DS Forums

 
 

Witness for the prosecution


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 28-12-2016, 07:00
Sherlock_Holmes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,283
Personally, I feel that some of the criticisms have been a bit harsh.

It was my cuppa tea, and I preferred it to a lot (well, most really!) of the usual Christmas stuff.

Thinking about it, perhaps Kim Catrall was a bit too attractive to be a sex-starved rich widow/spinster in the public's view, and so Vole's role as her killer was less believable? Dunno.

But I enjoyed it for what it was; even the 'greenish' tinge earlier.

I wonder why Agatha Christie is held in such high esteem? The ''Golden Age'' of crime novelists also include Margery Allingham: Ngaio Marsh, and Dorothy Sayers, whom I prefer to Agatha tbh

I don't suppose any of them would be considered particularly perceptive about the human condition these days, but I s'pose it all depends what you want from your drama.
Perhaps because not many people know those authors? Or their type of writing. Personally, I grew up with Christie through the books that my mother had (and reading the rest from the local library) but didn't come across the other writers.

And surely some people are taking the mickey by saying that WFTP was better then last years ATTWN. Mind you, I disagree with what someone said that ATTWN is much harder to do justice/make work on film. Much more characters and a very creepy atmosphere to work with. WFTP is much more straightforward, hence it being originally a short story (and play, just like three blind mice/the mousetrap), and why in different versions characters even had to be added to pad it out.

Also, WFTP hinges on the twist and they cheated a bit here by scarring the face (and even then some people recognized her).
Sherlock_Holmes is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 28-12-2016, 07:20
Angelique_Dorma
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 514
Wish I hadn't wasted my time watching this tripe. Far too many twists and turns, sometimes writers just try too hard to be interesting and fail miserably. And all the coughing and spluttering made me feel sick, especially when he coughed phlegm all over his poor wife's face mid-hump. Terrible programme.
Angelique_Dorma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 07:51
Marispiper
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 266
The reason an Agatha Christie tale is good is because there is never too much realism... It's all a bit fluffy and far fetched and the enjoyment is in solving the riddle.

The tragedy of Mayhew and his wife (though well acted) took it into another area - one I certainly didn't want to to go to!
Marispiper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 08:11
Angelique_Dorma
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 514


Post of the thread, you win first prize
Angelique_Dorma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 08:12
Sandra Bee
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Staffordshire
Posts: 5,728
There was a 1982 tv movie version made by CBS with Ralph Richardson in the Charles Laugton role

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witnes...on_(1982_film)

That was only 97 minutes long.

The BBC version could have even shorter if they had cut out all the completely irrelevant nonsense about Mayhew's family life and all his coughing


He never coughed in Court though which I found quite amusing not to mention unbelievable.
Sandra Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 09:09
mmmbeans
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Between Wales and Liverpool
Posts: 14
I had no previous experience of the story and really enjoyed it. Subtitles weren't needed (for once). I understood the smog outside (peasouper) and the fug inside (gaslamps). The contrast to the wonderful sunny Le Touquet was great.

I thought Janet might get away with 'balance of the mind disturbed' rather than hanging, but she did kill the cat .....

I have done shouting at the television in the past when a book has been changed, so can understand some of the disappointment in this thread - but in my case ignorance was bliss.
mmmbeans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 09:11
roddydogs
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,347
Vole only said he was "Going Abroad", so are we supposed to believe that Mayhew took his wife on holiday some months/years later, & just happened to come across them getting married?
roddydogs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 09:12
Jenny1986
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,603
It seems to have been reviewed well, not that reviews are everything, it's just nice to know i'm not crazy for thinking it was really good
Jenny1986 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 09:24
mal2pool
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 5,498
i'm surprised the evidence was all circumstancial, they never investigated if the star HAD been disfigured by mrs vole or try to interview her, saying mr vole had an affair with her husband which they didn't investigate either. they didn't ask the rest of the cast what happened#
where did they get mrs voles letter to her lover?
Don't think they swore like that back then either. my bloody but not the f word. surely Agatha didn't write that ?
mal2pool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 09:58
JELLIES0
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,361
The reason an Agatha Christie tale is good is because there is never too much realism... It's all a bit fluffy and far fetched and the enjoyment is in solving the riddle.

The tragedy of Mayhew and his wife (though well acted) took it into another area - one I certainly didn't want to to go to!
I agree entirely. The Tyrone Power / Marlene Dietrich / Charles Laughton film version is joy to watch. This BBC version was dark, depressing and a wholly miserable affair.
JELLIES0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 10:20
Swanandduck2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: I'm a she not a he.
Posts: 3,192
I enjoyed the second episode more than the first, but it really wasn't what most people expect from an Agatha Christie story. For Christmas, I would have preferred something less gratuitous and more true to the original AC story.

Toby Jones was terrific, though.
Swanandduck2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 10:21
Verence
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Kessingland, Suffolk
Posts: 85,524
I'm astounded that the Christie family have allowed Agatha's name to this adaptation. The gratuitous scenes which I would quite happily watch on a US "made for TV movie" has not place in Christie dramas. As a total Christie fan I'm saddened by the BBC chasing the ratings by putting in sex and violence explicitly, ITV Poirot and Marple are far superior. Really NOT Christmas Day viewing.
The ITV Marples were a complete and utter travesty, changing the murdererers, altering the plots beyond all recognition and putting Marple into dramatisations of non-Marple books
Verence is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 10:26
bean_of_sb
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Posts: 4,609
I agree with the 'ignorance is bliss comments'. I thought it was a great drama. Part 2 packed more punch than the first.

However, there have been novels that I love that have been painful to watch on TV due to appalling adaptation, so I can completely understand why people didn't like it.
bean_of_sb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 10:59
Jenny1986
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,603
I agree with the 'ignorance is bliss comments'. I thought it was a great drama. Part 2 packed more punch than the first.

