"GREENSHAW'S FOLLY" (2013) Review
It must have been a chore for both the BBC and later, the ITV, to maintain a television series featuring novels about Miss Jane Marple, one of Agatha Christie's most famous literary characters. I say "chore" because I was surprised to discover that the mystery novelist had only written a limited number of novels and short stories featuring the character.
As it turned out, Christie wrote twelve Jane Marple novels. Twelve. All of them have been adapted for television more than once between 1984 and 2013. Christie also wrote a lot more short stories featuring the sleuth, but only a handful have ever been adapted . . . and only in recent years. One of those adaptations is the 2013 television movie from "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S MARPLE" is "GREENSHAW'S FOLLY".
"GREENSHAW'S FOLLY" is a loose adaptation of two Christie short stories - 1960's "Greenshaw's Folly" and 1932's "The Thumb Mark of St. Peter". Instead of revealing the plots of both stories, I will recap the plot for the 2013 television movie. "GREENSHAW'S FOLLY" begins with a woman named Louisa Oxley spiriting her young son Archie from an abusive husband. The pair arrives at Miss Jane Marple's home in St. Mary's Mead. To help them further, Miss Marple arranges for Louisa and Archie to stay at an estate called Greenshaw's Folly, where the owner, an eccentric botanist named Katherine Greenshaw, hires Louisa to be her secretary. Louisa and Archie becomes part of a household that includes Mrs. Cresswell, the housekeeper; Nathaniel Fletcher, Miss Greenshaw's actor/nephew; a house guest named Horace Bindler, who is a journalist claiming to be an architect, looking into the past of Miss Greenshaw's father; the owner's butler, whose name is Cracken; and a groundskeeper named Alfred Pollock. Nearby is a local priest named Father Brophy, who hopes to solicit money from Miss Greenshaw for the orphanage he manages. Also involved in the story is Cicely Beauclerk, one of Miss Marple's elderly friends from St. Mary's Mead, who had experienced a past trauma at the hands of Miss Greenshaw's father years before.
Louisa and young Archie's refuge is threatened when Cracken falls from a ladder and fatally cracks his head. His death is ruled by the police as accidental. However, Miss Marple, who has also been staying at Greenshaw's Folly, begins to harbor suspicions when Mr. Binder mysteriously disappear. But when the estate's owner, Miss Greenshaw, is brutally murdered, Miss Marple realizes that she has a full blown mystery on her hands.
What is there to say about "GREENSHAW'S FOLLY"? Although the television movie is based upon two Miss Marple short stories, the majority of the narrative seemed to be based upon the 1960 story - "Greenshaw's Folly". The other story, "The Thumb Mark of St. Peter", had merely provided a foil for Louisa Oxley in the form of her abusive husband, and a "weapon" to be used in Miss Greenshaw's murder. Although the narrative had started on a slow note, I must admit that it proved to be a very interesting tale about the Greenshaw family history and how many of the characters - aside from Louisa and Archie Oxley - had such a strong connection to it. Let me rephrase this. I thought the connection between the majority of the characters and the Greenshaw family worked. These connections include Nathaniel Fletcher's blood connection to Miss Greenshaw; Mrs. Cresswell, Cracken and Alfred serving as Miss Greenshaw's servants; Alfred's past as a convict threatened to end his employment; Mr. Binder's unexpected investigation into Miss Greenshaw's past; and Father Brophy's attempts to solicit money from Miss Greenshaw for his orphanage. What is more interesting is that Mr. Binder's interest in the Greenshaw family past may have been threatening to the killer as well.
On the other hand, I had a problem with with subplot involving the past trauma that Miss Beauclerk had endured at the hands of the late Mr. Greenshaw. When you look at it, she had the strongest motive to kill Miss Greenshaw. It would be easy for her to scapegoat Miss Greenshaw for what the latter's father had subjected her to as a child. But as the oldest suspect, it would have been nigh impossible for Beauclerk to carry out the murders. I realize that she could have recruited help from any of the other suspects. But . . . Miss Beauclerk's age seemed like a minor problem in compare to a bigger one. There seemed to be something about her subplot that failed to resonate with me. In the Miss Beauclerk character, screenwriter Tim Whitnall had the strongest suspect for this story. And yet, I got the feeling that he was not particularly interested in her character or arc. Instead, it seemed as if the narrative ended up under utilizing the character . . . other than have her inadvertently direct Louisa Oxley's abusive husband to his abused wife and son at Greenshaw's Folly.
The production values for "GREENSHAW'S FOLLY" struck me as pretty solid. The majority of the story is set at a small English estate in the early-to-mid 1950s. This meant that production designer Jeff Tessler did not have to make any extra effort to re-create the television movie's setting. But I will give credit to Tessler for doing his job in a competent manner and not providing any sloppy work. I can say the same about the production's art department and costume/wardrobe department supervised by Jenna McGranaghan. The only wealthy character in the cast was Miss Greenshaw and being an eccentric botanist with no fashion sense, it was only natural that McGranaghan and her staff did not have to go the extra mile for the television movie's costumes.
