I read the book without spoilers abd BELIEVE ME THE SHOCK AND THE BETRAYAL I FELT WAS UNMATCHED. That's why it's among my favorites novels of all time.
Well, I can outdo any readers who knew who the murderer was a few pages in. I knew the moment I picked up the book. This is because I was told. Not by a friend who had previously read it. Not by a careless reviewer. No. By Agatha Christie herself. Or, rather, Poirot. Occasionally he would reminisce about previous cases. And one of these was ‘Roger Ackroyd.’ I have always been cross about being denied the enjoyable shock of the big reveal. I don’t think I will ever forgive Christie. ☹️
Having recently reread The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, I'm totally with you, Miles, in appreciating it as a novel. It's not just a twist, but a really good story, and one that the twist actually enhances rather than just a gimmick. Moreover, it's not a twist that renders something un-rereadable. In fact, it's immensely pleasurable to go back and appreciate just how clever Christie really was in its construction. She's actually very, very fair; it's not, like some of her later ones, a mystery where the solution is not possible without information we never get until the very end. There are plenty of clues. It's just so incredibly well-crafted and a masterful example of literary sleight of hand. It is such a shame that we today can't experience it as a new novel. Even if one doesn't know the twist beforehand, or even that there is a twist, unreliable narrators are de rigeur now. The sheer bracing shock of it that elicited a sensation that carried Christie to stardom must have been amazing. And I love that it wasn't just the public in an uproar; a lot of mediocre male mystery writers, almost all of whom today are forgotten, hated it, thought she was perverting the genre or some such bull. Dorothy Sayers, though, called "Fair! And fooled you." They were just jealous they didn't think of it first, and even if they had, probably didn't have the skills to pull it off like Christie did. Beautiful. Two quick final notes: One, that part of the genius of Christie's misdirection is the very fact that the doctor IS rather like Hastings, especially in one key way that directly explains the whole motive behind his crimes. And two, Caroline is one (maybe even the first?) of the proto-Marples that pop up in Christie long before Miss Marple herself appears, though that's much more apparent in the book than in the adaptation.
Agatha stated Marple was based on Caroline, especially her original version in the Murder at the vicarage. She's much more of an unpleasant, judgy,gossipy spinster in that book. Akroyd's such a brilliant book.
I completely agree with your point of Hastings / Sheppard and proto-Marples. These fundamental things were taken into account in the Russian film adaptation of Agatha Christie's novel. This film is called "Puro's Failure" (2002), directed by Sergei Ursulyak.
Way back when I first read the book I remember the feeling of complete surprise at the end. I'd read many other AG books before this but this one stood out as her best.
You've spent hours with a murderer telling you a story filled with lies. That's the beauty of this novel. And the creepiness of it. You've cozied up with your book and your narrator only to find out you've been betrayed by the person you've never suspected but always trusted. A masterstroke by Christie.
Akroyd's definitely one of her most innovative & bravest & it was only THE THIRD Poirot novel! 😮❤ The best trick is that, if we accept that ANYONE can be guilty & just follow the clues, it becomes fairly obvious, but we never do, precisely bcs of the clever narrative techniques. I'm going to check some of the other adaptation, but I believe Akroyd really works best in the written form. ❤ The psychology of the characters & the village mentality are also very cleverly portrayed & used in this story. I think that's why it's so engaging upon a reread.❤
I read the books completely unspoiled about thirty years ago and was completely flabbergasted, shocked and in awe by the twist. I re-read it recently (of course knowing the twist), and enjoyed it even more. The execution is flawless. But also the little village setting is wonderfully and the doctor's sister is, imho an early Miss Marple prototype.
The Murder of Roger Ackroyd was always my favourite Christie novel. Maybe in my top 100 best books. I remember reading an essay or was it a book, where the author put forward a very good case where Hercule was wrong. That it was Dr Sheppard's sister who was the blackmailer and murderer. Dr Sheppard, tried to cover it up and in a final act of love, took responsibility for the crime and committed suicide to protect her. The reason he asked Poirot not to tell the sister was to avoid her breaking down and confessing on finding out what her brother had done. I have search the internet and can't find it. It's a pity because I would love your thoghts on it.
The book is “Who Killed Roger Ackroyd?: The Mystery Behind the Agatha Christie Mystery” by Pierre Bayard. I’m not crazy about it, but it does illustrate the point so brilliantly made in Anthony Berkeley’s “The Poisoned Chocolates Case”: that no detective story solution is truly conclusive…. that one can take any solution as the deliberate “cover up” of a further truth.
