatisfied.
I do not mean to cause offense when I point out that many critics are dismissive and arrogant toward Christie. I despise this view, but I understand these critics' opinions. They believe that Christie is not "serious," suitable only for light diversions and unworthy of profound critical appreciation. Critics have attacked what they term Christie's "middle-class morality," her societal attitudes, and her rejection of postmodern nihilism. It would be fantastic if future productions chose to celebrate Christie's values rather than ignore or apologize for them.
The crowning achievements of Christie adaptations are the Poirot and Miss Marple series starring David Suchet and Joan Hickson, respectively. These productions are faithful to the source material, generally consistent with the original time period, and uniformly superb. Every episode suggests that the cast and crew know the books, love the books, and are living the books. Suchet and Hickson do not treat Poirot and Marple as some fictional oddities of the past to be wantonly rearranged, but as icons to be respected and loved. Compare this to the recent of Murder on the Orient Express, where Alfred Molina's Poirot behaved a manner so alien to the real Poirot that it seemed like the producers couldn't afford the rights to Christie's detective, so they created a knockoff. This was not Molina's fault; the defect lay with the adaptation. Adding modern technology or fashionable attitudes do not endear the viewer, they alienate the fan used to the unique and familiar.
The Christie estate unquestionably has tremendous respect for Agatha's work and seeks only to introduce it to wider audiences, bringing entertainment and happiness to many people. While these are good intentions, I have the uneasy feeling that by attempting to attract new segments of the public and gain heretofore hostile critics' approval, loyal fans are being marginalized. When productions imply that Christie adaptations are only watchable if sex and violence is added, the battle for respectability is already lost.
Please, let future adaptations reflect her discomfort with the mores
and hypocrisies of both unreflective post-World War I and bleak post-World
War II England. Let directors find ways to be as subtle about innuendo
and brutality as Christie was, and let adaptations be driven by Christie's
own passion for justice for all. To rephrase G.K. Chesterton, I do not
want Christie adaptations that are moved by the times, I want Christie
adaptations that will move the times. 