But I was impressed by the production's cast. I thought Julia McKenzie did a tremendous job in conveying Jane Marple's struggles to maintain a refuge for Julia and Archie Oxley, solve the murders in the story and evade the police's attempts to put an end to her investigation. And she did all of this while maintaining Miss Marple's quiet and reflective personality. Another performance that impressed me came from Fiona Shaw, who was first-rate as the warm, yet obviously eccentric Katherine Greenshaw. Kimberly Nixon gave a nuanced performance as Louisa Oxley, the abused wife whose attempts to befriend others in her new surrounding is muted by her fear of being discovered by her husband. I also have to give kudos to Martin Compston, who skillfully portrayed Alfred Pollock, the reserved groundskeeper, whose past as a convict threatens his current job and his future. "GREENSHAW'S FOLLY" also featured excellent supporting performances from the likes of Julia Sawalha, Sam Reid, Judy Parfitt, Joanna David, Bobby Smallbridge, Rufus Jones, Oscar Pearce, Vic Reeves, John Gordon Sinclair as the no-nonsense Inspector Welch and Robert Glenister as the very ambiguous Father Brophy.
I have to confess . . . I could never regard "GREENSHAW'S FOLLY" as one of those memorable Agatha Christie adaptations. Not by a long shot. Aside from the Cicely Beauclerk subplot, I could not find anything wrong it. But I cannot deny that while watching it, I actually managed to enjoy it very much. And this is due to a still first-rate screenplay by Tim Whitnall, solid direction from Sarah Harding and an excellent cast led by Julia McKenzie.
”DEATH ON THE NILE” (2004) Review
This 2004 adaptation of Agatha Christie’s 1937 novel, ”Death on the Nile”, was the second to be adapted for the screen. In the case of this movie, it aired as a 90-minute presentation on the long-running television series, ”Agatha Christie’s POIROT”.
Like the novel and the 1978 movie, ”DEATH ON THE NILE” centered around Hercule Poirot’s investigation of the murder of an Anglo-American heiress named Linnet Ridgeway. Linnet had stolen the affections of her best friend’s fiancé and married him. When the newly married couple vacationed in Egypt, the best friend – one Jacqueline de Bellefort – stalked and harassed them during their honeymoon. Yet, when Linnet and her new husband, Simon Doyle, boarded the S.S. Karnak for a steamboat cruise down the Nile River, the heiress discovered she had other enemies that included the offspring of a man whom her father had financially ruined, her embezzling attorney who required her signature on a paper or her death to hide his crimes, a kleptomaniac American socialite and a professional thief who was after her pearls. Unfortunately for the killer, a vacationing Hercule Poirot and his friend, Colonel Race, are on hand to solve Linnet’s murder.
There were aspects of this adaptation of ”DEATH ON THE NILE” that I found admirable. The movie’s set designs for the S.S. Karnak seemed bigger and slightly more luxuriant that what was shown in the 1978 movie. Production designer Michael Pickwoad did a first-rate job in creating the luxurious atmosphere for the 1930s upper class. Actor J.J. Feild gave a solid performance as Simon Doyle, the man who came between Linnet Ridgeway and Jacqueline de Bellefort. However, I do not think he managed to capture the literary Simon Doyle’s boyish simplicity and lack of intelligence. I also enjoyed Frances La Tour’s portrayal of the alcoholic novelist, Salome Otterbourne. She gave her performance a slight twist in which her character seemed to be a little hot under the collar as she makes sexual advances toward Poirot in a subtle, yet comic manner. And the movie’s one true bright spot was, of course, David Suchet as Hercule Poirot. As usual, he gave an exceptional performance. However, I noticed that he was never able to form any real chemistry with James Fox’s Colonel Race or Emma Griffiths Malin, who portrayed Jacqueline de Bellefort; as Peter Ustinov had done with David Niven and Mia Farrow, respectively.
I wish I could harbor a high opinion of ”DEATH ON THE NILE”. But I cannot. There were too many aspects of this production that rubbed me the wrong way. I noticed that this version adhered very closely to Christie’s novel. Unfortunately, the screenplay’s close adaptation did not help the movie very much. It still failed to be superior or just as good as the 1978 version. So much for the argument that a movie has to closely follow its literary source in order for it to be any good. A closer adaptation of Christie’s novel meant that characters missing from the 1978 version – Cornelia Robson, Marie Van Schuyler’s clumsy young cousin; society jewel thief Tim Allerton; the ladylike Mrs. Allerton and the Allertons’ cousin, Joanna Southwood – appeared in this movie. Only the Italian archeologist, Mr. Richetti and Jim Fanthorp, the British attorney were missing. And honestly, the presence of the Allertons, Cornelia Robson and Joanna Southwood added nothing to the story as far as I am concerned. Aside from a few members of the cast, the acting in this movie struck me as very unexceptional and a little hammy at times. You know . . . the kind of hamminess that makes one wince, instead of chuckle with amusement.
