Apart from a few added extras not originally in the novel (including a sub-plot that, surprisingly, pays off) this adaptation did justice to Christie's novel, and remains very true to it - something, I fear, some earlier adaptations failed to do. Elephants Can Remember was always one of my favourites as it featured Ariadne prominently, so it was wonderful seeing Zoe Wanamaker reprising the role and giving the episode a few fantastic giggles - as only Ariadne and her way with words can. Suchet was phenomenal as always, but what really made the episode was John Strickland's direction. It was a pleasure to watch and an excellent introduction to the 13th season.
18 Reviews
Dark clever,well crafted mystery.
Sleepin_Dragon8 October 2018
I have never been a huge lover of Elephants can remember, but it's an appealing enough novel, but this adaptation is a good one. Great that as the Poirot series comes to an end, it still manages to maintain some real quality.
I like the story, it's intriguing enough, and clever, the conclusion is one I really did enjoy, it makes you think, even if it does stretch the imagination somewhat. I've always found this one quite dark, there are some scenes where the matter is quite bleak.
Ariadne works well in this episode, she fuels Poirot somehow, he of course is his brilliant self. I particularly liked Adrian Lukis and Vincent Regan. Greta Scacchi gets some great lines as the snobby Mrs Burton Cox, she's very funny.
One of those episodes where I feel the adaptation trumps the novel. 8/10
I like the story, it's intriguing enough, and clever, the conclusion is one I really did enjoy, it makes you think, even if it does stretch the imagination somewhat. I've always found this one quite dark, there are some scenes where the matter is quite bleak.
Ariadne works well in this episode, she fuels Poirot somehow, he of course is his brilliant self. I particularly liked Adrian Lukis and Vincent Regan. Greta Scacchi gets some great lines as the snobby Mrs Burton Cox, she's very funny.
One of those episodes where I feel the adaptation trumps the novel. 8/10
Thoroughly entertaining and a huge improvement over the book
TheLittleSongbird10 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I do feel saddened that the Poirot series is nearly at an end, seeing as I have been a fan of the series and Agatha Christie for 10 years. It really is not going to feel the same not having another adaptation to look forward to; this said we do have the series and can always watch every episode as much as we want. While Elephants Can Remember is not one of the best of the series, it is still a fine and more than worthy entry. It is also one of those rarities in the series where the adaptation is an improvement over the book, that is the case with this adaptation of Elephants Can Remember and the improvement actually is quite vast. Agatha Christie is always worth reading, her mysteries, writing and how she develops characters are always engrossing but Elephants Can Remember is my least favourite of any of her books featuring Hercule Poirot. The characters are interesting and I will always admire Christie's writing style but the storytelling is unusually contrived and inconsistent in Elephants Can Remember with a final solution that is not that surprising.
With the adaptation I don't think it was quite perfect, but had so many merits. As always with the series,(apart from an out-of-place sighting of green screen in the first encounter with Dr Willoughby) it is beautifully photographed and evocatively evoked in period detail. The music when it's used is elegant and kept simply, not as much as the adaptations pre-2000 or so but a refreshing change from the more cinematic approach(very effective though) heard in the adaptations of Halloween Party and the much-maligned, but for me underrated, Appointment with Death. The dialogue is as thoughtful and intelligent as ever with the odd bit of subtle humour and its fair shares of dramatic(the final solution) and touching(the flashbacks) moments.
The adapted screen-writers do wonders adaptation the story, making it much more compelling and comprehensible than in the book. There are changes of course, characters are omitted and there are additional characters and subplots, but they don't distort things at all and are interesting. In fact, I really appreciated the idea of Dorothea's daughter wanting revenge and the character of Dr Willoughby being expanded. The Dr Willoughby Institute subplot was so seamlessly interwoven you could have sworn it was in the book. And even with the changes I found it remarkable in how true to Agatha Christie and her style it was. With how the story is told here, it makes sense and it draws you right and never lets go. The second half is a little more securely paced than the first, which- while it was a good idea to build things up with time to get to know the characters and such- is a tad pedestrian at times, but not to the extent that you were interminably bored or anything. The final half-hour is very dramatic and Poirot's trip to Paris and his scene with the au pare were a delight.
David Suchet is wonderful as Poirot, I wouldn't expect anything less as he always is and is by far and large the best of the Poirot actors. Zoe Wanamaker's Ariadne Oliver is a triumph, with great chemistry with Suchet and her scenes with the Elephants are beautifully played. Elsa Mollien is very moving in her role, and the Ravenscrofts and Iain Glenn's Dr Willoughby are similarly touchingly portrayed. Caroline Blackiston and Ruth Sheen give some fine comic moments, while Greta Scacchi does loathsome so convincingly that we instantly hate her character without being forced to do so. Vanessa Kirby and Ferdinand Kingsley's roles as Celia and Desmond are not quite written as memorably, but both are played solidly with no noticeable foibles. The weakest was Alexandra Dowling, her performance was on the bland side with a questionable accent and her character mostly didn't seem very necessary up until a certain point, which was very cleverly done.
Overall, vastly improved over the source material and while not quite perfect or among the best of the series I liked it very much indeed. 8.5/10 Bethany Cox
With the adaptation I don't think it was quite perfect, but had so many merits. As always with the series,(apart from an out-of-place sighting of green screen in the first encounter with Dr Willoughby) it is beautifully photographed and evocatively evoked in period detail. The music when it's used is elegant and kept simply, not as much as the adaptations pre-2000 or so but a refreshing change from the more cinematic approach(very effective though) heard in the adaptations of Halloween Party and the much-maligned, but for me underrated, Appointment with Death. The dialogue is as thoughtful and intelligent as ever with the odd bit of subtle humour and its fair shares of dramatic(the final solution) and touching(the flashbacks) moments.
