DS Forums

 
 

Witness for the prosecution


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 31-12-2016, 15:50
Swanandduck2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: I'm a she not a he.
Posts: 3,192
It does sometimes look as if you take personal offence at any criticism of a TV programme.
I've noticed this as well. Also the lofty, 'how can you be so stupid' sighing response to anyone who doesn't agree with him.
Swanandduck2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 31-12-2016, 16:00
Swanandduck2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: I'm a she not a he.
Posts: 3,192
Well that's not at all a sweeping generalistation based on zero actual evidence. The Radio Times is still selling 3/4m copies each week, the TV Times 200k, every major newspaper has a TV guide with reviews, previews and recommendations, there are many websites devoted to TV (including this one), but obviously the fact that you don't read the Guardian trumps all that.

This information was freely available (you conveniently ignored my declaration that the Guardian article was only 'for starters', I note). If people were happy to ignore it and blindly watch a programme without having made any effort to determine whether it will appeal to them then that's their right, of course. But they don't then get to moan and groan about how it wasn't what they expected afterward as if it's anyone else's fault but their own.
Are you seriously saying that the BBC are not using the Agatha Christie name and 'brand' to pull in a large audience? Of course they are. Neither are they stupid enough to assume that the average viewer reads widely around, and does in depth research on, a programme before they watch it.

Most people will just say 'oh an Agatha Christie. Great', and settle down to watch. And no, we're not all plebians of low intellect and zero discernment, despite what you obviously like to think.
Swanandduck2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 17:07
Granny McSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,066
Are you seriously saying that the BBC are not using the Agatha Christie name and 'brand' to pull in a large audience? Of course they are. Neither are they stupid enough to assume that the average viewer reads widely around, and does in depth research on, a programme before they watch it.

Most people will just say 'oh an Agatha Christie. Great', and settle down to watch. And no, we're not all plebians of low intellect and zero discernment, despite what you obviously like to think.
I agree. I read WftP years ago, and remembered the totally unexpected dénouement where the girlfriend reveals that she has sabotaged her own evidence so that Vole will get off, even though he's guilty.

That was what I turned on expecting to watch. I thought it unnecessary to read articles about the programme beforehand as I knew the basics.

I knew there were two possible endings (as in And Then There Were None) and wondered which they'd go with. In the event, the twist was glossed over and seemed lost in the focus on the solicitor. The ending was something completely different, not in the original work.

I'm glad some liked it for what it was, but it wasn't what it was billed as, however many apologists say otherwise.
Granny McSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 21:08
Inkblot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: West London
Posts: 24,303
I skimmed through the Christie short story this afternoon, purely out of curiosity into how it had been changed for TV.

The glaringly obvious problem with the TV version is that the whole point of the story - the reason it's called The Witness For The Prosecution - is that at that time a wife could not be compelled to give evidence against her husband. In the story, Romaine deliberately reveals the fact that she is not legally married to Leonard and thus she can be called by the prosecution to give evidence against him. Consequently she can arrange for Mayherne to find the evidence that discredits her and leads to Leonard's acquittal..

But in the TV version, the significance of the couple not being legally married was altered to become all about how they could get married after the trial, and consequently humiliate Mayhew by being happily married whilst he was not. Which we, of course, knew, but they couldn't really have known unless they read the script.

It's not a big deal really, and it was an enjoyable (if depressing) watch, but the original plot was clever and thoughtful enough without having all the baggage added.
Inkblot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 01:31
Prince Monalulu
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 31,153
I skimmed through the Christie short story this afternoon, purely out of curiosity into how it had been changed for TV.

The glaringly obvious problem with the TV version is that the whole point of the story - the reason it's called The Witness For The Prosecution - is that at that time a wife could not be compelled to give evidence against her husband. In the story, Romaine deliberately reveals the fact that she is not legally married to Leonard and thus she can be called by the prosecution to give evidence against him. Consequently she can arrange for Mayherne to find the evidence that discredits her and leads to Leonard's acquittal..