But the movie’s real atrocities came from the hairstyles and makeup created for the younger actresses in the cast. Most of the hairstyles seemed like sloppy re-creations of those from the mid-1930s, the worst offenders being the cheap-looking blond wig worn by Emily Blunt (Linnet Ridgeway Doyle), the butch hairstyle worn by actress Zoe Telford (Rosalie Otterbourne); and the gaudy makeup worn by all of the younger actresses. Only Daisy Donovan, who portrayed Cornelia Robson was spared from resembling a kewpie doll. Instead, she wore a sloppy bun that served as a metaphor for her insecure personality – a theatrical maneuver that I found unnecessary.
I hate to say this but despite David Suchet’s performance as Poirot and Michael Pokewoad’s production designs, I came away feeling less than impressed by this version of ”DEATH ON THE NILE”. Not only did I find it inferior to the 1978 version, but also to many other adaptations of Agatha Christie’s novels and stories.
Below are images from "DEATH ON THE NILE", the 2004 television adaptation of Agatha Christie's 1937 novel. The movie starred David Suchet as Hercule Poirot:
"DEATH ON THE NILE" (2004) Photo Gallery
"LITTLE DORRIT" (2008) ReviewIn my review of the 1998 miniseries, "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND", I had stated that I was never a real fan of Victorian author, Charles Dickens. But I was willing to give the author another chance with a second viewing of the miniseries. However, I have yet to watch "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND" for a second time. Instead, I turned my attention to another miniseries based on a Dickens novel - the 2008 production of "LITTLE DORRIT". Based upon Dickens's 1855-1857 serialized novel, "LITTLE DORRIT" is basically the story of a young late Georgian Englishwoman named Amy Dorrit, who spends her days earning money for the Dorrit family and looking after her proud father William, who is a long term inmate of Marshalsea Prison for Debt in London. When her employer's son, Arthur Clennam returns from overseas to solve his family's mysterious legacy, Amy and her family's world is transformed for the better. And she discovers that her family's lives and those of the Clennan family are interlinked. Considering that "LITTLE DORRIT" is a Dickens tale, one is bound to encounter a good deal of subplots. Please bear with me. I might not remember all of them. I do recall the following:*Arthur Clennam is initially rejected by Pet Meagles, the daughter of a former business associate, due to her infatuation for artist Henry Gowan.
*John Chivery, the son of the Marshalsea Prison warden, harbors unrequited love for Amy Dorrit.
*A mysterious Englishwoman named Miss Wade, had been jilted by Henry Gowan in the past; and has now extended her hatred and resentment towards his wife, Pet Meagles and her family. She also notices their patronizing attitude toward their maid/ward, Harriet Beadle aka Tattycoram.
*Amy's older sister, Fanny, becomes romantically involved with the step-son of wealthy businessman Mr. Merdle.
*Mr. Merdle becomes the force behind a fraudulent speculation scheme that impacts the London financial world.
*French criminal Rigaud/Blandois not only stumbles across the Clennam family secret regarding the Dorrit family, but is also recruited by Miss Wade to accompany Henry and Pet Gowran on their Italian honeymoon.If there is one thing I can say about "LITTLE DORRIT", it is a beautiful looking production. Four of the Emmy Awards that the miniseries won were in the technical categories. Production designer James Merifield, art director Paul Ghirardani, and set decorator Deborah Wilson all shared the Emmy Award for Outstanding Art Direction in a Miniseries or Movie (they shared the award with the art direction team for HBO's "GREY GARDENS"). And honestly? They deserved that award, thanks to their outstanding re-creation of both London and Italy in the 1820s. Owen McPolin, Alan Almond and Lukas Strebel, who won the Outstanding Cinematography Emmy; contributed to that re-creation of 1820s Europe with their sharp, colorful and beautiful photography. Costume designer Barbara Kidd and costume supervisor also won Emmy awards for the beautiful, gorgeous costumes created for this production. Not only did I find the costumes beautiful, but also a perfection re-creation of the mid-1820s fashions, as depicted in the images below:
I could go on and on about the many subplots featured in "LITTLE DORRIT". But honestly . . . I am too exhausted to do so. The only plots that interested me were the fortunes of both the Dorrit family and Arthur Clennam, Mrs. Clennam's secret about her husband's past, and Mr. Merdle's financial schemes. I thought that Emmy winning screenwriter Andrew Davies and directors Adam Smith, Dearbhla Walsh (also an Emmy winner for her direction of Episode One), and Diarmuid Lawrence did a very good job in handling these plot lines. Or tried his best. His adaptation of the rise and fall of the Dorrit family's fortunes was probably the best thing about "LITTLE DORRIT". This was especially effective in plot lines that revolved around Amy Dorrit's inability to adjust to her new status as the daughter of a wealthy man