The adapted screen-writers do wonders adaptation the story, making it much more compelling and comprehensible than in the book. There are changes of course, characters are omitted and there are additional characters and subplots, but they don't distort things at all and are interesting. In fact, I really appreciated the idea of Dorothea's daughter wanting revenge and the character of Dr Willoughby being expanded. The Dr Willoughby Institute subplot was so seamlessly interwoven you could have sworn it was in the book. And even with the changes I found it remarkable in how true to Agatha Christie and her style it was. With how the story is told here, it makes sense and it draws you right and never lets go. The second half is a little more securely paced than the first, which- while it was a good idea to build things up with time to get to know the characters and such- is a tad pedestrian at times, but not to the extent that you were interminably bored or anything. The final half-hour is very dramatic and Poirot's trip to Paris and his scene with the au pare were a delight.
David Suchet is wonderful as Poirot, I wouldn't expect anything less as he always is and is by far and large the best of the Poirot actors. Zoe Wanamaker's Ariadne Oliver is a triumph, with great chemistry with Suchet and her scenes with the Elephants are beautifully played. Elsa Mollien is very moving in her role, and the Ravenscrofts and Iain Glenn's Dr Willoughby are similarly touchingly portrayed. Caroline Blackiston and Ruth Sheen give some fine comic moments, while Greta Scacchi does loathsome so convincingly that we instantly hate her character without being forced to do so. Vanessa Kirby and Ferdinand Kingsley's roles as Celia and Desmond are not quite written as memorably, but both are played solidly with no noticeable foibles. The weakest was Alexandra Dowling, her performance was on the bland side with a questionable accent and her character mostly didn't seem very necessary up until a certain point, which was very cleverly done.
Overall, vastly improved over the source material and while not quite perfect or among the best of the series I liked it very much indeed. 8.5/10 Bethany Cox
Elephants can Remember was a good adaptation
fabian526 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Ariadne Oliver was not a "fill in" character as one reviewer here suggested. She was in Agatha Christie's original Elephants Can Remember book and ITV, of course, included her in their TV adaptation. After Colonel Hastings stopped being Poirot's assistant after her 1937 book "Dumb Witness", Agatha Christie chose to eventually appoint Ariadne Oliver as Poirot's new full time assistant from the 1952 Poirot book--Mrs McGinty's Dead--onwards. (Ariadne Oliver did appear in Cards on the Table with Poirot too in 1936 but that was a temporary post) Suchet certainly does not seem out of breath playing Poirot in this film adaptation.
Anyhow, this ITV production does have new elements that were not in Christie's original book such as the Willoughby Institute angle and the murderous Marie McDermott, daughter of Dorothea Jarrow but for the most part I felt the producers tried to stay true to the book such as the fact that Molly Ravenscroft was indeed accidentally killed by her identical sister Dorothea Jarrow. But before dying, Molly asked her husband (General Ravenscroft) to protect her sister (Dorothea) from prosecution. Only the family dog could tell the difference between the identical twins Molly and Dorothea. The Colonel honoured his dead wife's wishes until the final day of reckoning with Dorothea at the cliff.
ITV had to adapt the original book since Elephants Can Remember was Agatha Christie's last Poirot book--from 1972--written when her mental faculties were in decline and she might have been suffering from dementia. John Curran, the Christie specialist, in "Agatha Christie's Murder in the Making" called her book here "a disappointment. Like the books published (by Christie) on either side of it (in the 1970's), there are too many rambling conversations that give the reader little solid information" but are merely repetitious. (Curran, p.394) ITV did a reasonable job of turning a below average book into a good TV adaptation.
Curtain, Christie's published Poirot book from 1975, was written three decades prior to Elephants Can Remember. John Curran who studied Christie's original manuscript for Curtain notes that "the address on the manuscript of Curtain is 'Greenway House', which Christie left in October 1942 on its requisition by the US navy" while one of the typewritten corrections to a notebook containing the manuscript for Curtain "seems to date to the early 1940s." (Curran, pp.211-213) So, Elephants Can Remember was certainly Christie's last written Poirot book since Curtain was actually written by the author in the early 1940's as a final farewell for Poirot.
Anyhow, this ITV production does have new elements that were not in Christie's original book such as the Willoughby Institute angle and the murderous Marie McDermott, daughter of Dorothea Jarrow but for the most part I felt the producers tried to stay true to the book such as the fact that Molly Ravenscroft was indeed accidentally killed by her identical sister Dorothea Jarrow. But before dying, Molly asked her husband (General Ravenscroft) to protect her sister (Dorothea) from prosecution. Only the family dog could tell the difference between the identical twins Molly and Dorothea. The Colonel honoured his dead wife's wishes until the final day of reckoning with Dorothea at the cliff.
ITV had to adapt the original book since Elephants Can Remember was Agatha Christie's last Poirot book--from 1972--written when her mental faculties were in decline and she might have been suffering from dementia. John Curran, the Christie specialist, in "Agatha Christie's Murder in the Making" called her book here "a disappointment. Like the books published (by Christie) on either side of it (in the 1970's), there are too many rambling conversations that give the reader little solid information" but are merely repetitious. (Curran, p.394) ITV did a reasonable job of turning a below average book into a good TV adaptation.
Curtain, Christie's published Poirot book from 1975, was written three decades prior to Elephants Can Remember. John Curran who studied Christie's original manuscript for Curtain notes that "the address on the manuscript of Curtain is 'Greenway House', which Christie left in October 1942 on its requisition by the US navy" while one of the typewritten corrections to a notebook containing the manuscript for Curtain "seems to date to the early 1940s." (Curran, pp.211-213) So, Elephants Can Remember was certainly Christie's last written Poirot book since Curtain was actually written by the author in the early 1940's as a final farewell for Poirot.
Impressive
bensonmum229 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Hercule Poirot is approached by his friend, writer Ariadne Oliver, for help with a 13-year old mystery she's investigating. The mystery involves the unusual death of a husband and wife. Was it murder- suicide or some sort of suicide pact or murder by an unknown person? And if it was murder-suicide, who shot who? These are the questions Ms Oliver has been asked to investigate. Poirot, however, has little time for his friend. He has the recent murder of a semi- retired psychiatrist, Dr Willoughby, to investigate. The doctor was gruesomely murdered in the basement of the psychiatric hospital bearing his name in a discarded and discredited piece of equipment originally designed for hydrotherapy. Things get interesting (and fun) when Ms Oliver and Poirot realize that their separate investigations are starting to merge. It seems that someone with vital knowledge of the 13-year old mystery may know something about the new murder.