The Murder of Roger Akord was the first agatha christie novel that I read. I thought it was brilliant and I was blown away by the ending. After I read it I watched the David Suchet film version and I was very disappointed by it. In the book agatha christie has several suspects and several clues that you put together to figure out who Did it. Each suspect has a particular personality and does a particular action. They start the film version by reading the journal. Which immediately gives away the gender of the Killer. It doesn't take much to figure out who is actually reading it.
The chapter in the book that always stays most strongly in my mind is the one about the evening playing mah jongg. Although Caroline was often considered a sort of forerunner of Miss Marple, I liked her trying to blame her brother for not discarding the red dragon that would have given her a huge winning hand.
"Meh" is the perfect word for that adaptation. I know the unreliable narrator element is tough to replicate on film, but having Dr Sheppard assume the "Hastings" role, combined with more interactions with his sister like we got in the book, would still have made for a far better twist. The journal just comes across as contrived and pointless in the TV adaptation - it's not a de facto suicide note, so why is he leaving it around for his sister to find? - and the ending was a catastrophe.
I would go further than “meh.” I thought this adaptation was awful, the biggest disappointment of the entire Suchet-Poirot series. Since “Ackroyd” is my favorite among the Poirot novels, I was really looking forward to seeing the adaptation, but when I did . . . 😢 (Also, I hated the art deco mansion that the producers housed the Ackroyd family in.)
I was so delighted by the book because I'd guessed it was the doctor several times throughout, and EVERY TIME Agatha Christie turned my suspicions in a different direction in a very believable and reasonable way that had me at a loss, a quite enjoyed one mind, but still. Of course I'm familiar with the unreliable narrator trope as a modern audience, but I'd never seen it done quite like this. I thought to myself 'wouldn't it be funny IF', and then dismissed it! I ofc fell in love with the book immediately. It was fantastic prior to the twist, but my feelings upon getting to the twist cement it as one of my absolute favourite reads of all time. I've rarely felt so delighted with a read. I had a fantastic time with it and am presently rereading it.
I read this book for the first time last year and oh my goodness it was an amazing read - I didn’t know a thing about this book - the Betrayal you feel as a reader, it was unmatched!
One thing that struck me about the adaptation was when the murderer ran over Parker the butler. That didn’t happen in the novel. The way it was done made me think that whoever was involved with the production perhaps watched an early episode of the Australian drama Prisoner. There was a scene where the mum does exactly the same by repeatedly running over a man who had taken diabolical liberties with her daughter
I love your videos they’re so cool and interesting! The only Christie book I ever read was “Death in the Clouds” and I remember loving it! But then watching the david Suchet version and not being as into it so I’d love to see if you could make a video on that one and see if they are as different in quality as I remember
Take a look at The Shooting Party, an early work (1884) by Anton Chekhov, which is an even earlier variation on this theme. An unidentified narrator tells the story of a love triangle, which includes himself. The woman in the triangle is found stabbed to death in the woods, and an investigation takes place. Ultimately, a local bailiff is arrested. When a peasant who might have been able to identify a different killer is himself murdered (did the film adaptation get the idea here?), the bailiff is ultimately executed. A postscript to the manuscript shows however that the real murderer is the unidentified narrator.
I'm soooo glad you mentioned this brilliant story❤ I'm a massive fan of Chekhov's & I've read it only recently. It seems it's not very popular, at least in my country ❤❤❤
I have seen play and film adaptations of this book. Both missed the main point of the book ie that the narrator is the murderer. I would think it perfectly possible to have the doctor as a narrator and maintain the surprise ending both in film and plays. Why has this never been done?
Happy to see another one of your videos re-uploaded, Miles. Hope TH-cam will back off any give you the benefit of the doubt, especially when your vids are so blatantly covered under the tenets of Fair Use.
Chehov's a true genius. I'm sooo glad you like that story. It's sadly not very famous,at least in my country. I've read it only recently, although I'm a big Chehov fan ❤❤❤
Man I watch every video of yours in love with David and ITV series but your videos its so hard to find on y.t. even tho I put notification on if I don't watch it it's hard to find you through sreach box.
As a fan of both the Christie books and the Suchet/Ustinov films, I personally don't care if the stories from book to screen match or even really make sense. For instance, if you read the books and want them exactly on screen, then you lose the fun of watching Ustinov as Poirot. Another instance for me of liking the film better than the book is the 1945 Hollywood version of And Then There Were None in which two of the characters survive. I like this version much better than all the others where everyone dies. For me, one of the best thing about Agatha Christie was that she created interesting people and plots - she did this probably better and more consistently than most other mystery writers. This is probably why one or another of her stories is almost always in production somewhere in the world.
I think it was great. Even Poirot learned something like there’s evil everywhere even in a seemingly ‘peaceful’ countryside. A novel and a film are two different things so they’re not going to be exactly the same.