But in the TV version, the significance of the couple not being legally married was altered to become all about how they could get married after the trial, and consequently humiliate Mayhew by being happily married whilst he was not. Which we, of course, knew, but they couldn't really have known unless they read the script.

It's not a big deal really, and it was an enjoyable (if depressing) watch, but the original plot was clever and thoughtful enough without having all the baggage added.
BIB I haven't a bally clue how you 'got' that paragraph from this drama.
Nothing altered after the trial that enabled them to get married apart from money/intent.
They didn't seem 'that' happy to me, Vole mentioned whether Romaine might get bored and want rid of him, he was advised not to get boring, or words to that effect.
Can two people who are slightly skewed, who find killing easy, really trust the other one might not turn on them and kill them.
They didn't taunt Mayhew about been happily married, did they?

I enjoyed this version, with the War and it's effect on people, been the 'key'
Prince Monalulu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 10:47
Versailles
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,001
Anyone managed to get a link to a reasonable copy of the 1957 film, all the U.Tube ones are hopeless, or else they want you to join something.!
I can pm you a link to a direct stream? No joining anything, no name, no mail, no card.
But it is stream, not download. And the quality is excellent.
Versailles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 10:54
Versailles
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,001
Hmm! if you look at the original novel Christie wasn't happy with the ending. It actually finished with Vole being found not guilty - the end. She later amended the novel to add the extra twist of a mistress.

The 1957 film with Charles Laughton had a totally different ending to the one penned for the BBC.

In the film it's the barrister not the Toby Jones character who is the one in ill health. In the film, Romaine is called 'Christine'. What follows below is the final scene in the film.

Leonard has overheard Christine's admission and, now protected by double jeopardy, cheerfully confirms to Sir Wilfred that he had indeed killed Mrs French. Sir Wilfrid is infuriated at being had. Leonard then coldly tells Christine that he has met a younger woman and is leaving Christine. In a jealous rage, Christine grabs a knife, which had earlier been used as evidence by the defence and stabs Leonard to death. After she is taken away by the police, Sir Wilfrid, urged on by Miss Plimsoll, declares that he will take on Christine's defence.

There have been various different adaptations over the years, the BBC's is simply another.
I am watching that now, and Christine is the one who tells Wilfrid that she knew Leonard was guilty.

And it is only hinted by Plimsoll at that Wilfrid will take on the defence of Christine.
"You will be getting more to do now" "Yes, I will"

Or something like that
Versailles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 10:56
Versailles
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,001
Well we can't/shouldn't all enjoy the same things as life would become dull. I actually enjoyed both last years offering and this years adaptation equally.
Me too.
Versailles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 11:05
Inkblot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: West London
Posts: 24,303
BIB I haven't a bally clue how you 'got' that paragraph from this drama.
Nothing altered after the trial that enabled them to get married apart from money/intent.
I was commenting on how the way the plot was altered changed the focus of the plot.

I watched the drama before I read the short story. Watching the show I thought that the fact that they got married just in time for Mayhew to stumble across them on honeymoon seemed rather forced, it was a plot device so that he could realise that his success as a lawyer was worth nothing because his wife didn't love him. Then I read the story and realised that Mayhew's success, the couple getting married, Mayhew bumping into them, Mayhew feeling humiliated, everything that happened after the trial in fact - none of that was in the original story.

So I concluded that the original point of the story - that Romaine exploited the law on spousal privilege to get the case thrown out - had been pushed aside in favour of the plot that you (and others) liked about Mayhew's private life and the war.
Inkblot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 11:28
Crawley Cutie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Mountains of Mijas......
Posts: 5,456
I, personally, thoroughly enjoyed it for what is was.

Nowt else of much substance on television, at the moment 🌞😉

Happy New Year to you All. Here's looking forward to some entertaining programmes, during 2017 🥂🔔⛄️
Crawley Cutie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 11:40
JELLIES0
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,361
The eminent Mr Hitchens accurately echoes my thoughts on the subject. I get the impressions that the screenplay was written by some rebellious 30 something liberal with a desire to include the requisite number of F words, a lesbian and a sex scene without which the viewers quite naturally, would not have engaged their attention for a full two hours.