I haven't read Elephants Can Remember in at least 30 years. Therefore, I have no idea how closely this production stays to every single plot point in Agatha Christie's original work. I remember just enough about the book to know that certain key plot points are the same. Overall, I'm really impressed with this episode of the Poirot series. Elephants Can Remember has, what I call, a lot of moving parts and can easily get confusing. What I mean is that there are a lot of characters with a lot of information, two mysteries separated by 13 years, and two different investigations going on at the same time. It would be easy to forget who's who and who said what, etc. But the people behind this episode did a fantastic job of keeping the confusion to a minimum. Once the two plot threads start to come together, things become very clear. It's an amazing bit of storytelling on the part of the director and screenwriters. And to top it off, they kept everything interesting. The mystery grabbed me from the beginning and kept my interest throughout. Nice work!
I've gone on and on about David Suchet's work as Poirot. He once again gives a first-rate performance. While I may enjoy the lighter Poirot seen in the first part of the series, there's no denying the quality of Suchet's acting here. I've seen Zoe Wannamaker as Ms Oliver in a few episodes now and she's stating to grow on me. I never cared much for the character in the books, so it's taken a while. The supporting cast is as strong as I've come to expect. Vanessa Kirby, Greta Sacchi, and Iain Glen were stand outs for me. The sets, costumes, and most of the technical aspects were, once again, class. My biggest complaint is with lighting. The whole thing was just too dark for my tastes. Otherwise, it's a quality episode that I rate an 8/10.
I haven't read Elephants Can Remember in at least 30 years. Therefore, I have no idea how closely this production stays to every single plot point in Agatha Christie's original work. I remember just enough about the book to know that certain key plot points are the same. Overall, I'm really impressed with this episode of the Poirot series. Elephants Can Remember has, what I call, a lot of moving parts and can easily get confusing. What I mean is that there are a lot of characters with a lot of information, two mysteries separated by 13 years, and two different investigations going on at the same time. It would be easy to forget who's who and who said what, etc. But the people behind this episode did a fantastic job of keeping the confusion to a minimum. Once the two plot threads start to come together, things become very clear. It's an amazing bit of storytelling on the part of the director and screenwriters. And to top it off, they kept everything interesting. The mystery grabbed me from the beginning and kept my interest throughout. Nice work!
I've gone on and on about David Suchet's work as Poirot. He once again gives a first-rate performance. While I may enjoy the lighter Poirot seen in the first part of the series, there's no denying the quality of Suchet's acting here. I've seen Zoe Wannamaker as Ms Oliver in a few episodes now and she's stating to grow on me. I never cared much for the character in the books, so it's taken a while. The supporting cast is as strong as I've come to expect. Vanessa Kirby, Greta Sacchi, and Iain Glen were stand outs for me. The sets, costumes, and most of the technical aspects were, once again, class. My biggest complaint is with lighting. The whole thing was just too dark for my tastes. Otherwise, it's a quality episode that I rate an 8/10.
Excellent Episode
evan-912-7113031 February 2014
In a very complicated plot, Poirot must find out the killer of a psychiatrist by first establishing the motive. The psychiatrist was found dead in his hydrotherapy bath.
But his friend Ariadne also wants wants him to find the motive for an apparent murder-suicide 13 years previously. The "murder-suicide" couple were found shot at the top of a cliff. Poirot is rather irritated that while he is trying to solve this recent murder case, Ariadne is preoccupied with a case long past dismissed as a murder-suicide.
Poirot's powers of deduction do not disappoint!
But his friend Ariadne also wants wants him to find the motive for an apparent murder-suicide 13 years previously. The "murder-suicide" couple were found shot at the top of a cliff. Poirot is rather irritated that while he is trying to solve this recent murder case, Ariadne is preoccupied with a case long past dismissed as a murder-suicide.
Poirot's powers of deduction do not disappoint!
Elephants will Remember it!With some spoilers ,I'm afraid
igorlongo20 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
A good start for the ,alas,final Poirot's outings.An atmospheric tragedy with a very creepy lunatic asylum,a beautifully shot Gothic mansion over a cliff with anxious Vanessa Kirby as a modern Gothic heroine searching for her own past,a double suicide ,a tormented shrink wonderfully played by Glen,a mysterious,malicious secretary played with a mischievous,treacherous smile by promising Alexandra Dowling ,the powerfully domineering Wanamaker as an overwhelming,unstoppable Ariadne Oliver and a big bunch of elephants played by a delicious helping of old actresses like Hazel Douglas and the formidable Caroline Blakiston. My only reservation is for Kingsley,too bland and solid for playing the tormented artist,Tom Riley would have been perfect for the part.But above all,wonderful Elsa Mollien as a dark,secretive Au Pair,matching in acting skills even the colossal Poirot played by Suchet.If you want hope against hope itself that Curtain will be shelved for two or three years giving space to another couple of seasons of Poirot,please,watch the confrontation among Mollien and Suchet in Paris.This is Poirot with all its beauty,its grace, its drama played with effortless,elegant understatement .Time Out can close like News of the World.How they can't understand that this and not Boring Broadchurch is British (and,I'm afraid,Universal) TV at its own possible best? I have of course my objections,but they are not so important:personally I would have given more space to the flashback story,having very interesting dramatic possibilities,cleverly hinted but not entirely developed.The murder in the present is not seamlessly patched with the older story(the presence of the young girl at Overcliffe in the tragic momentum of the crisis is sheer lunacy ,a singular blunder in a wonderful construction).But writing ,directing,acting,everything is so splendid that nothing can destroy its magic,its enchantment,its tragedy.Good work,Poirot.You rendered to us a sterling service,as general Ravenscroft would say.Elephants will remember forever wistfully this wonderful British series.
good adaptation
blanche-24 January 2016
Poirot (David Suchet) is back for season 13 with "Elephants Can Remember," a good adaptation of the Agatha Christie book. The book, as the episode, prominently features Ariadne Oliver (Zoe Wanamaker).
