The General (spoilers) - And Then There Were None (2015) Discussion

[–] CaptainLombard33 8 years ago

That's correct. The General's "murder" was changed. The murder of the Rogers' employer was changed as well. In this, he suffocates her, whereas in the novel, they withheld her heart medicine and made a show of rushing to the doctor all night for aid. Blore perjures himself on the stand at Landor's trial in the novel, which gets him sent to prison and ultimately causes Landor to die, as he had delicate health. In this, it's a gay man Blore beats to death. And Lombard's was updated from simply taking the supplies and abandoning the natives to killing the natives for diamonds.

Also slightly changed is Seaton's crime. In the novel, he kills his landlady and goes to trial before Wargrave. In the film, he's a serial killer.

Agree with you that they were not needing change, but I did love the film overall.

reply

[–] SuCue 8 years ago

Thanks - that's what I recall from the earlier versions - that none of them committed actual murder (the doctor and Tony Marston committed manslaughter). I think they changed it up so they could show more gruesome death scenes, as expected by a modern audience.

reply

[–] CaptainLombard33 8 years ago

I'm not sure hat exactly the motivation was to modify some of the backstories. In fact, it seems a hint of lesbianism was added into Emily Brent's backstory regarding Beatrice Taylor.

They didn't heavily take me out of the film except to briefly wonder how they would have gotten away with it without massive cover-ups. And I'll admit, the General's flashback to shooting Richmond and then cutting back to Neill in the "present" miming holding the gun was excellently edited, and acted by Neill. Perhaps the screenwriter wanted to make the crimes resonate with some of the world events happening right now, to draw the audience in more.

From a purist standpoint, I.E., someone who really really wants an adaptation of Christie's novel as closely as humanly possible, I found it unnecessary, but I forgave it because of the things the film did right. Others expressed dissatisfaction with the bacchanal sequence. I had no problems with it. In fact I thought it was a neat visual representation of the remaining characters "walking in a zoo," and becoming more animalistic than human.

reply

[–] Jimmy-128 8 years ago

From a purist standpoint, I.E., someone who really really wants an adaptation of Christie's novel as closely as humanly possible, I found it unnecessary, but I forgave it because of the things the film did right. Others expressed dissatisfaction with the bacchanal sequence. I had no problems with it. In fact I thought it was a neat visual representation of the remaining characters "walking in a zoo," and becoming more animalistic than human.

Agreed, and the bolded is something I didn't even consider.

I have no problem with cosmetic changes, but any adaptation has to remain true to the overall themes of the book. Mr. Owen clearly states that there are varying degrees of guilt among the criminals (and innocence among the victims); if you change the crimes, it should affect the order in which Mr. Owen decides to polish them off.

reply

[–] CaptainLombard33 8 years ago

Agreed. I didn't give the change a pass, per se. I didn't like the change, but chose to overlook it. But would agree that it logically would have made the general's death occur later than it did (Due to the crime being by his own hand, rather than a pen stroke and letting the enemy do it for him)

I was thinking primarily of his crime vs. Emily Brent's. As he committed his crime with malice, and Emily Brent didn't expect Beatrice Taylor to commit suicide, that you could definitely consider his more callous than Emily Brent's, and thus he should have died after her, whether Richmond was having an affair with his wife or not.

I suppose you could argue that he died before her because even from the aftermath of the record being played, MacArthur was showing guilt and remorse over his actions, and admitted to Vera Claythorne he should have just stepped out of the way and let them be happy, whereas privately, Miss Brent showed a little bit of angst over Beatrice Taylor's death, but publicly, considered herself blameless and that her soul was a room "swept clean" for God, and thus her disposition was the reason she died later. MacArthur repented, Miss Brent (And most of the others, save for Lombard) denied their actions until shortly before each died.

Still, I'm going to counter my own argument with the knowledge from the novel that "Mr. Owen" already had the death order of his victims well planned out beforehand (With only Vera and Lombard left to the chance of her getting the gun from him) so "Mr. Owen" didn't base his killings off of how the victims acted after their crimes were announced, but well beforehand, based on their crimes. It would have made realistic sense for MacArthrur to die later, and not where he did because that's when it happens in the book.

Hmm.

reply

[–] Jimmy-128 8 years ago

It would have made realistic sense for MacArthrur to die later, and not where he did because that's when it happens in the book.

I disagree, simply because there's also the victim to consider. Arthur/Henry Richmond is arguably the least blameless of the victims--he's an adulterer, which is right up there with murder when it comes to the commandments. So once the ones who aren't really responsible are out of the way (Marston because he's not so much evil as defective, which none of the scripts have ever gotten right, and Mrs. Rogers because she was forced into the act by her husband), we come to the case where the victim is as guilty as his murderer.

reply

[–] CaptainLombard33 8 years ago

Eh, I would have to disagree with you there. Maybe adultery is in second place on he commandments list, but the punishment for killing a man who's sleeping with your spouse is the same as it is for killing someone who's not sleeping with your wife, at least by U.S. standards.