Despite the fact that we now have the ability to enjoy superb picture quality this monstrosity was shot in a thick smog which seemed to permeate literally everywhere both indoors and out. In addition the moments of light relief present in the Laughton / Dietrich version were excised leaving us with a truly dismal effort.


http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co....y-with-it.html
JELLIES0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 13:07
Inkblot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: West London
Posts: 24,303
I get the impressions that the screenplay was written by some rebellious 30 something
She's 50 and has a long and fairly respectable CV as a writer of TV dramas: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1403188/?ref_=nv_sr_1

I have some strong reservations about the way she changed the story but I think Hitchens is over-egging his complaints about the production and direction. We associate Agatha Christie's world with certain production values - expensive locations and props, upper class characters - which nowadays would be seen as anachronistic.
Inkblot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 13:17
Baz_James
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,917
The eminent Mr Hitchens
Oh, oh, stop, I'm laughing so hard I can't breathe. Eminent! Eminent, he says, Oh, I've got to get the neighbours in for this one .. eminent! Daily Mail hack in eminence claim! You couldn't make it up!
Baz_James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 13:37
Prince Monalulu
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 31,153
The eminent Mr Hitchens accurately echoes my thoughts on the subject. I get the impressions that the screenplay was written by some rebellious 30 something liberal with a desire to include the requisite number of F words, a lesbian and a sex scene without which the viewers quite naturally, would not have engaged their attention for a full two hours.

Despite the fact that we now have the ability to enjoy superb picture quality this monstrosity was shot in a thick smog which seemed to permeate literally everywhere both indoors and out. In addition the moments of light relief present in the Laughton / Dietrich version were excised leaving us with a truly dismal effort.


http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co....y-with-it.html
I won't read the blog, I'm not that interested/invested in this.

The stuff people come up with to support their point of view.
'Quite naturally, would not have engaged their attention' really, that's some leap that's been made there.
I guess some would like to believe, fingers were hovering over the remote, until the Lawyer said 'F'ing department'

I'm guessing the Lesbian was the Maid, well I never took her for Lesbian, you can love/be possessive over someone without the sexual/physical component.
I can see why others might see it differently though.
Prince Monalulu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 13:55
Baz_James
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,917
well I never took her for Lesbian, you can love/be possessive over someone without the sexual/physical component.
I can see why others might see it differently though.
Precisely. There simply is no need to ascribe any form of lesbian love to the relationship except to give yourself something else to criticise. The jealous help is a common theme in literature; Mrs Danvers in Rebecca, for example.

Having said that it's ludicrous to suggest that there was no lesbianism in the 1920s or that Christie would have been unaware of it. There are more than enough hints at gay relationships in her work to justify bringing this out in a modern adaptation.
Baz_James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 14:41
Swanandduck2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: I'm a she not a he.
Posts: 3,192
Oh, oh, stop, I'm laughing so hard I can't breathe. Eminent! Eminent, he says, Oh, I've got to get the neighbours in for this one .. eminent! Daily Mail hack in eminence claim! You couldn't make it up!
Peter Hitchens has written for a number of publications, including The Guardian, and The Spectator and has won the Orwell prize. If you stopped being to supercillious and desperate to prove your intellectual superiority, you might actually realise that just because someone writes for The Mail, it doesn't automatically preclude them from having any worth.
Swanandduck2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 14:46
Boz_Lowdownl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,588
Peter Hitchens has written for a number of publications, including The Guardian, and The Spectator and has won the Orwell prize. If you stopped being to supercillious and desperate to prove your intellectual superiority, you might actually realise that just because someone writes for The Mail, it doesn't automatically preclude them from having any worth.
Indeed. The poster you were replying to was the same one saying we should all have read The Guardian preview before watching!
Boz_Lowdownl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 17:32
JELLIES0
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,361
Oh, oh, stop, I'm laughing so hard I can't breathe. Eminent! Eminent, he says, Oh, I've got to get the neighbours in for this one .. eminent! Daily Mail hack in eminence claim! You couldn't make it up!
It came over as a BBC style "paint by numbers up to date adaptation" of an Agatha Christie classic. Add one or more gay person, have some nudity, add some strong language and remove all traces of humour. Seen it all before.
JELLIES0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 18:22
haphash
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 14,737
You'll forgive me for pointing out that your hate is not grounds for them not to do it especially when the Christie executors have given their explicit blessing to the project. There has been more than fair warning about how the stories will be approached so you can easily avoid it by simply not watching.
Yes I can avoid watching as you say but why should I?
I am an old fashioned type of Christie fan and I would guess that the vast majority who would tune in to watch expect the usual Christie style. This means a cosy sort of whodunnit with good period costumes, not extra characters invented by the person who has written the adaptation and different endings.