Poirot is called upon to investigate the death of a semi-retired psychiatrist who was murdered in a hydrotherapy bathtub in his institute.
Ariadne comes to him for help in the midst of his investigation. She has been asked to have a look at the death of her goddaughter Celia's parents 13 years ago. It was a big scandal at the time, and it seemed to have been a murder/suicide on a lonely cliff. No one could understand it, as the couple was a happy one. The woman asking, Mrs. Burton-Cox, has a son who wants to marry Celia. Mrs. B-C is concerned.
Poirot can't help due to his commitment. He advises her to interview anyone around at the time to jar their memories.
In time, Poirot's case and Ariadne's case intersects, and Poirot founds out a critical piece of information. The minute he learns this, he's on his way to figuring out the case.
Well, I figured it out before he did because of another piece of information, but I don't think Poirot got that one, either, until later. Also, even though I read the book probably 50 years ago, perhaps I subconsciously remembered it. But I don't think so.
Anyway, someone on the board was very critical of this episode, saying that they have cut Poirot's screen time, Suchet looks awful and doesn't want to be there, and it was a bad episode.
Well, David Suchet being the incredible actor he is may -- I say may - - have had another commitment, or in staying true to the book, they threw a lot to Oliver. When I saw Suchet interviewed, he seemed very committed to Poirot, though I admit he looked tired in this episode. He was about 67 during the last season and it's possible he couldn't keep up the schedule. However, I saw him in The Importance of Being Earnest this summer on stage and he was amazing.
I actually thought the episode was quite good. When you have seen a lot of Christie stories, or read them, you realize that she used some plot devices more than once and yes, some stories are better than others. Her best book was The Murder of Roger Acroyd, which was an awful episode. So there you go. You can't win them all, but I think the producers and writers succeeded here.
Poirot is called upon to investigate the death of a semi-retired psychiatrist who was murdered in a hydrotherapy bathtub in his institute.
Ariadne comes to him for help in the midst of his investigation. She has been asked to have a look at the death of her goddaughter Celia's parents 13 years ago. It was a big scandal at the time, and it seemed to have been a murder/suicide on a lonely cliff. No one could understand it, as the couple was a happy one. The woman asking, Mrs. Burton-Cox, has a son who wants to marry Celia. Mrs. B-C is concerned.
Poirot can't help due to his commitment. He advises her to interview anyone around at the time to jar their memories.
In time, Poirot's case and Ariadne's case intersects, and Poirot founds out a critical piece of information. The minute he learns this, he's on his way to figuring out the case.
Well, I figured it out before he did because of another piece of information, but I don't think Poirot got that one, either, until later. Also, even though I read the book probably 50 years ago, perhaps I subconsciously remembered it. But I don't think so.
Anyway, someone on the board was very critical of this episode, saying that they have cut Poirot's screen time, Suchet looks awful and doesn't want to be there, and it was a bad episode.
Well, David Suchet being the incredible actor he is may -- I say may - - have had another commitment, or in staying true to the book, they threw a lot to Oliver. When I saw Suchet interviewed, he seemed very committed to Poirot, though I admit he looked tired in this episode. He was about 67 during the last season and it's possible he couldn't keep up the schedule. However, I saw him in The Importance of Being Earnest this summer on stage and he was amazing.
I actually thought the episode was quite good. When you have seen a lot of Christie stories, or read them, you realize that she used some plot devices more than once and yes, some stories are better than others. Her best book was The Murder of Roger Acroyd, which was an awful episode. So there you go. You can't win them all, but I think the producers and writers succeeded here.
One of the best, most intriguing and superb Poirot mysteries
SimonJack30 August 2022
Warning: Spoilers
"Elephants Can Remember" is another superb film from Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot mysteries. This is one of the last of the many made for TV films of Christie's famous Belgian detective, as played by David Suchet. Although a number of actors before him had played the character in one or more films, Suchet's character is the Poirot who will be remembered and watched far into the future.
This mystery is also one of the most captivating and intriguing of Christie's Poirot stories and films. It starts with a background scene in 1925, and then the mystery is investigated and unfolds 13 years later in 1938, with Poirot and his friend, the crime fiction writer, Ariadne Oliver. There are two stories, with three crimes that overlap and the plot is ingenious as to how Poirot and Oliver wind up together after pursuing separate cases. She had been prodding him to look into an old case, but he had been nudged out of retirement by the murder of an acquaintance, Dr. Willoughby.
By halfway into this film, I had guessed that Lady Ravenscroft and her sister were twins. So, I suspected some skullduggery with General Ravenscroft. But I didn't see what the real events were. One wonders if Christie and/or the screen writers for this mystery didn't plan it so that audiences would begin to suspect the solution, only to have it as a sort of red herring for what really happened . And, then, how the latest murder of Dr. Willoughby happened - with the answer to Hercule Poirot's insistence that there was someone else there during the time of the of the first tragedy. That was the apparent murder and suicide of the general and Lady Ravenscroft.
This is not only one of the more intriguing and complex Poirot mysteries, but it's conclusion and solving leaves one with a vexing question. If Poirot's acquaintance, Dr. Willoughby, had not been murdered, was it very likely that he would have delved into and solved the suicide-murder mystery from 13 years earlier?
Kudos to all involved in this superb film and portrayal of one of the fantastic mysteries of one of the greatest mystery writers of all time. Here are some favorite lines from this film.
Julie Carstairs, to Ariadne Oliver, "You are so modern. No one else in my circle has speaking engagements."
Julie Carstairs, "In this part of the world, Ariadne, one either hunts or one has affairs."
Ariadne Oliver, "You and I are elephants, you know. We're good at remembering." Hercule Poirot, "No, no, no, madame, we are human beings. And human beings, mournfully, they can forget."