I’d be curious to see if there is a commentary anywhere on the writing of this screenplay because it seems almost as if knowing they couldn’t compete with the twist they decided to take it in another direction.
It seems they were afraid that the ending would be boring (two people chatting in a room), and decided to spice it up with a bit of action, which cheapen the movie instead🙄. And I hate that the movie dr. Shepherd was trying to soften his crime at the end (by refusing to call it what it was). The book Dr. Shepherd is more cold-blooded and reasonable. He knew it was a gambling and he lose. Damn! The book is one of the most important works of Christie. I wish the adaptation has a better writer🤦🏼♀️
I liked the Suchet version of the book. It was fairly close to source material. (Compared to later adaption) Granted, I didn't read the Christie's work until 2003-ish. The books are generally better than the adaptions.
“Which she did . . . once!” When I read the one in which she pulled the same trick off, it came as a major disappointment. I put the book down, thinking, “But Agatha, you already *did* that.” The first time, it was brilliant; the second time, I felt like she was copying someone else’s homework.
At least 'Endless Night' was a stand alone story - no sleuths. It was made into a Marple mystery film which didn't contribute to it at all. Instead of a journal, it was a confession.
I was disappointed watching the adaptation. I’ve never read the book, but I have read the graphic novel, which certainly carried the shock of the ending, I was gutted when the truth was revealed
Brilliant job. I wholeheartedly agree. They made it far too obvious in the movie for who the killer was. They needed more to the characters as well. Some were a bit too flat to hold your attention. It's one of my least favorite Poirot films.
It could work better if they didn't change the ending. I can imagine it: It was dark and raining heavily outside. The other guests have left. Poirot and dr. Shepherd sit face to face in front of a warm fireplace. Somber music is playing in the background... For the final scene: a close up view of a hand writing on a book. The camera is slowly disclose the face of the writer. The writer closes the book, takes a bottle of medicine, and drink one pill from it. The camera is slowly moving away from above.
@@tiararoxeanne1318 you're right... The book has a way better ending, more atmospheric and I love the approach that Poirot takes. In the rest of the books, he either lets the murderer get away or put his trust in the British legal system, but in this book he literally tells the murderer to k... LL himself. As he should! It was so different from the rest of the books. Also, while watching the adaptation it was rather easy to sense who's the murderer, while in the book we're more tricked since the whole story is told by the murderer himself
I grew up with the TV show as well, and I'm afraid to say I never wanted to read the book because the episode is so dull. And I hate that house most of all 😂 Maybe it's time to give it a chance. (Although to be fair I'm not a fan of Then There Were None or the ABC Murders either).
Besides Chekhov’ The Shooting Party (mentioned in an earlier comment), Stein Riverton‘s 1909 novel Jernvognen (The Iron Chariot) also employed the same narrative gimmick as Roger Ackroyd. Actually, many of Dame Agatha‘s most famous twist endings (Ackroyd, The ABC Murders, Crooked House, Peril at End House, The Mousetrap, etc…) and premises (And Then There Were None, 4.50 from Paddington…) were used by other authors before Christie got to them, but that doesn’t diminish her achievements. For, those are mostly all rather inevitable ideas for an enterprising school of mystery writers (as there were in the Golden Age) who were all trying to think outside the box for ideas their readers would not anticipate. Just think “who is a culprit no one would suspect?” and most of these ideas would occur to one. The genius of Agatha Christie was not as an originator of ideas, but as a perfector of them. In all but one of the cases I cited above, I believe that Christie delivered the BEST version of the idea (the one exception for me is The ABC Murders, which I don’t consider as ingeniously or richly clued as the short story which introduced its central plot deception a quarter of a century earlier). Ackroyd is perhaps the strongest example- other authors have used the idea before and since, but never as brilliantly, IMO (for me, the most ingenious aspect about it is the way Christie provided a motivational justification for the culprit’s use of the narrative gimmick). Incidentally, in Poirot and Me, David Suchet writes: “Roger Ackroyd became Dame Agatha’s - - and Poirot’s - - first major success, selling more than 5000 copies in hardcover in Britain alone in his first year. One reason for this, I suspect, is that it assembles one of the most ingenious group of suspects in all her murder mysteries, and even has the murderer narrate the story, without giving his or her identity away.” Look at those sentences again. He is revealing the primary surprise of the novel- apparently uncharacteristically breaking his “no spoilers” policy found everywhere else in Poirot and Me. And yet he writes of “his or her” identity. Why be so illuminating in one respect but at this same time cryptic in another? What’s the point of not clarifying the gender of the murderer if you’re giving away the (much more revealing) narrative position and characteristic of that character? It seems like a contradiction until one thinks about the solution used in the adaptation. The words above are consistent as those of a man who doesn’t realize he IS revealing the identity of the murderer by revealing that the murderer is the narrator of the memoir, as that fact is known at the beginning of the episode! It is just one of many examples of indications that although Suchet knew a lot about the screenplays of the series, his knowledge of the contents of the novels is extremely limited, putting significant doubt on his claims of thorough research.
