Agatha Christie’s "Ordeal by Innocence"

[Holey]

Anybody watching the new Agatha Christie’s "Ordeal by Innocence."

Great cast.  Just watched the first episode so one behind.  

Who has done it?  I havent got a clue.  Love Duck Face Anna Chancellor.

[wallis]

I'm watching.
I haven't got a clue who did it.
We were kind of talking about it on the Christmas Schedule thread as it was originally supposed to be shown then.

Never read the story but Sarah Phelps has supposed to have changed the ending.

[kitkat1971]

Yes, I'm watching.
I.know who should have done it and why as per the original ending but I understand they'd changed it so.....

Of course the killer might be the same, but the circumstances different.

It's very stylishly done and Matthew Goode is fantastic but it's not grabbing me as much as her other adaptations have.

I think it's losing momentum by being shown weekly rather than stripped across consecutive nights as originally planned.

[LouP]

I think in the original Kirsten was the killer and Jack wasn't her son at all so no rape/abuse there and therefore Leo wasn't locked up . I googled this at the end. No idea why they had to change it . There is no better writer than Agatha.

[Holey]

Apr 16, 2018 9:16:59 GMT LouP said:

I think in the original Kirsten was the killer and Jack wasn't her son at all so no rape/abuse there and therefore Leo wasn't locked up . I googled this at the end. No idea why they had to change it . There is no better writer than Agatha.

Interesting, I wonder why they changed it.  However I still enjoyed it. Glad Leo was locked up at the end. 

 Let's hope we get some more AC at Christmas. 

[wallis]

I think Sarah Phelps wanted her own take on things just like Christie changed her endings to suit the situation, like the theatre.

I loved her books when I was about 14 but sadly she is not the best writer by far.

[butterball]

Disappointed in this, too dark and bleak for me plus all the swearing didn't seem right for the time. I prefer Miss Marple myself!

[LouP]

I agree about the swearing and the use of the F word. I thought that at the time . That was a shocking word to say in those days.

[Uncle Quentin]

I watched this over the course of the last two nights and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Great pace to it, plenty of twists, and a stellar cast in which the lovely Morven Christie (as per) stole the show.
I loved her in that end scene where she was mocking him through the peep hole. 

The "bad lad" Jack was in "Come Home" too recently wasn't he.  He's not having much luck with step-mams lately.
First mad Brenna, and then this old bag.
I'll tell you what though, he's the dead spit of a young Roland Orzabal (Tears For Fears) and no mistake.
Like two peas from the same pod, as my old Nan used to say.  I think it's the eyes,

So yeah, this was pretty darn good I thought, the episodes simply flew by.  8/10

[kitkat1971]

Apr 16, 2018 9:16:59 GMT LouP said:

I think in the original Kirsten was the killer and Jack wasn't her son at all so no rape/abuse there and therefore Leo wasn't locked up . I googled this at the end. No idea why they had to change it . There is no better writer than Agatha.

In the original Kirsten was.indeed the killer but she did it at Jack's behest so he wasn't entirely innocent.

The motive was money and Jack had seduced Kirsten to get her to kill for him whilst he'd have an alibi. However his alibi had a car accident, then.left to work abroad so couldn't be found at the time.

She then discovered that he was secretly married, not in.love with her at all, and that's why she allowed him to be convicted and he died of Natural Causes in Prison.

There was no reason to change it except that they wanted the killer to be a secret, even to those that know Christie very well.

I think they shot themselves in the foot as Christie fans would watch anyway as the journey is as important as the destination and there.must be millions that didn't know the book, or any.other adaptation.

What next, none of them did it on
Murder on the Orient Express?

[kitkat1971]

Apr 16, 2018 23:21:13 GMT wallis said:

I think Sarah Phelps wanted her own take on things just like Christie changed her endings to suit the situation, like the theatre.

I loved her books when I was about 14 but sadly she is not the best writer by far.

That was kind of.up to Christie though as she was amending / adapting her own work.

I agree that Christie wasn't the best writer on that her characterisation and dialogue was often below par and a good scteenwriter can certainly improve on that.

What Christie excelled at though was plotting, specifically twists, turns, red herrings, shock moments and reveals which were engaging and made sense.

Messing with the.plot, especially.kiler and.motive, is foolish imo.

[kitkat1971]

Apr 19, 2018 16:28:46 GMT Uncle Quentin said:

I watched this over the course of the last two nights and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Great pace to it, plenty of twists, and a stellar cast in which the lovely Morven Christie (as per) stole the show.
I loved her in that end scene where she was mocking him through the peep hole. 

The "bad lad" Jack was in "Come Home" too recently wasn't he.  He's not having much luck with step-mams lately.
First mad Brenna, and then this old bag.
I'll tell you what though, he's the dead spit of a young Roland Orzabal (Tears For Fears) and no mistake.
Like two peas from the same pod, as my old Nan used to say.  I think it's the eyes,

So yeah, this was pretty darn good I thought, the episodes simply flew by.  8/10

I think you did the right thing saving it to watch close together rather than weekly. As I said.in my first post, it lost momentum.

I didn't dislike it.
Good script, shock moments, great cast, very stylishly and atmospherically directed.

It's just it wasn't Christie's Ordeal By Innocence.

[wallis]

I still enjoyed the production.
I thought it classy and I didn't care two hoots if they deviated from the original story, not having read it myself.
Christie did it herself so why not Sarah Phelps who was only trying to bring the story into the 21st century rather than the 20th with swearing as well. Please tell me no one swore in 1958? Maybe Christie didn't include swearing in her books but you can bet your bottom dollar that folks did even in the middle/upper classes.
 

[Uncle Quentin]

I had no idea who the killer was meant to be in the book / original, which is probably why I really liked it as I had nothing to compare it to.

Kirsten was my main suspect all the way through too, but I like being wrong, it means it's reeled me into the suspense.

[kitkat1971]

Apr 19, 2018 23:29:37 GMT wallis said:

I still enjoyed the production.
I thought it classy and I didn't care two hoots if they deviated from the original story, not having read it myself.
Christie did it herself so why not Sarah Phelps who was only trying to bring the story into the 21st century rather than the 20th with swearing as well. Please tell me no one swore in 1958? Maybe Christie didn't include swearing in her books but you can bet your bottom dollar that folks did even in the middle/upper classes.
 

I do think.there is a big difference between the original author changing their own work because they've decided they could do it better (almost like a second draft) or it being.presented on a different format. A lot.of Novels need extensive reworking to transist to stage or screen.

I have no issue with updating for a modern audience and didn't mind the swearing, sex scenes etc.

I have no.issue with dialogue changes, even.insertoon or removal.of scenes or characters.

But changing the.killer and whole motive to that extent doesn't sit right with me.

Especially as the.original motive (sex, love, jealousy and money) is as valid now as it was at the time of writing.