"Mr. Owen's" victim list is largely based on what he views as the severity of the crime, and the position of authority of the perpetrator. He was less harsh on the General, I think, because he understood the circumstances of the crime and noted that it was a killing more in the heat of the moment.

Another factor to consider is, "Mr. Owen" knows who's guilty, and of their crimes, but we're assuming that he knows Richmond was having an affair with the general's wife. We know he was, because we're shown flashbacks that she was, but I can't remember if the killer's postscript in the novel mentions that he knew the man the general killed was having an affair with the general's wife. (Now I'll have to reread) It stands to reason he did not, because in the film flashbacks, the only person who reads the love letters other than Richmond was the general, and I doubt after shooting him, he'd be waving the letters he found around to anyone else. The only person he confesses to about the affair in person is Vera Claythorne, and she doesn't reveal that to anyone else.

It's more likely that someone mentioned the general got away with murder when talking to "Mr. Owen," but the full details as to the why aren't fully explained.

*Edit* re-read the last section of the book again. The killer's postscript makes no mention of knowing who the general killed and why. He states some old army men told him about the general, which put the killer on his trail, and he mentions that he killed the general "quite painlessly." So based on that, and based on the film, where the only participants who we know for sure knew of Richmond's affair were the general himself, Vera, and us the viewing audience, it's fair to say that Wargrave did not know, and thus killed him when he did because he viewed Macarthur's crime as less heinous than others, he knew the general was guilt-ridden and repentant, and most importantly, he knew the general was off by himself and forgotten, and thus he had a very clear opportunity to kill him without being noticed.

In my comments stated above, I could deal with the change in the general's crime itself, the location is what got to me. They weren't on a battlefield where he could claim it was enemy fire, they were in the general's own tent when he murdered him. How did he manage to evade arrest? Did he tell everyone there was a ninja German assassin or that he was cleaning his gun point-blank against the back of Richmond's head and it accidentally went off?

To be fair, several of Mr. Owen's crimes were based on opportunity and what the killer needed to complete his crime. Case in point, Armstrong, who had no malice to kill Mrs. Clees, he was just intoxicated when he operated, and in his state, a simple procedure he'd probably done many times before without incident turned fatal. Yet he dies later than Rogers. Is that because, in his profession, he viewed Armstrong's shattering of trust as a doctor of more of a crime than Rogers' willful killing of his employer, or was it because in order to complete the rhyme, he needed a patsy, and as Armstrong knew him only by his reputation and profession, and thus had no suspicion that the killer actually WAS the murderer, he had to keep him alive until he murdered him when he did?

Same with book Blore. Much like Armstrong, his crime was done without malice, he sent Landor to prison on perjured testimony and Landor died in prison because of it. He took a bribe and got a promotion but still had no clear intent to murder him. Yet he's one of the last to be executed. Again, his position as the long arm of the law going bad is likely the main motivation why he ranks Blore's crime as highly as Lombard's and Vera's.

And while, in the film, the crime has been changed to his beating to death a homosexual, he still murdered a weak man, violated his duty as a police officer, and did so in the most brutal fashion of any of the other crimes, more than likely. There's a question mark there because we don't see exactly how Lombard murdered the natives in the film.

reply

[–] Jimmy-128 8 years ago

Eh, I would have to disagree with you there. Maybe adultery is in second place on he commandments list, but the punishment for killing a man who's sleeping with your spouse is the same as it is for killing someone who's not sleeping with your wife, at least by U.S. standards.

"Mr. Owen's" victim list is largely based on what he views as the severity of the crime, and the position of authority of the perpetrator. He was less harsh on the General, I think, because he understood the circumstances of the crime and noted that it was a killing more in the heat of the moment.

But we're not talking about U.S. standards--we're not even talking about the U.S. We're talking about a man who was raised in the Victorian Era, with all that implies. Where you were expected to memorize Bible verses as a matter of course. Where strict morality was the norm, and woe betide anyone who violated that morality.

Another factor to consider is, "Mr. Owen" knows who's guilty, and of their crimes, but we're assuming that he knows Richmond was having an affair with the general's wife. We know he was, because we're shown flashbacks that she was, but I can't remember if the killer's postscript in the novel mentions that he knew the man the general killed was having an affair with the general's wife. (Now I'll have to reread) It stands to reason he did not, because in the film flashbacks, the only person who reads the love letters other than Richmond was the general, and I doubt after shooting him, he'd be waving the letters he found around to anyone else. The only person he confesses to about the affair in person is Vera Claythorne, and she doesn't reveal that to anyone else.

It's more likely that someone mentioned the general got away with murder when talking to "Mr. Owen," but the full details as to the why aren't fully explained.

*Edit* re-read the last section of the book again. The killer's postscript makes no mention of knowing who the general killed and why. He states some old army men told him about the general, which put the killer on his trail, and he mentions that he killed the general "quite painlessly." So based on that, and based on the film, where the only participants who we know for sure knew of Richmond's affair were the general himself, Vera, and us the viewing audience, it's fair to say that Wargrave did not know, and thus killed him when he did because he viewed Macarthur's crime as less heinous than others, he knew the general was guilt-ridden and repentant, and most importantly, he knew the general was off by himself and forgotten, and thus he had a very clear opportunity to kill him without being noticed.

