I have not read this particular Agatha Christie story, but I am perfectly happy to believe those reviewers who say that the plot (which certainly has a very good and gripping story, with interesting and unexpected twists) follows very closely that of her original short story of this title, set in the mid-1920s, with some of the central characters notably damaged by the horrors of The Great War.
So why did this director choose to give it such a Dickensian setting, and wind the calendar back by at least half a century, to a dim and misty gas-lit Victorian London? I expected Fagin to pop round the street corner at any moment, to pick a pocket or two, or maybe The Elephant Man to be somewhere there, since the late Freddie Jones, father of Toby, played Bytes, the brutish showman who 'owned' and exhibited the hideously deformed Joseph Merrick.
'Hideously deformed' describes this work in every way. Please note that the original was a 'short story' and yet it has been padded out to run for almost two hours, around 30% longer than a regular feature film. And what is all that padding? Nothing whatever of consequence. The character of Emily was simply left as a cardboard cut-out, and the development of her relationship with Leonard was given no screen time at all. We had grim dark scenes in police cells, portrayed more as ancient dungeons, we had the same 'variety show' song played over and over, and we had a long and drawn-out final denouement. And we had sex scenes, utterly unnecessary, just to lower the tone even further.
The story pivoted around a courtroom drama, so why did they not even make any effort try and get that right? Many of these have been commented on as 'Goofs', but the list of them is so long. Why were counsel incorrectly placed at the back of the court, right up against the dock, and not in the first row of the well of the court? Why was the accused in the witness box (yes, in Britain it's a witness box, not 'witness stand') and not back in the dock when sentence was passed? Why was the judge addressed as "Your Honour", as in American courtrooms, not as "My Lord" as in Britain? By the 1920s, what British judge would accept a man on trial for his life, a man who had volunteered and 'done his bit' in the trenches of The Great War, appearing in the dock with his face black and blue with fresh bruising from multiple beatings in the cells? And since it was a 1920s murder mystery, you might reasonably expect there to a death sentence at some point, but the judge had to stretch forward to pick up his 'black cap' from the front of his desk, and adjust it himself on top of his wig, something an assistant would always be there ready to do. And why did they then depict an American execution, with a black hood (it was white in Britain) placed over the head of the condemned, followed by a heavy coiled noose, which was never used in Britain, but it was a simple eyelet noose instead. Maybe just a cultural cringe for American TV, but it all adds up to zero directorial attention to detail.
That last comment sums it up. 1920s London, prior to the great depression, was a busy and lively place, with the bright streets of its central area electrically lit. There were smogs, but these were not gossamer wisps of mist wafting elusively through, they were like a concrete wall coming down in front of you. I was a child there in the 1940s, and I remember.
Above all, it was simply way too long, way too dark, way too muddled.
It seems to be standard form these days for Agatha Christie adaptations. Take a great story. Wreck it.
4/10, and all those points were earned by Agatha.
0 out of 0 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tell Your Friends