This mystery is also one of the most captivating and intriguing of Christie's Poirot stories and films. It starts with a background scene in 1925, and then the mystery is investigated and unfolds 13 years later in 1938, with Poirot and his friend, the crime fiction writer, Ariadne Oliver. There are two stories, with three crimes that overlap and the plot is ingenious as to how Poirot and Oliver wind up together after pursuing separate cases. She had been prodding him to look into an old case, but he had been nudged out of retirement by the murder of an acquaintance, Dr. Willoughby.
By halfway into this film, I had guessed that Lady Ravenscroft and her sister were twins. So, I suspected some skullduggery with General Ravenscroft. But I didn't see what the real events were. One wonders if Christie and/or the screen writers for this mystery didn't plan it so that audiences would begin to suspect the solution, only to have it as a sort of red herring for what really happened . And, then, how the latest murder of Dr. Willoughby happened - with the answer to Hercule Poirot's insistence that there was someone else there during the time of the of the first tragedy. That was the apparent murder and suicide of the general and Lady Ravenscroft.
This is not only one of the more intriguing and complex Poirot mysteries, but it's conclusion and solving leaves one with a vexing question. If Poirot's acquaintance, Dr. Willoughby, had not been murdered, was it very likely that he would have delved into and solved the suicide-murder mystery from 13 years earlier?
Kudos to all involved in this superb film and portrayal of one of the fantastic mysteries of one of the greatest mystery writers of all time. Here are some favorite lines from this film.
Julie Carstairs, to Ariadne Oliver, "You are so modern. No one else in my circle has speaking engagements."
Julie Carstairs, "In this part of the world, Ariadne, one either hunts or one has affairs."
Ariadne Oliver, "You and I are elephants, you know. We're good at remembering." Hercule Poirot, "No, no, no, madame, we are human beings. And human beings, mournfully, they can forget."
An episode to remember
gridoon202424 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The story of "Elephants Can Remember" is partly predictable (the "dog clue" is just a tad too obvious) and cannot really stand up to exhaustive scrutiny (unless forensic science in 1925 was more primitive than I imagine), but it also has a haunting quality similar to Agatha Christie's "Five Little Pigs": in both cases, the key to unlocking the murder mysteries can only be found by "delving into the past". As usual, the teamwork of David Suchet and Zoë Wanamaker is highly enjoyable; here, Hercule Poirot and Ariadne Oliver investigate two separate cases, one of the past and one of the present, which turn out to be strongly connected. There is also a welcome feeling of nostalgia created by the inclusion of several scenes set inside Poirot's apartment in Whitehaven Mansions. "Elephants Can Remember" is an entertaining and fairly fast-flowing addition to the series. *** out of 4.
S13E01: Elephants Can Remember: Briskly paced – but a bit lacking in bite and intrigue, with some so-so devices; not the film I expected as part of the big finish
bob the moo6 June 2015
An elderly psychiatrist is drowned and the son and suspect is a family friend of Poirot, who duly investigates; this leaves him unavailable to assist crime writer Ariadne Oliver, who is approached by Lady Burton-Cox, whose son is due to marry Oliver's goddaughter Celia – but not till Lady Burton-Cox knows the story behind the seeming double-suicide of Celia's parents many years ago. While Poirot pursues his mystery, Oliver steps out from behind the pages to become a sleuth in her own right.
I cannot imagine that it would ruin anything for anyone 13 seasons into Poirot to suggest that of course the dual mysteries of this film are bound to be connected – it is obvious from the start, even if the solution is not. Forgiving the film this device, the rest of the drama unfolds with a brisk pace and reasonably good sense of intrigue. Aspects of it feel like it is rather going through the motions of this in some regards – the wigs, the dog, and some other clues all being a bit obviously "clues" in many cases. Perhaps there is a certain irony in me usually praising the series for making the mysteries accessible, but then complaining that it overdoes it here, but to a point it does. The solution also seems a bit lacking in the pleasure of the big reveal, of all the pieces falling into place – it seems too easy, and a bit too convenient when it happens.
This is not to suggest that the film doesn't work, because it still does have good energy and flow to it, but it is not the most satisfying of mysteries or deliveries. Suchet matches this – it is not his biggest effort. He has some nice comedic touches, and he does his usual work, but it does feel like he gives less – and the involvement of Oliver limits his time too. By contrast Wanamaker gets more time and does well, and the support cast is particularly good, with solid turns from Scacchi, Regan, Dowling, Kirby and others all doing well. Perhaps I am biased due to the strength of his work in Game of Thrones, but I thought Glen was very good – making his supporting character very human and sympathetic. Technically the production is to the usual standard of period detail – just a shame that the back-projection on the cliffs was so poor.
All told, this is not one of my favorite films, but it does have a brisk pace and good energy. The connections are obviously coming in the mystery, and this does make some elements of it feel a bit lacking in effort (as does the conclusion) but it still works and has good turns in the cast and production. Solid, but not the film I was hoping for as it represents the beginning of the end for the series; hopefully Big Four can be a much stronger film.
I cannot imagine that it would ruin anything for anyone 13 seasons into Poirot to suggest that of course the dual mysteries of this film are bound to be connected – it is obvious from the start, even if the solution is not. Forgiving the film this device, the rest of the drama unfolds with a brisk pace and reasonably good sense of intrigue. Aspects of it feel like it is rather going through the motions of this in some regards – the wigs, the dog, and some other clues all being a bit obviously "clues" in many cases. Perhaps there is a certain irony in me usually praising the series for making the mysteries accessible, but then complaining that it overdoes it here, but to a point it does. The solution also seems a bit lacking in the pleasure of the big reveal, of all the pieces falling into place – it seems too easy, and a bit too convenient when it happens.