Sounds like he is going off the screenplay in this case, where the narrator is known to be the murderer but the identity is concealed, and just assumed it was the same in the novel.
@@JohnSmith-zq9mo exactly. It’s one of many examples in his memoirs where he demonstrates knowledge of the screenplays but not of the novels which he claimed to have read.
@@lannypanlock Have you written about the other examples anywhere? Would be interesting to see, given that most people do seem to credit him for deep research.
@@JohnSmith-zq9mo Well, there are several quick, easy to miss examples. But perhaps the most extensive is his lengthy description of Murder on the Orient Express, in which he repeatedly talks about the great internal moral struggle Poirot undergoes in terms of how the culprits should be treated, which he claims was missing in the 1974 film version. In fact, there is not a single word of indication of such moral turmoil in the book, and indeed there is a statement on his deathbed that never before that final case (Curtain) had he any uncertainty whatsoever regarding such decisions.
One of the two lamest endings for Christie adaptations I've seen. The other is the Joan Hickson version of Pocketful of Rye. In both adaptations, they take Christie's flawless ending and "go Hollywood"--with lame chase scenes. Thankfully the Julia McKenzie version of Rye stuck to the original ending. Not Suchet's or Hickson's fault, they were splendid as usual.
I remember being astounded at how much the TV version seemed to miss the reason why the book succeeds so well. By bringing Japp in to act as Poirot’s sidekick, it turns the murderer into just another suspect and the whole production into a pretty bog standard murder mystery. Sure, it was never going to be easy to pull off the book’s big twist, but they don’t even try - for me, probably the most disappointing of all the Suchet adaptations.
The Soviet version succeeded (nearly) PERFECTLY. Sheppard there is a bit too winy for my taste and the TV-series itself is a bit slow, but otherwise it's VERY good.
It’s very obvious who murdered Roger Ackroyd. I figured it out in the first three pages. It’s the narrator. How did he know what time the victim was killed if he wasn’t there?
@@christopherfanelli8821Also the title is somewhat a clue, “The Murder of Roger Ackroyd”, sounds like James is trying to say “I Committed The Murder of Roger Ackroyd”
Sadly, betraying the source material and delivering a disappointing mess is not unique in the later Suchet adaptations. The early ones with Hastings, Japp and Miss Lemon are delightful, true in tone to Christie. Then they got dark, moralizing, and just awful. It's pitiful when you hear people so blinded by their preference for David Suchet's performance that they won't see it's being wasted in absolute mess of an adaptation.
Do you seriously watching the adaptation PRIOR TO reading the book? Whyyyy? Oh, whyyyy? You know in most cases the books are better than the adaptation🤔
I committed this mistake a few times too. I watched "Death on the nile" and "Halloween Party" and they instantly became my favourite stories, I wish I had read the book first!
I read the book without spoilers abd BELIEVE ME THE SHOCK AND THE BETRAYAL I FELT WAS UNMATCHED. That's why it's among my favorites novels of all time.
The true identity of the murderer occurred to me early on, but I immediately dismissed it, thinking it was too ridiculous
i just finished it and ik the feeling you're talking about......
@@emosongsandreadalongsfor me it was when it was revealed Sheppard knew where Ralph was: I was like….huh well that’s weird….hmmmmm
Yeah,it was truly mindblowing.
Well, I can outdo any readers who knew who the murderer was a few pages in. I knew the moment I picked up the book. This is because I was told. Not by a friend who had previously read it. Not by a careless reviewer. No. By Agatha Christie herself. Or, rather, Poirot. Occasionally he would reminisce about previous cases. And one of these was ‘Roger Ackroyd.’ I have always been cross about being denied the enjoyable shock of the big reveal. I don’t think I will ever forgive Christie. ☹️
Having recently reread The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, I'm totally with you, Miles, in appreciating it as a novel. It's not just a twist, but a really good story, and one that the twist actually enhances rather than just a gimmick. Moreover, it's not a twist that renders something un-rereadable. In fact, it's immensely pleasurable to go back and appreciate just how clever Christie really was in its construction. She's actually very, very fair; it's not, like some of her later ones, a mystery where the solution is not possible without information we never get until the very end. There are plenty of clues. It's just so incredibly well-crafted and a masterful example of literary sleight of hand.
