aikaterini

Well, after a bunch of reviews on different adaptations of Beauty and the Beast, now I'll take a break from that to talk about an adaptation of another story, that is, Agatha Christie's The ABC Murders.

I've read many of Agatha Christie's books and have seen many adaptations of them. Some of them I've preferred to the original books of Poirot, others I've found lacking, while others have left me satisfied with both them and the novels that they were based on. Today, I'll be taking a look into the 1992 TV adaptation with David Suchet as Hercule Poirot.

Before I begin talking about the episode itself, let me just say that I do enjoy Suchet's portrayal of Poirot. His Poirot is probably the one who comes closest to my image of what Poirot is like while reading the books. Not to say that I've enjoyed every Poirot adaptation that he's been in (I haven't), but overall, Suchet makes a fine Poirot in my opinion.

I also enjoy Hugh Fraser as Captain Hastings. In fact, often I find his Hastings to be more lovable and endearing than the book version of him. Part of that is due to some of Book!Hastings' remarks, which, to the modern viewer, can come across as racially insensitive or patronizing, which are mercifully cut from most adaptations. Another reason is that Fraser’s Hastings doesn't spend as much time fawning over the pretty young woman of the week. I know that in the books, it's supposed to be an endearing foible of his, how he's so caught up in a pretty face, but I just found it annoying. Especially when it continued even after he got married and especially when the young woman of the week was practically young enough to be his daughter.

In this episode, as in many of Suchet's Poirot episodes, Inspector Japp plays a major role when in the book, he didn't. Some have Japp appear even when he was absent in the book. In The ABC Murders novel, Japp had a cameo at best. I don't mind this at all, in fact on many occasions, I like it, because it gives the viewer a better sense of familiarity and continuity. That's another reason why I like the inclusion of Miss Lemon (not to mention that her role lends a female presence to an otherwise all-male main cast).

So, when it comes to the main cast, they're all fine. It's when it comes to the casting of characters for this particular episode that I find fault.

WARNING: There will be spoilers

So, The ABC Murders revolves around a series of letters that Poirot receives that warn him of an upcoming murder at a specific location. The reason why they're referred to as the ABC letters is because the anonymous writer signs off the letters as ABC and because each location and victim is in corresponding alphabetical order. First, the murderer kills Alice Ascher of Andover, then Betty Bernard of Bexhill-on-Sea is killed, then Sir Carmichael Clarke of Churston is murdered, and then a murder is planned for Doncaster. Each of the victims is killed in a different way and there seems to be nothing linking them together. After the third murder, Poirot assembles the relatives of the victims together and they try to figure out the identity of the ABC killer.

For the most part, the episode is a pretty faithful adaptation of the novel. Like the book, the episode cuts between the investigation and the mysterious, odd little man whom the audience is led to believe is ABC. Before I go into why I didn't like the casting for this episode, let me say that I do like the casting for Alexander Bonaparte Cust. He is unattractive, shy, and not the sort of person that you'd expect to be popular with the ladies or with anyone, just as he is in the books. Donald Sumpter does a great job portraying Cust's awkward interactions with people and his growing turmoil over the ABC murders.

But I can't say that I like the casting choices for the other suspects. There's one who sticks out in particular, but for now I'll go into what's the problem with all of them: they're too old! Betty Bernard, the second victim, was 23 years old in the book. The ages of her older sister, Megan, and her fiance, Donald, were never given, but I'd imagine that they were probably in their twenties as well. The actors all look like they're in their thirties. I can't say anything that bad about their acting, but as far as looks go, they're too old.

But that's just nitpicking. Now I'll get into the casting choice that really perplexed me and made me wonder what the heck the casting director was thinking.

That is, the casting of Franklin Clarke, Carmichael Clarke's younger brother, played by Donald Douglas.

Like Megan and Donald, Franklin's age is never given in the novel. All the reader knows is that he's younger than Carmichael, who's described as being close to sixty years old. But here's how Franklin is described in the book: "big, bronzed, blond," "looks like a sailor," and he acts like a boy at times.

So, while Franklin may not be a guy in his twenties, I was picturing him being in his forties at most. I thought that maybe there was a large age gap between him and his brother, that maybe he was in his thirties.

And yet the actor who played him is clearly middle-aged.

Believe me; it's not just nitpicking when I criticize this. Clues to the killer’s identity depend on this casting and yet the casting director still messed it up.

Like the others, I'm not going to say anything negative about Douglas's acting. It's how the character looks and was written that completely misses the point.

One of the reasons why Poirot realizes that Alexander Bonaparte Cust could not have killed Betty Barnard, and thus not killed any of ABC's other victims, is that he deduced that the man who killed Betty was someone that she was familiar with and felt comfortable with, due to the fact that she was strangled with her own belt. The reader learns that Betty, despite being engaged, was a flirt who enjoyed the attentions of attractive men. Therefore, Poirot assumes, the killer must have been a personable and attractive man who exuded sex appeal.

Does this look like a man who exudes sex appeal?

Again, I repeat, Betty was twenty-three years old. You're telling me that a twenty-three-year-old would happily go behind her young and reasonably good-looking fiancé’s back for this guy? It's not even as though he has charisma or charm in this adaptation.

One might argue that even if this Franklin Clarke isn't young or good-looking, he's still rich and maybe that's why Betty went out with him. Except that Thora Grey was the gold-digger in the novel, not Betty. Betty had no interest in Franklin's money, all she wanted was to have a good time and flirt. There is no reason why she would be attracted to this man.

And what's worse is that in this adaptation, Poirot does make it a point that Cust could never have attracted any girl and that's why he couldn't have been the killer. Yeah, I wanted to say, and neither could this Franklin. Could someone please tell me the difference between this guy?

And this guy?

Apart from the fact that one of them wears glasses and the other wears a nice suit, what exactly makes them stand apart from each other on a physical level? Nothing. They're both middle-aged men that would not attract a woman in her twenties unless she was a gold-digger or had an Electra Complex. Neither of which applies to Betty Barnard.

But that's not all that the script got wrong with regards to Franklin Clarke's character. Another clue to the ABC killer's identity was the way that he had gone about publicizing his murders: writing a mocking letter and pretending to be a madman, which Poirot deduced to be the work of a child-like mind, someone who was still a child at heart. And in the book, this was made clear. Sure, Franklin Clarke was still a capable adult, but at moments he would get so eager and enthusiastic that one could see the inner child lurking within.

In this adaptation? Nothing. I find it telling that at no point does Suchet's Poirot explain how the taunting letters were indicative of a childish mind and that Clarke at no point offered to post an ad in the newspaper taunting the killer as he did in the book. Because there is nothing childish or child-like about him either. He's just a boring, average, middle-aged man.

So, while the episode may be mostly faithful in terms of what happens, in terms of casting and characterization, the writers fouled up when it came to the ABC killer himself. Still, if one hasn't read the book and is interested in what The ABC Murders is all about, you can do no wrong in checking out this episode.