This is not to suggest that the film doesn't work, because it still does have good energy and flow to it, but it is not the most satisfying of mysteries or deliveries. Suchet matches this – it is not his biggest effort. He has some nice comedic touches, and he does his usual work, but it does feel like he gives less – and the involvement of Oliver limits his time too. By contrast Wanamaker gets more time and does well, and the support cast is particularly good, with solid turns from Scacchi, Regan, Dowling, Kirby and others all doing well. Perhaps I am biased due to the strength of his work in Game of Thrones, but I thought Glen was very good – making his supporting character very human and sympathetic. Technically the production is to the usual standard of period detail – just a shame that the back-projection on the cliffs was so poor.
All told, this is not one of my favorite films, but it does have a brisk pace and good energy. The connections are obviously coming in the mystery, and this does make some elements of it feel a bit lacking in effort (as does the conclusion) but it still works and has good turns in the cast and production. Solid, but not the film I was hoping for as it represents the beginning of the end for the series; hopefully Big Four can be a much stronger film.
Just stick to what's in the book
Sulla-228 July 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I have found that when there are twin, their roles often get reversed and it was obvious that this was the case here. However that's not a problem as I can still appreciate the performances.
What does trouble me is that even though there is ample material for a 95 minute episode, they still find the need to invent something totally extra to the original story.
Goof......... Retired Superintendent Garroway is initally inroduced as retired Inspectror Garroway. Don't they employ proof readers ?
What does trouble me is that even though there is ample material for a 95 minute episode, they still find the need to invent something totally extra to the original story.
Goof......... Retired Superintendent Garroway is initally inroduced as retired Inspectror Garroway. Don't they employ proof readers ?
Elephants Remember, but Christie is Forgotten.
aramis-112-8048806 April 2018
Warning: Spoilers
To be fair, ELEPHANTS CAN REMEMBER (the novel) is one of the last full-length Poirot cases (Dame Agatha penned CURTAIN, published after her death, decades earlier) and it's pretty thin on the ground. I guessed the ending and I don't even play the game. I read the best mystery writers for their style (Stout, Carr, Allingham) rather than their mysteries. Besides, with Christie, who wrote books where the most obvious suspect, and the one the police arrest, did it; where the narrator did it; where everyone did it; where no one did it . . . who can really second-guess her? Well, in this case, as I say, I did.
Therefore, though writers were trying to one-up Christie already by introducing extraneous characters, subplots, and even different endings (!), "Elephants Can Remember" (the television episode) needed a little help. The actual murder investigated was a dull affair that took place fifteen years earlier in a series of blurry flash-backs (with a modern version of back-projection that would make Cary Grant shudder), so more immediacy was needed. So they added a totally new murder, and a mysterious American. Why an American? Apparently so they'll have someone say "g--d---." They like having Americans say that. But the fact is, speaking as an American, the clues the writer(s) gave that she wasn't all she claimed were fairly obvious, though I won't give them away.
The best part of the show was seeing whatever happened to former sexpot Gretta Scacchi, who in the '80s made flicks where she had gratuitous nudity, and pulled it off (so to speak) very well. She provides welcome comic relief, as if Suchet's Poirot and Wanamaker's Oliver weren't silly enough.
SPOILER: The biggest mystery for those familiar with the book is, "What's that American chick doing in this?" In fact, though I won't say exactly what, her appearance undercuts the decade-and-a-half of secrecy that surrounded the earlier murders (or was it murder-suicide or suicide-suicide?) and renders the conspiracy of silence null and void. It simply pads out an otherwise straight-forward mystery that could have been covered in a short story rather than a novel, but in a way that makes no sense on any level.
Perhaps because the original novel is one of Christie's weakest, they pushed this one off to the last series of "Poirot" along with their dreadful version of "The Big Four" and the travesty of "The Labors of Hercules" (if they say they did all the Poirot stories, they lie) and "Dead Man's Folly"--one of the best since they dropped Hastings, Japp and Lemon.
In fact, the pretense that "Poirot" was Christie-accurate has always been a fib. The very presence of Lemon, Hastings and Japp together in all the stories, usually with some jokey framing subplot, makes this series a far cry from the beauty of, say, Jeremy Brett's "Sherlock Holmes." Many of the best early stories of the series (say, "The Third Floor Flat") take enormous liberties while some (my favorite is "Peril at End House") have a solid source to work from. The question is whether these liberties, which usually clarify situations, add action or help the individual episodes reach their requisite length, are sufficiently Christie-esque. In the most egregious examples (I won't name them because they've actually changed the killer or the motive) the writers are just trying to show off.
"Elephants Can Remember" needed more mystery than Christie gave it, and the viewer keeps guessing all the way through what the purpose of some characters and events are for, mainly because the writers pulled solutions out of their hats at the end (like the play within a play in "The Third Floor Flat"). It's not fair play, but Christie occasionally cheated.
The young women are lovely, the elder-statesmen females are funny. The mystery actually driving the story is taken from the book, it's only at the mental institution where things go off kilter. They had a weak book that needed a few extra puppets. Still, because it's so easy to foresee the mystery at its heart, "Elephants" is a weak entry in the series; and, in this instance, Christie earns the blame rather than young-punk writers who think they're better than she.
Therefore, though writers were trying to one-up Christie already by introducing extraneous characters, subplots, and even different endings (!), "Elephants Can Remember" (the television episode) needed a little help. The actual murder investigated was a dull affair that took place fifteen years earlier in a series of blurry flash-backs (with a modern version of back-projection that would make Cary Grant shudder), so more immediacy was needed. So they added a totally new murder, and a mysterious American. Why an American? Apparently so they'll have someone say "g--d---." They like having Americans say that. But the fact is, speaking as an American, the clues the writer(s) gave that she wasn't all she claimed were fairly obvious, though I won't give them away.
The best part of the show was seeing whatever happened to former sexpot Gretta Scacchi, who in the '80s made flicks where she had gratuitous nudity, and pulled it off (so to speak) very well. She provides welcome comic relief, as if Suchet's Poirot and Wanamaker's Oliver weren't silly enough.
