MovieChat Forums > And Then There Were None (2015) Discussion > What do you want in an adaptation?

What do you want in an adaptation?

posted 8 years ago by Jimmy-128
3 replies | jump to latest

There's more debate about this adaptation than I would have thought--I thought it was the best one yet, but there are some comparing it to the 1974 monstrosity. So I'd be interested in finding out what people would want to see in an adaptation of this story, beyond good acting from the performers.

For me, the following elements must be present:

1) Original ending. I can completely understand why Christie changed the ending for the stage play, but we're long past the point where that is necessary. I want the book's ending, not the play's.

2) When it comes to the order of deaths, the why is as important as the who. There's a reason why Tony Marston dies first and Vera Claythorne last. The characterizations of Marston and Mrs. Rogers are particularly important, and they are seldom done correctly, to my mind. Marston has to be less malevolent than he is careless--Mischa Auer, in the 1940s adaptation, to my mind comes the closest to the "ideal" Marston. Likewise, Mrs. Rogers/Mrs. Martino/Mrs. Rodgers/Frau Grohmann cannot be too forceful (Marianne Hoppe, in the 1960s version, misses the mark entirely here).

3) When it comes to the order of deaths, the why is as important as the who. Yes, I know I said that before, but the characterizations of the victims is only half the puzzle. The other half lies in why the characters have been lured to the island in the first place. Every version tampers somewhat with the crimes somewhat, and each one undermines that idea that there are varying degrees of guilt amongst the ten. That's not to say that the screenwriter must slavishly adhere to the exact crimes Christie came up with--each has the right and responsibility to use their creativity to tell the story their way. But there is a world of difference between murdering a child (as Vera does in the original story and in this adaptation) and murdering an adult (as she is accused of doing in every other English-language adaptation), especially when that child has been entrusted to one's care. For me, it is vital that the General's victim be the only one that is not innocent, and that the "final five" be guilty of not just murder but dereliction of duty.

4) Atmosphere. Christie was a master of it, and the perfect adaptation must do her justice. This one, in my opinion, is the first one since the original that does.

5) Play with the rhyme, but don't go overboard. I cannot sufficiently emphasize how happy I am that the "one met a pussycat" line has been done away with, and that the last two adaptations have resisted the temptation to "jazz up" Mrs. Rogers' death by having her "run away" instead of "oversleep herself". On the other hand, the "big bear" line has never been changed, but this adaptation makes it work the most believably (the 1970s version doesn't even bother to try), and does a nice twist on the "bee sting" that I wasn't expecting.

6) If it doesn't conflict with Christie's work, show me something new. Mrs. Rogers' scenes with Miss Brent and Vera in this adaptation are two of the best (in fact, Anna Maxwell Martin is so compelling in every scene she's in that the overall production suffers when Mrs. Rogers is killed off). Lombard and Blore's relationship is more complex than I've ever seen it, and I also like Lombard and MacArthur's scene at the end of Part 1. The cocaine party might be going a bit overboard, but I can at least live with it.

Anyone else? What do you have to have in an adaptation of this story?

[–] CharlesTheBold 8 years ago

The "final five" be guilty of not just murder but dereliction of duty.
==========================

I think all of them are to some degree guilty of dereliction of duty, in Christie's view.

Vera is the most obvious case.

Judges and policemen (Wargrave and Blore) have the power to deprive people of life and liberty, and abused it.

The Rogers' victim was dependent on them for proper medical treatment, and so was Dr. Armstrongs'.

The general abused his authority to get his victim killed, when his "duty" was fighting his country's enemy.

Lombard took advantage of what would nowadays would be called "white privilege", exploiting the natives' helplessness to fight back.

In an era where few people drove, Marston could be expected to show caution at the wheel.

The religious spinster could be held to have violated her religion's call to forgiveness.

[–] Jimmy-128 8 years ago

The Rogerses are servants; maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I can't imagine that someone like Mr. Owen would hold them to as high a standard as professionals.

With MacArthur, the reason he's not grouped with the final five is because his victim is the one victim who is not innocent (leaving aside Beatrice, who's barely out of childhood). He's committing adultery. That's right behind murder on the list of ten big no-nos that Mr. Owen would have learned as a child (as Miss Brent did). So yes, MacArthur commits murder, but he's basically doing what Mr. Owen himself is doing, and that lets him off the hook early.

As for Marston, in the novel, Owen describes him thus: "a type born without that feeling of moral responsibility which most of us have." In other words, he gets killed first because, unlike the others, he's defective. Dangerous, but morally nowhere near as depraved as Lombard.

[–] CaptainLombard33 8 years ago

*Spoilers ahead, obviously*

Overall, I was pleased with this. I own a majority of the filmed versions of the novel, including the 1974 adaptation, which is awful, but has endless watchability with the likes of Oliver Reed, Gert Frobe, one of my favorite actors, Herbert Lom, and another favorite, Richard Attenborough.

Between this and Desyat Negrityat, I'd have to consider it a tie. There were aspects of Desyat that I liked better than the BBC version, and vice versa. I thought the casting was very well-done with this latest version. It was nice to see the likes of Sam Neill playing what is relatively a short part in the novel, and as soon as I saw Charles Dance was the judge, I was thrilled.

There are two minor things I'd love to see in an adaptation of this. One of them HAS been filmed in a version, but to my recollection, the other never has.

1. The discovery of General MacArthur's corpse, in he novel, is by Dr. Armstrong. This is a CRITICAL point in the novel's narrative that has never made it into an adaptation, not even Desyat Negrityat. The reason it is so crucial is because it casts suspicion on Armstrong later in the story. When Lombard and Vera are discussing who they think the killer is, Lombard dismisses Armstrong as a suspect, since he was with him a majority of the time they were searching the island before MacArthur's death. Having him be the one to discover the body throws a tailspin into his own theory, as Vera tells him he could have killed MacArthur when he went to get him for lunch, and simply told everyone that he'd been dead some time before Armstrong discovered him. Since he was a doctor, no one questioned him when he said MacArthur was dead before he found him. Vera's statement, in the novel, certainly is enough to get Lombard rethinking his own theory, and would be beneficial to the viewing audience, as keeping everyone in a position to have committed any murder at any time is crucial.

2. Also tied to Armstrong, the moving of his body after he's found. Only Desyat Negrityat included time to having Lombard and Vera move the cody of Armstrong out of the range of the high water mark. Since Wargrave's ultimate goal is to create an unsolvable crime, it's crucial that Armstrong is moved out of range of the water because if it's not, it could be surmised Armstrong killed everyone, then jumped to his death and drowned and his body washed back to the island (Or away from it) The novel even mentions that Armstrong couldn't have committed the murders because someone moved his body after he washed ashore.

Interestingly, both this and Desyat leave Lombard's poor corpse at the mercy of the tides. He's washed around in the surf after Vera shoots him in Desyat, and the waves are lapping around his corpse in the BBC remake as well. In either version, he could wash out to sea, disappear, and have the crimes blamed on him.

I call them minor changes, but I suppose I call them minor due to the fact that both changes would add little to nothing to the running time, but the events after Armstrong's body is discovered are really crucial to Wargrave's plan of creating the perfect unsolvable crime.