It is such a shame that we today can't experience it as a new novel. Even if one doesn't know the twist beforehand, or even that there is a twist, unreliable narrators are de rigeur now. The sheer bracing shock of it that elicited a sensation that carried Christie to stardom must have been amazing. And I love that it wasn't just the public in an uproar; a lot of mediocre male mystery writers, almost all of whom today are forgotten, hated it, thought she was perverting the genre or some such bull. Dorothy Sayers, though, called "Fair! And fooled you." They were just jealous they didn't think of it first, and even if they had, probably didn't have the skills to pull it off like Christie did. Beautiful.
Two quick final notes: One, that part of the genius of Christie's misdirection is the very fact that the doctor IS rather like Hastings, especially in one key way that directly explains the whole motive behind his crimes. And two, Caroline is one (maybe even the first?) of the proto-Marples that pop up in Christie long before Miss Marple herself appears, though that's much more apparent in the book than in the adaptation.
Agatha stated Marple was based on Caroline, especially her original version in the Murder at the vicarage. She's much more of an unpleasant, judgy,gossipy spinster in that book. Akroyd's such a brilliant book.
I completely agree with your point of Hastings / Sheppard and proto-Marples. These fundamental things were taken into account in the Russian film adaptation of Agatha Christie's novel. This film is called "Puro's Failure" (2002), directed by Sergei Ursulyak.
Way back when I first read the book I remember the feeling of complete surprise at the end. I'd read many other AG books before this but this one stood out as her best.
You've spent hours with a murderer telling you a story filled with lies. That's the beauty of this novel. And the creepiness of it. You've cozied up with your book and your narrator only to find out you've been betrayed by the person you've never suspected but always trusted. A masterstroke by Christie.
You've got this one up and running again, too. Hooray!
Akroyd's definitely one of her most innovative & bravest & it was only THE THIRD Poirot novel! 😮❤
The best trick is that, if we accept that ANYONE can be guilty & just follow the clues, it becomes fairly obvious, but we never do, precisely bcs of the clever narrative techniques. I'm going to check some of the other adaptation, but I believe Akroyd really works best in the written form. ❤
The psychology of the characters & the village mentality are also very cleverly portrayed & used in this story. I think that's why it's so engaging upon a reread.❤
This mystery was the sensation of its day making Agatha Christie a star of publishing.
I read the books completely unspoiled about thirty years ago and was completely flabbergasted, shocked and in awe by the twist. I re-read it recently (of course knowing the twist), and enjoyed it even more. The execution is flawless. But also the little village setting is wonderfully and the doctor's sister is, imho an early Miss Marple prototype.
The Murder of Roger Ackroyd was always my favourite Christie novel. Maybe in my top 100 best books. I remember reading an essay or was it a book, where the author put forward a very good case where Hercule was wrong. That it was Dr Sheppard's sister who was the blackmailer and murderer. Dr Sheppard, tried to cover it up and in a final act of love, took responsibility for the crime and committed suicide to protect her. The reason he asked Poirot not to tell the sister was to avoid her breaking down and confessing on finding out what her brother had done.
I have search the internet and can't find it. It's a pity because I would love your thoghts on it.
Interesting! That is something I'd want to read.
The book is “Who Killed Roger Ackroyd?: The Mystery Behind the Agatha Christie Mystery” by Pierre Bayard. I’m not crazy about it, but it does illustrate the point so brilliantly made in Anthony Berkeley’s “The Poisoned Chocolates Case”: that no detective story solution is truly conclusive…. that one can take any solution as the deliberate “cover up” of a further truth.
[SPOILER ALERT, I mean... Just in case🙄] Caroline was never near the crime scene. How did she stab Roger and then retrieve the dictaphone?
The Murder of Roger Akord was the first agatha christie novel that I read. I thought it was brilliant and I was blown away by the ending. After I read it I watched the David Suchet film version and I was very disappointed by it. In the book agatha christie has several suspects and several clues that you put together to figure out who Did it. Each suspect has a particular personality and does a particular action. They start the film version by reading the journal. Which immediately gives away the gender of the Killer. It doesn't take much to figure out who is actually reading it.
The chapter in the book that always stays most strongly in my mind is the one about the evening playing mah jongg. Although Caroline was often considered a sort of forerunner of Miss Marple, I liked her trying to blame her brother for not discarding the red dragon that would have given her a huge winning hand.
"Meh" is the perfect word for that adaptation. I know the unreliable narrator element is tough to replicate on film, but having Dr Sheppard assume the "Hastings" role, combined with more interactions with his sister like we got in the book, would still have made for a far better twist. The journal just comes across as contrived and pointless in the TV adaptation - it's not a de facto suicide note, so why is he leaving it around for his sister to find? - and the ending was a catastrophe.
I would go further than “meh.” I thought this adaptation was awful, the biggest disappointment of the entire Suchet-Poirot series. Since “Ackroyd” is my favorite among the Poirot novels, I was really looking forward to seeing the adaptation, but when I did . . . 😢 (Also, I hated the art deco mansion that the producers housed the Ackroyd family in.)