SPOILER: The biggest mystery for those familiar with the book is, "What's that American chick doing in this?" In fact, though I won't say exactly what, her appearance undercuts the decade-and-a-half of secrecy that surrounded the earlier murders (or was it murder-suicide or suicide-suicide?) and renders the conspiracy of silence null and void. It simply pads out an otherwise straight-forward mystery that could have been covered in a short story rather than a novel, but in a way that makes no sense on any level.
Perhaps because the original novel is one of Christie's weakest, they pushed this one off to the last series of "Poirot" along with their dreadful version of "The Big Four" and the travesty of "The Labors of Hercules" (if they say they did all the Poirot stories, they lie) and "Dead Man's Folly"--one of the best since they dropped Hastings, Japp and Lemon.
In fact, the pretense that "Poirot" was Christie-accurate has always been a fib. The very presence of Lemon, Hastings and Japp together in all the stories, usually with some jokey framing subplot, makes this series a far cry from the beauty of, say, Jeremy Brett's "Sherlock Holmes." Many of the best early stories of the series (say, "The Third Floor Flat") take enormous liberties while some (my favorite is "Peril at End House") have a solid source to work from. The question is whether these liberties, which usually clarify situations, add action or help the individual episodes reach their requisite length, are sufficiently Christie-esque. In the most egregious examples (I won't name them because they've actually changed the killer or the motive) the writers are just trying to show off.
"Elephants Can Remember" needed more mystery than Christie gave it, and the viewer keeps guessing all the way through what the purpose of some characters and events are for, mainly because the writers pulled solutions out of their hats at the end (like the play within a play in "The Third Floor Flat"). It's not fair play, but Christie occasionally cheated.
The young women are lovely, the elder-statesmen females are funny. The mystery actually driving the story is taken from the book, it's only at the mental institution where things go off kilter. They had a weak book that needed a few extra puppets. Still, because it's so easy to foresee the mystery at its heart, "Elephants" is a weak entry in the series; and, in this instance, Christie earns the blame rather than young-punk writers who think they're better than she.
a failure in all fronts
surangaf25 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Another failure in the series. Adopters make a bad story worse because they stick to Cristie's spirit.
Instead trying deny and ignore the holes and faults, if fans pay attention, they will see that in the episode Poirot and Oliver in fact discover almost nothing, as usual.
Whole of the 'solution' for early murders, though pronounced by Poirot, comes from the mouth of Zelie Rouxelle, with no supporting evidence.
But what does Zelie say? She actively conspired to murder Dorothea, after she has concealed another murder and actively taken part in an impersonation (that improbable Cristie cliché is here too). She also suppresses evidence by packing victim's child off to a lonely fate in another culture regardless of her feelings. Since General is dead, this abuse of child only benefits Zelie, and possibly Celia. These actions, indicate Zelie to be a monster. Where is Poirot's/Oliver's psychology? Now what if Zelie was lying? What if she and General murdered the wife and forced the impersonation on sick woman? Then decided to kill her too (and commit suicide in case of General) when she demanded her daughter be brought to house as price of cooperation? That is as good an explanation as what comes from Zelie's mouth.
Remember also the odd fact that she is in correspondence, 'as a friend' she insists, with the man who as a teenager had an obsession with her. But this correspondence, and her whereabouts, are actively concealed by both, from his fiancée, who has as much, non obsession, childhood links with her as him, and has sought their renewal.
After all that, Poirot completely trusts and empathizes with this admitted criminal, but pontificates with, and aggressively show contempt for, victim's abused child seeking revenge? Moral blinkers anyone? In this, adopters were certainly in line with Cristie's highly blinkered spirit.
Now let us consider the new murder, an addition by adopters. Poirot indeed discovers that secretary is not who she is, but he does not really break her alibi. No evidence for drugging the doctor is produced (or even mentioned until this is referred to at the end, in a classic mystery story 'cheat'). And why should she try to recklessly kill Desmond? How does she find about him and his connection to her family (remember he has no medical records with doctor)? If she is willing to take huge risks to kill Desmond, why doesn't she try to kill Celia, who she knows about, with much less risk, earlier? Seems psychologically and factually inconsistent. Of course structuring story as it is presented, allows for a cheap melodramatic throwing over the balcony and rescue thrill.
One of the best things about this series from start was the art direction, but this episode spoils that too, by use of obvious fake backgrounds in Paris and overcliffe scenes.
Instead trying deny and ignore the holes and faults, if fans pay attention, they will see that in the episode Poirot and Oliver in fact discover almost nothing, as usual.
Whole of the 'solution' for early murders, though pronounced by Poirot, comes from the mouth of Zelie Rouxelle, with no supporting evidence.
But what does Zelie say? She actively conspired to murder Dorothea, after she has concealed another murder and actively taken part in an impersonation (that improbable Cristie cliché is here too). She also suppresses evidence by packing victim's child off to a lonely fate in another culture regardless of her feelings. Since General is dead, this abuse of child only benefits Zelie, and possibly Celia. These actions, indicate Zelie to be a monster. Where is Poirot's/Oliver's psychology? Now what if Zelie was lying? What if she and General murdered the wife and forced the impersonation on sick woman? Then decided to kill her too (and commit suicide in case of General) when she demanded her daughter be brought to house as price of cooperation? That is as good an explanation as what comes from Zelie's mouth.
Remember also the odd fact that she is in correspondence, 'as a friend' she insists, with the man who as a teenager had an obsession with her. But this correspondence, and her whereabouts, are actively concealed by both, from his fiancée, who has as much, non obsession, childhood links with her as him, and has sought their renewal.
After all that, Poirot completely trusts and empathizes with this admitted criminal, but pontificates with, and aggressively show contempt for, victim's abused child seeking revenge? Moral blinkers anyone? In this, adopters were certainly in line with Cristie's highly blinkered spirit.