However, there have been novels that I love that have been painful to watch on TV due to appalling adaptation, so I can completely understand why people didn't like it.
I had a real hatred of the Prisoner of Azkaban, it's my favourite Harry Potter book, and it's regarded by many as the best film. But I hated it because it missed so much out. It has taught me to at least try and accept an adaptation as it's own thing, and I have come to really like it as a film. I still think it's a terrible adaptation though.

My current worst offender is the Hobbit, awful.
Jenny1986 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 11:22
duncann
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: West Oxfordshire
Posts: 11,632
I enjoyed it, the production values and period were superb, but it strayed far too far away from Christie's style or imprint. I don't mean they should not have embellished it, it's just that the new bits were not remotely what Christie would have written back then or now, were she alive.

It also lost power because for some reason this version switched the key protagonist from the barrister who grills each witness in court, to a lowly solicitor who does not, cannot, because solicitors may not represent their clients before judges. I can't think why producers let this pass, it watered down the whole thing.

In addition, this very non-Christie back story about the son in the Great War was utter drivel, the worst kind of bad psychology and totally irrelevant. In the fabulous 1957 classic film version, to meet the film ethics rules of the day, the barrister is devastated but the subsequent action in the courtroom after the case resolves the ethical issues and immediately provides him with a reason to bring an element of the case back into court and for him to potentially triumph beyond the end of the film. I am not revealing what it was here in case you watch it, as it is a much more satisfactory ending. In this version Mathew walked into the sea but probably mostly because of his personal life, the reasons were too complex and too confused.

This version also threw away the great dramatic triumph of the 1957 movie. Marlene Dietrich, the greatest ever German star of the previous 25 years, could only speak English with a noticeable heavy accent and had one of the most distinctive voices - and faces - in the world. So when she appeared in full vision as the Other Woman, scarred, speaking in broad Cockney (which she performed herself) cinema goers totally failed to recognise her and could not believe it had been her, hence she repeated her famous line 'Wanba kiss me, ducky' in court. It was a stunning denouement. Of course, Andrea Riseborough can perfectly navigate the accents because she is English, but in 1957 that a German speaker (and a Hollywood make up team) could do so was a major plot misdirection and caused a sensation.

But I still liked it and always welcome lavish period drama with great casts and anything by Christie, even if I know the culprit from the start.
duncann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 11:25
Granny McSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,067

I wonder why Agatha Christie is held in such high esteem? The ''Golden Age'' of crime novelists also include Margery Allingham: Ngaio Marsh, and Dorothy Sayers, whom I prefer to Agatha tbh

I don't suppose any of them would be considered particularly perceptive about the human condition these days, but I s'pose it all depends what you want from your drama.
How very dare you, Peter Wimsey is the most perceptive person alive. Well, he's not actually alive, but if he were he would be.

Roderick Alleyn, Albert Campion, and my beloved Lord Peter have all had series in the past, but are very much overdue for renewal.

Though they'd have to get Peter and Harriet right, or I'd be seriously annoyed. They managed perfectly last time.


I had a real hatred of the Prisoner of Azkaban, it's my favourite Harry Potter book, and it's regarded by many as the best film. But I hated it because it missed so much out. It has taught me to at least try and accept an adaptation as it's own thing, and I have come to really like it as a film. I still think it's a terrible adaptation though.

My current worst offender is the Hobbit, awful.
I feel like that about all the Harry Potter films.
Granny McSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 12:05
suemo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 208
Disappointing. Should have been cut down to one full length episode rather than 2

Could have been so much better with a cast of that quality
suemo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 12:10
fiagomez
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,885
Disappointing. Should have been cut down to one full length episode rather than 2

Could have been so much better with a cast of that quality
definitely could've been just one feature length episode....
fiagomez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 12:14
Angelique_Dorma
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 514
definitely could've been just one feature length episode....
Or even better, none.
Angelique_Dorma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 12:19
Baz_James
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,918
. Really NOT Christmas Day viewing.
Probably why they didn't show it on Christmas Day then!
Baz_James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 12:30
Baz_James
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,918

Though they'd have to get Peter and Harriet right, or I'd be seriously annoyed. They managed perfectly last time.
Which is probably why there won't be another attempt for some time to come (though I certainly wouldn't cavil at a re-run!) There are of course relatively few Wimsey stories which also tends to limit the potential and then there's the famous Nine Tailors non-lethal instrument of death problem to contend with!
Baz_James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 12:34
SeasideLady
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aberdeenshire
Posts: 15,467
Watched it in Belgium over the holiday - we all thought it superb - attention to the period details were first class ( as it is always with the BBC ).
SeasideLady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 12:36
Baz_James
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,918
i'm surprised the evidence was all circumstancial, they never investigated if the star HAD been disfigured by mrs vole or try to interview her, saying mr vole had an affair with her husband which they didn't investigate either. they didn't ask the rest of the cast what happened#
where did they get mrs voles letter to her lover?
Don't think they swore like that back then either. my bloody but not the f word. surely Agatha didn't write that ?
They didn't investigate it because they were never told. Mayhew never revealed his source. As for swearing, the f word has been in use as long as there have been speakers of English. Just because it doesn't appear in print does not for one second mean it was never used. Do you really think that men who had been at the Somme said things like "cor blimey, guv, that's a bit rich and no mistake"?
Baz_James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 12:38
Baz_James
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,918
Vole only said he was "Going Abroad", so are we supposed to believe that Mayhew took his wife on holiday some months/years later, & just happened to come across them getting married?
It's hardly out of character for a Christie story to rely on massive coincidences!
Baz_James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 12:42
fiagomez
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,885
Or even better, none.
Hahaha!!
fiagomez is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 17:36.