and especially, William Dorrit's inabilities to move past his memories of the Marshalsea Prison. The subplot regarding the Dorrit family's ties to the Merdle family also struck me as very effective. Fanny Dorrit's relationship with Merdle's stepson, Edmund Sparkler proved to be one of the funniest and more satisfying subplots in "LITTLE DORRIT". And the subplot regarding Mr. Merdle's financial schemes not only effected both the Dorrit family and Arthur Clennam's fortunes in an effective way, it also strongly reminded me of the circumstances that led to the international community's current economic situation.However, there were subplots that did not strike me as that effective. I wish I could solely blame Charles Dickens. But I cannot. Davies and the three directors have to take some of the blame for not making some improvements to these subplots, when they had the chance to do so. The subplot regarding the Meagles family, their servant "Tattycoram" and Miss Wade struck me as a disaster. I found it poorly handled, especially the narrative regarding the fate of "Tattycoram". In the end, nothing really came from Miss Wade's resentment of Henry Cowan, the Meagles and especially her relationship with "Tattycoram". I am also a little confused at the financial connection between the Clennam and Dorrit families. Could someone explain why an affair between Arthur's father and some dancer would lead to a possible inheritance for Amy Dorrit? Many critics have tried to explain Dickens' creation of the French villain Monsieur Rigaud. No explanation can erase my dislike of the character or its addition to the subplots involving the Clennam/Dorrit connection and the Gowans' honeymoon. I realize that Rigaud was Charles Dickens' creation. But it seemed a pity that Davies and the three directors did nothing to improve the use of Rigaud . . . or eliminate the character altogether. Aside from killing Jeremiah Flintwinch's twin brother, intimidating other characters and blackmailing Mrs. Clennam, he really did nothing as a villain.If there is one thing I have no complaints regarding "LITTLE DORRIT", it is the excellent performances found in the production. I honestly have no complaints about the performances in the miniseries. I can even say this about those characters, whose portrayals by the writers that I found troubling. And yes, I am referring to Andy Serkis and Freema Agyeman's performances as Rigoud and "Tattycoram". Both gave excellent performances, even if I did not care how Dickens, Davies or the directors handled their characters. Emma Pierson, an actress I have never heard of, gave a superb and very entertaining peformance as Fanny Dorrit, Amy's ambitious and rather blunt older sister. I would have say that Pierson's performance struck me as the funniest in the miniseries. I was amazed at how intimidating Eddie Marsan looked at the rent collector, Mr. Pancks. Yet, Marsan went beyond his superficial appearance to portray one of the most compassionate, yet energetic characters in the production. I was also impressed by Russell Tovey's portrayal of the love-sick John Chivery, who harbored unrequited love for Amy Dorrit. Tovey managed to give a very intense performance, without going over-the-top. And I found that quite an accomplishment.However, there are a handful of performances that really impressed me. Two of them came from the leads Claire Foy and Matthew McFadyen. On paper, the characters of Amy Dorrit and Arthur Clennam struck me as boring and one-dimensional. They were simply too goody two-shoes. But somehow, both Foy and McFadyen managed to inject a great deal of fire into their roles, making them not only interesting, but allowing me to care for them a great deal. Another outstanding performance came from Judy Parfitt, who portrayed Arthur's guilt-ridden and cold mother, Mrs. Clennam. But instead of portraying the character as a one-note monstrous mother, Parfitt conveyed a good deal of Mrs. Clennam's guilt regarding her husband's will and inner emotional struggles over the memories of her marriage and what Arthur really meant to her. Another outstanding performance came from Tom Courtenay, who portrayed the vain and insecure William Dorrit. In fact, I would have to say that he gave the most complex and probably the best performance in the entire production. Courtenay managed to create contempt I felt toward his character with skillful acting, yet at the same time, he made William Dorrit so pathetic and sympathetic. I am amazed that he did not receive a nomination or acting award for his performance.I now come back to that earlier question. Did "LITTLE DORRIT" improve my opinion of Charles Dickens as a writer? Not really. Although I cannot deny that it is a beautiful looking production. Some of the subplots not only struck me as interesting, but also relevant to today's economic situation. And the miniseries featured some outstanding performances from a cast led by Claire Foy and Matthew McFayden. But some of the other subplots, which originated in Dickens' novel struck me as either troubling or unimpressive. So . . . I am not quite a fan of his. Not yet. But despite its flaws, I am a fan of this 2008 adaptation of his 1855-1857 novel.