The nun who tells Wargrave about Doctor Armstrong doesn't mention Mrs. Clees' name, either, but Wargrave tracks her name down, anyway. Remember, he is the one who dictates the gramophone record the characters hear in Chapter 3--he has all the names, all the dates, and he specifically says, "You deliberately sent your wife's lover...to his death." He knows. And since MacArthur is as much sinned against as sinner (as the others are not), he gets killed early.

In my comments stated above, I could deal with the change in the general's crime itself, the location is what got to me. They weren't on a battlefield where he could claim it was enemy fire, they were in the general's own tent when he murdered him. How did he manage to evade arrest? Did he tell everyone there was a ninja German assassin or that he was cleaning his gun point-blank against the back of Richmond's head and it accidentally went off?

Now here we agree. I started a thread last summer where I mentioned that MacArthur and Blore definitely couldn't have gotten away with their crimes, and possibly not the Rogerses either.

To be fair, several of Mr. Owen's crimes were based on opportunity and what the killer needed to complete his crime. Case in point, Armstrong, who had no malice to kill Mrs. Clees, he was just intoxicated when he operated, and in his state, a simple procedure he'd probably done many times before without incident turned fatal. Yet he dies later than Rogers. Is that because, in his profession, he viewed Armstrong's shattering of trust as a doctor of more of a crime than Rogers' willful killing of his employer, or was it because in order to complete the rhyme, he needed a patsy, and as Armstrong knew him only by his reputation and profession, and thus had no suspicion that the killer actually WAS the murderer, he had to keep him alive until he murdered him when he did?

I've been arguing this same point for years; FINALLY someone agrees with me. All five last murders (in the book) involve a violation of trust or professional oaths. Armstrong kills a patient through gross negligence, Blore commits perjury, Vera kills a child entrusted in her care, Lombard abandons men under his command, and Wargrave (we're led to believe) sent an innocent man to be executed.

But I've lately come to think that Armstrong's position also depends on the rhyme. Wargrave clearly intends some chicanery at this point (the "red herring"), and Armstrong makes the best choice for it.

Same with book Blore. Much like Armstrong, his crime was done without malice, he sent Landor to prison on perjured testimony and Landor died in prison because of it. He took a bribe and got a promotion but still had no clear intent to murder him. Yet he's one of the last to be executed. Again, his position as the long arm of the law going bad is likely the main motivation why he ranks Blore's crime as highly as Lombard's and Vera's.

And while, in the film, the crime has been changed to his beating to death a homosexual, he still murdered a weak man, violated his duty as a police officer, and did so in the most brutal fashion of any of the other crimes, more than likely. There's a question mark there because we don't see exactly how Lombard murdered the natives in the film.

Aaaand we're back to disagreeing. If anything, Blore should be one of the first to go for that crime. A Victorian mind like Wargrave's would not view the killing of a sodomite (as he would view Landor) as worse than most of the other crimes. Remember, Wargrave came of age right around the time Parliament, at Queen Victoria's instigation, passed the Labouchere Amendment:

Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or is a party to the commission of, or procures, or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with an other male person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof, shall be liable at the discretion of the Court to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour.

We were still decades away from gay sex between two consenting adults being made legal, and even then (1967), the initial act only applied to England and Wales, not the rest of the UK, and there were all sorts of restrictions that wouldn't be overturned until 2000.

reply

[–] CharlesTheBold 8 years ago

which Christie undoubtedly knew.)
========
She definitely knew. She said the General always missed church when they preached on the David and Bathsheba story.

When I saw the shooting in the dream, I thought it was his guilty conscience exaggerating the matter. Didn't realize until later that we WEREN'T told about the suicide mission.

reply

[–] halomaniac88 (1736) 6 years ago

dramatic effect

reply

[–] momur (107) 6 years ago

The changes from indirect murder to direct murder were made because a book is a different animal to a visual medium. It's far more interesting to an audience to watch a man discover love-letters from his wife to his friend and then kill that friend, than it is to watch a man discover love-letters from his wife to his friend and then talk about sending that friend on a suicide mission and then have to explain that said suicide mission was an intentional plan to get said friend killed. Similarly with Blore - instead of having to watch Blore perjure himself, then get the news Landor died in prison, then explain that the perjury was an intentional choice, it's much more interesting in a TV show to just see one man severely beating another - the audience understands the first man killed the second in just a few moments rather than wasting minutes upon minutes on exposition. Consumption time is something you don't have to worry about when writing a book, it's definitely something to worry about when writing a script. Audiences get bored, you have to fill an allotted time, you have to keep to a certain set of rules, and most importantly exposition should always be "hidden" as much as possible. In a murder-mystery, you're really allowed one piece of "info-dump" exposition (i.e. someone just telling you everything you need to know) and that's generally reserved for the "who/how/why" reveal at the end. Everything else should ideally be done in a more dramatic way, which essentially creates a butterfly effect which leads to changes like these.

reply