I was so delighted by the book because I'd guessed it was the doctor several times throughout, and EVERY TIME Agatha Christie turned my suspicions in a different direction in a very believable and reasonable way that had me at a loss, a quite enjoyed one mind, but still. Of course I'm familiar with the unreliable narrator trope as a modern audience, but I'd never seen it done quite like this. I thought to myself 'wouldn't it be funny IF', and then dismissed it! I ofc fell in love with the book immediately. It was fantastic prior to the twist, but my feelings upon getting to the twist cement it as one of my absolute favourite reads of all time. I've rarely felt so delighted with a read. I had a fantastic time with it and am presently rereading it.
Just finished the book and I’m here for therapy.
I hear ya.
I read this book for the first time last year and oh my goodness it was an amazing read - I didn’t know a thing about this book - the Betrayal you feel as a reader, it was unmatched!
One thing that struck me about the adaptation was when the murderer ran over Parker the butler. That didn’t happen in the novel. The way it was done made me think that whoever was involved with the production perhaps watched an early episode of the Australian drama Prisoner. There was a scene where the mum does exactly the same by repeatedly running over a man who had taken diabolical liberties with her daughter
All our beloved British actors. Such a comfort😊
I love your videos they’re so cool and interesting!
The only Christie book I ever read was “Death in the Clouds” and I remember loving it! But then watching the david Suchet version and not being as into it so I’d love to see if you could make a video on that one and see if they are as different in quality as I remember
Take a look at The Shooting Party, an early work (1884) by Anton Chekhov, which is an even earlier variation on this theme. An unidentified narrator tells the story of a love triangle, which includes himself. The woman in the triangle is found stabbed to death in the woods, and an investigation takes place. Ultimately, a local bailiff is arrested. When a peasant who might have been able to identify a different killer is himself murdered (did the film adaptation get the idea here?), the bailiff is ultimately executed. A postscript to the manuscript shows however that the real murderer is the unidentified narrator.
Fascinating!
I'm soooo glad you mentioned this brilliant story❤ I'm a massive fan of Chekhov's & I've read it only recently. It seems it's not very popular, at least in my country ❤❤❤
There is also a film made of The Shooting Party which I've seen.
Don't forget Poirot literally ask Sheppard to off himself
Yes, to protect his little sister, Caroline.
I have seen play and film adaptations of this book. Both missed the main point of the book ie that the narrator is the murderer. I would think it perfectly possible to have the doctor as a narrator and maintain the surprise ending both in film and plays. Why has this never been done?
Happy to see another one of your videos re-uploaded, Miles.
Hope TH-cam will back off any give you the benefit of the doubt, especially when your vids are so blatantly covered under the tenets of Fair Use.
The name Ferrars (also in Sense and Sensibility) should be stricken from the historical record.
Chehov's a true genius. I'm sooo glad you like that story. It's sadly not very famous,at least in my country. I've read it only recently, although I'm a big Chehov fan ❤❤❤
Russian 2002 adaptation is most faithful to the Agatha Christie book. I highly recommend it. Named "Poirot's Failure".
Man I watch every video of yours in love with David and ITV series but your videos its so hard to find on y.t. even tho I put notification on if I don't watch it it's hard to find you through sreach box.
As a fan of both the Christie books and the Suchet/Ustinov films, I personally don't care if the stories from book to screen match or even really make sense. For instance, if you read the books and want them exactly on screen, then you lose the fun of watching Ustinov as Poirot. Another instance for me of liking the film better than the book is the 1945 Hollywood version of And Then There Were None in which two of the characters survive. I like this version much better than all the others where everyone dies. For me, one of the best thing about Agatha Christie was that she created interesting people and plots - she did this probably better and more consistently than most other mystery writers. This is probably why one or another of her stories is almost always in production somewhere in the world.
I think it was great. Even Poirot learned something like there’s evil everywhere even in a seemingly ‘peaceful’ countryside. A novel and a film are two different things so they’re not going to be exactly the same.
Have you Heard The Radio version of The Murder Of Roger Ackroyd? Orson Welles Stars as Hercule Poirot
:O
I’d be curious to see if there is a commentary anywhere on the writing of this screenplay because it seems almost as if knowing they couldn’t compete with the twist they decided to take it in another direction.
It seems they were afraid that the ending would be boring (two people chatting in a room), and decided to spice it up with a bit of action, which cheapen the movie instead🙄. And I hate that the movie dr. Shepherd was trying to soften his crime at the end (by refusing to call it what it was). The book Dr. Shepherd is more cold-blooded and reasonable. He knew it was a gambling and he lose. Damn! The book is one of the most important works of Christie. I wish the adaptation has a better writer🤦🏼♀️
I liked the Suchet version of the book. It was fairly close to source material.