Now let us consider the new murder, an addition by adopters. Poirot indeed discovers that secretary is not who she is, but he does not really break her alibi. No evidence for drugging the doctor is produced (or even mentioned until this is referred to at the end, in a classic mystery story 'cheat'). And why should she try to recklessly kill Desmond? How does she find about him and his connection to her family (remember he has no medical records with doctor)? If she is willing to take huge risks to kill Desmond, why doesn't she try to kill Celia, who she knows about, with much less risk, earlier? Seems psychologically and factually inconsistent. Of course structuring story as it is presented, allows for a cheap melodramatic throwing over the balcony and rescue thrill.
One of the best things about this series from start was the art direction, but this episode spoils that too, by use of obvious fake backgrounds in Paris and overcliffe scenes.
A bit convoluted but entertaining nevertheless
grantss21 June 2016
Hercule Poirot's friend, the crime-writer Ariadne Oliver, is approached by a woman, Mrs Burton-Cox, who inquires about the death of General and Lady Ravenscroft, 13 years earlier. Ms Oliver is initially shocked and repulsed by her line of questioning but afterwards is intrigued about the details of the event, as it seemed like a double suicide or murder-suicide. She asks Poirot for help but he declines, having another case, so she does her own investigating. Then Doctor Willoughby, the psychiatrist who treated the sister of Lady Ravenscroft, is murdered in his own asylum. Poirot investigates and starts to think there may be a connection between the two events.
A bit convoluted but entertaining nevertheless. Not obvious who the murderer(s) is/are, largely through much of the detail not being available to the viewer, unfortunately. Still makes for a good story though.
Zoe Wanamaker is in top form as Ariadne Oliver. While not quite a Hastings, she's still a pretty good substitute.
Cast includes Greta Scacchi, Iain Glen (Jorah in Game of Thrones) and Ferdinand Kingsley, the son of Ben Kingsley.
A bit convoluted but entertaining nevertheless. Not obvious who the murderer(s) is/are, largely through much of the detail not being available to the viewer, unfortunately. Still makes for a good story though.
Zoe Wanamaker is in top form as Ariadne Oliver. While not quite a Hastings, she's still a pretty good substitute.
Cast includes Greta Scacchi, Iain Glen (Jorah in Game of Thrones) and Ferdinand Kingsley, the son of Ben Kingsley.
Elephants Can Remember
Prismark108 December 2018
Elephants Can Remember has two stories divided by 13 years and you just know they will conveniently converge.
Crime writer Ariadne Oliver is approached by Mrs Burton-Cox whose son is engaged to her goddaughter Celia. Her parents General and Lady Ravenscroft died 13 years earlier in what was regarded as a double murder/suicide.
Mrs Oliver recounts the tale to Poirot who asks her to investigate. Poirot is busy looking at the murder of Doctor Willoughby killed in the institute he once ran. His son also a psychiatrist in the institute is a suspect as he has no alibi, because he was sleeping with his secretary.
Poirot later discover that the Willoughby Institute once treated the sister of Lady Ravenscroft and Celia's fiance.
Elephants Can Remember has a lot of fragments of clues thrown about that will help the viewer to work out the main thrust of the plot.
Director John Strickland goes for a few visual flourishes and their is some good use of green screen work. It is a pleasing, pacy mystery, a little convoluted here and there. It is just a shame that the humour of those early Poirot episodes are now almost entirely absent.
Crime writer Ariadne Oliver is approached by Mrs Burton-Cox whose son is engaged to her goddaughter Celia. Her parents General and Lady Ravenscroft died 13 years earlier in what was regarded as a double murder/suicide.
Mrs Oliver recounts the tale to Poirot who asks her to investigate. Poirot is busy looking at the murder of Doctor Willoughby killed in the institute he once ran. His son also a psychiatrist in the institute is a suspect as he has no alibi, because he was sleeping with his secretary.
Poirot later discover that the Willoughby Institute once treated the sister of Lady Ravenscroft and Celia's fiance.
Elephants Can Remember has a lot of fragments of clues thrown about that will help the viewer to work out the main thrust of the plot.
Director John Strickland goes for a few visual flourishes and their is some good use of green screen work. It is a pleasing, pacy mystery, a little convoluted here and there. It is just a shame that the humour of those early Poirot episodes are now almost entirely absent.
uninspired
mar9tin18 June 2013
This episode of the Poirot series featuring Ariadne Oliver begins interestingly enough and serves up an excellent cast of character actors, but utterly fails to live up to its promise, the denouement taking up almost the last quarter of it, during which the protagonists arouse all the empathy of a case of herrings, Vanessa Kirby in particular. Despite its usual Christie Byzaneity whodunnit is apparent almost from the first, and even to a large degree, why, as is almost always the case where an author introduces an inexplicable character. But as usual Poirot keeps all of it to himself. Suchet is, tho, rather remarkable, in other roles looking and acting nothing like he does here.
Tusk Tusk. Time To Close Poirot Down
sayloroct17 June 2013
It's time to put Poirot to bed. The show has gone downhill badly over the last couple of seasons, but it really hits the wall now. David Suchet is looking old, tired and, worse, bored in the first of the new season's Poirot episode, "Elephants Can remember." He is just going through the motions, using a series of canned tics and smiles with no energy behind them. It is also obvious that the producers cut down on Poirot's screen time by using mystery writer Ariadne Oliver as a fill in. Suchet just doesn't really want to be there.
The story itself is mind-numbingly complicated. The implausibilites mount one after the other and the relationships among the character become more and more tangled. The final explication scene where Poirot explains what happened in detail, even though neither he nor anyone else was there to see it, goes on and on and on. For the climax, he pulls out the trite old standby - the relative to disappeared to Canada as a child! So, much as it pains me, I must say farewell to Poirot. Thanks for the fun and the many great stories, but it's time to stop now.
The story itself is mind-numbingly complicated. The implausibilites mount one after the other and the relationships among the character become more and more tangled. The final explication scene where Poirot explains what happened in detail, even though neither he nor anyone else was there to see it, goes on and on and on. For the climax, he pulls out the trite old standby - the relative to disappeared to Canada as a child! So, much as it pains me, I must say farewell to Poirot. Thanks for the fun and the many great stories, but it's time to stop now.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