I seriously doubt that this sort of approach will gain Christie a new army of fans and its more likely to alienate the audience at which it's aimed.
haphash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 18:41
Inkblot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: West London
Posts: 24,303
It came over as a BBC style "paint by numbers up to date adaptation" of an Agatha Christie classic. Add one or more gay person, have some nudity, add some strong language and remove all traces of humour. Seen it all before.
But we've seen all the old-school adaptations of Christie's stories before too. Why shouldn't writers try a different approach?

And this "BBC-style" jibe is getting tedious. The BBC has always commissioned writers to take a new look at old stories. Andrew Davies's version of Pride and Prejudice was seen as a controversial new approach at the time; now it's seen as a classic drama.

Maybe this interpretation of The Witness For The Prosecution won't be seen as a classic in the future, but we'd never know if the BBC hadn't commissioned it.
Inkblot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 18:58
SepangBlue
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,519
Been away over Christmas so just got back to my office and onto DS for the first time in ages!

I've only recently caught up with this two-part drama and, hell's bells, wasn't it good? Toby Jones is in everything these days but he's always somebody completely different.

I've never read an Agatha Christie story in my life, so I don't know if this production stayed close to the book, but all that's so unimportant when you're presented with a magnificent piece of drama like this.

Good old dependable BBC ... you're worth twice the licence fee in my book.
SepangBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 20:01
Baz_James
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,917
Yes I can avoid watching as you say but why should I?
I am an old fashioned type of Christie fan and I would guess that the vast majority who would tune in to watch expect the usual Christie style. This means a cosy sort of whodunnit with good period costumes, not extra characters invented by the person who has written the adaptation and different endings.

I seriously doubt that this sort of approach will gain Christie a new army of fans and its more likely to alienate the audience at which it's aimed.
So everything on television should be done exactly the same way it's been done before, should it? And for your sole benefit, it seems. I don't know how many times I have to say that this is being with the full knowledge and approval of the Christie rights holders before it sinks in. It will therefore be the approach that will be taken for the remaining seven dramas that have been approved so you really can't say next Christmas that you haven't been given fair warning.
Baz_James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 20:47
Mirliton
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 71
The eminent Mr Hitchens accurately echoes my thoughts on the subject....


http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co....y-with-it.html
Read it. BBC bashing. But then again, he wouldn't have any axes to grind against the BBC now, would he?

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...papers-say-bbc

https://www.theguardian.com/media/me...se-bbc-radio-4
Mirliton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 20:53
Mirliton
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 71
.... with a desire to include the requisite number of F words, a lesbian and a sex scene without which the viewers quite naturally, would not have engaged their attention for a full two hours.
Yeah, I'm sure it was the knowledge of all that, that made people, (including you and all the rest of us commenting here) tune in in the first place, and then kept them watching it.

BTW, what lesbian?
Mirliton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 20:56
Straker
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 36,981
Good old dependable BBC ... you're worth twice the licence fee in my book.
They'll take a cheque!
Straker is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 17:38.