(Compared to later adaption)
Granted, I didn't read the Christie's work until 2003-ish.
The books are generally better than the adaptions.
“Which she did . . . once!” When I read the one in which she pulled the same trick off, it came as a major disappointment. I put the book down, thinking, “But Agatha, you already *did* that.” The first time, it was brilliant; the second time, I felt like she was copying someone else’s homework.
At least 'Endless Night' was a stand alone story - no sleuths. It was made into a Marple mystery film which didn't contribute to it at all. Instead of a journal, it was a confession.
The BBC Radio adaptation is wonderful.
"How would one go about adapting this to film?"
Me: Not having a weird, tonally inconsistent chase scene at the end?
Lol
I was disappointed watching the adaptation. I’ve never read the book, but I have read the graphic novel, which certainly carried the shock of the ending, I was gutted when the truth was revealed
Brilliant job. I wholeheartedly agree. They made it far too obvious in the movie for who the killer was. They needed more to the characters as well. Some were a bit too flat to hold your attention. It's one of my least favorite Poirot films.
I can think of 2 other books where a similar plot device was used, though one was more of an adventure story
Yes. She first tried the device in an adventure story and brought the idea to it's fullest potential in The Murder of Roger Ackroyd"
I always wondered why the Suchet version of this story fell flat--you nailed the reason why!
It could work better if they didn't change the ending. I can imagine it: It was dark and raining heavily outside. The other guests have left. Poirot and dr. Shepherd sit face to face in front of a warm fireplace. Somber music is playing in the background...
For the final scene: a close up view of a hand writing on a book. The camera is slowly disclose the face of the writer. The writer closes the book, takes a bottle of medicine, and drink one pill from it. The camera is slowly moving away from above.
@@tiararoxeanne1318 you're right... The book has a way better ending, more atmospheric and I love the approach that Poirot takes. In the rest of the books, he either lets the murderer get away or put his trust in the British legal system, but in this book he literally tells the murderer to k... LL himself. As he should! It was so different from the rest of the books. Also, while watching the adaptation it was rather easy to sense who's the murderer, while in the book we're more tricked since the whole story is told by the murderer himself
I grew up with the TV show as well, and I'm afraid to say I never wanted to read the book because the episode is so dull. And I hate that house most of all 😂 Maybe it's time to give it a chance. (Although to be fair I'm not a fan of Then There Were None or the ABC Murders either).
I think the film changed completely the impact versus book. Trying to mark the Poirot's character, they lost the surprise and Clima
Besides Chekhov’ The Shooting Party (mentioned in an earlier comment), Stein Riverton‘s 1909 novel Jernvognen (The Iron Chariot) also employed the same narrative gimmick as Roger Ackroyd. Actually, many of Dame Agatha‘s most famous twist endings (Ackroyd, The ABC Murders, Crooked House, Peril at End House, The Mousetrap, etc…) and premises (And Then There Were None, 4.50 from Paddington…) were used by other authors before Christie got to them, but that doesn’t diminish her achievements. For, those are mostly all rather inevitable ideas for an enterprising school of mystery writers (as there were in the Golden Age) who were all trying to think outside the box for ideas their readers would not anticipate. Just think “who is a culprit no one would suspect?” and most of these ideas would occur to one. The genius of Agatha Christie was not as an originator of ideas, but as a perfector of them. In all but one of the cases I cited above, I believe that Christie delivered the BEST version of the idea (the one exception for me is The ABC Murders, which I don’t consider as ingeniously or richly clued as the short story which introduced its central plot deception a quarter of a century earlier). Ackroyd is perhaps the strongest example- other authors have used the idea before and since, but never as brilliantly, IMO (for me, the most ingenious aspect about it is the way Christie provided a motivational justification for the culprit’s use of the narrative gimmick).
Incidentally, in Poirot and Me, David Suchet writes:
“Roger Ackroyd became Dame Agatha’s - - and Poirot’s - - first major success, selling more than 5000 copies in hardcover in Britain alone in his first year. One reason for this, I suspect, is that it assembles one of the most ingenious group of suspects in all her murder mysteries, and even has the murderer narrate the story, without giving his or her identity away.”
Look at those sentences again. He is revealing the primary surprise of the novel- apparently uncharacteristically breaking his “no spoilers” policy found everywhere else in Poirot and Me. And yet he writes of “his or her” identity. Why be so illuminating in one respect but at this same time cryptic in another? What’s the point of not clarifying the gender of the murderer if you’re giving away the (much more revealing) narrative position and characteristic of that character?
It seems like a contradiction until one thinks about the solution used in the adaptation. The words above are consistent as those of a man who doesn’t realize he IS revealing the identity of the murderer by revealing that the murderer is the narrator of the memoir, as that fact is known at the beginning of the episode!
It is just one of many examples of indications that although Suchet knew a lot about the screenplays of the series, his knowledge of the contents of the novels is extremely limited, putting significant doubt on his claims of thorough research.
Sounds like he is going off the screenplay in this case, where the narrator is known to be the murderer but the identity is concealed, and just assumed it was the same in the novel.
@@JohnSmith-zq9mo exactly. It’s one of many examples in his memoirs where he demonstrates knowledge of the screenplays but not of the novels which he claimed to have read.
@@lannypanlock Have you written about the other examples anywhere? Would be interesting to see, given that most people do seem to credit him for deep research.
@@JohnSmith-zq9mo Well, there are several quick, easy to miss examples. But perhaps the most extensive is his lengthy description of Murder on the Orient Express, in which he repeatedly talks about the great internal moral struggle Poirot undergoes in terms of how the culprits should be treated, which he claims was missing in the 1974 film version. In fact, there is not a single word of indication of such moral turmoil in the book, and indeed there is a statement on his deathbed that never before that final case (Curtain) had he any uncertainty whatsoever regarding such decisions.
One of the two lamest endings for Christie adaptations I've seen. The other is the Joan Hickson version of Pocketful of Rye. In both adaptations, they take Christie's flawless ending and "go Hollywood"--with lame chase scenes. Thankfully the Julia McKenzie version of Rye stuck to the original ending. Not Suchet's or Hickson's fault, they were splendid as usual.
Where can we watch this movie...?? plZ reply 🙏
ITVX
It's on TH-cam. But I highly recommend reading the book first. The book is amazing, one of the best mystery books ever, but the adaptations is... Meh
I listened to the BBC radio play of this story. I liked Suchet as Poirot, but the ending of the film put me off watching any more
I remember being astounded at how much the TV version seemed to miss the reason why the book succeeds so well. By bringing Japp in to act as Poirot’s sidekick, it turns the murderer into just another suspect and the whole production into a pretty bog standard murder mystery. Sure, it was never going to be easy to pull off the book’s big twist, but they don’t even try - for me, probably the most disappointing of all the Suchet adaptations.
The book is great. The movie not so much. But at least young Jamie Bamber is involved.
Who else but the doctor could have known that Mrs Ferrers poisoned her husband?
The Soviet version succeeded (nearly) PERFECTLY. Sheppard there is a bit too winy for my taste and the TV-series itself is a bit slow, but otherwise it's VERY good.
To be precise, this is a Russian film adaptation produced in 2002.
@@alexandersedov9896 yeah, you're right. I'm always forgetting that this series is not THAT old.
Why do you keep reuploading old videos? Just make new ones!
They got taken down by copyright
Right. Two down, three to go.
Oh, didn’t know
It’s very obvious who murdered Roger Ackroyd. I figured it out in the first three pages. It’s the narrator. How did he know what time the victim was killed if he wasn’t there?
@@christopherfanelli8821Also the title is somewhat a clue, “The Murder of Roger Ackroyd”, sounds like James is trying to say “I Committed The Murder of Roger Ackroyd”
The BBC Radio Drama version is superb !! John Moffat and the great John Woodvine impeccable . Far superior to the Suchet version ..!! Sorry....!
As many adaptations as suchet got right, this was beyond doubt the worst adaptation of any story.
The book was magnificent! The movie was terrible !!!
I honestly found the book confusing because I had to google who was the narrator and was waiting for Poirot to appear.
Her books are sometimes confusing but if you just make a list of people and list their names it is fun to read
Sadly, betraying the source material and delivering a disappointing mess is not unique in the later Suchet adaptations. The early ones with Hastings, Japp and Miss Lemon are delightful, true in tone to Christie. Then they got dark, moralizing, and just awful. It's pitiful when you hear people so blinded by their preference for David Suchet's performance that they won't see it's being wasted in absolute mess of an adaptation.
Not a good adaptation. Totally missed the point.
Do you seriously watching the adaptation PRIOR TO reading the book? Whyyyy? Oh, whyyyy? You know in most cases the books are better than the adaptation🤔
Believe me, it's a decision I regret. :( (In my defense, I was 16.)
@@MysteryMiles 😂
I committed this mistake a few times too. I watched "Death on the nile" and "Halloween Party" and they instantly became my favourite stories, I wish I had read the book first!
@@oskarm646 Those two had the opposite effects, didn't they?😂
🤔
Elephants. Remember.
Absolutely
Everything.
Every. Word
Every. conversation.
Every. look
Every . Action
Etcetera
💝
Etcetera
💞
Etcetera
🔢▶️