Yesterday we talked about how they changed up the spirit of Miss Marple in the more recent adaptations of those Christie works. Today I zero in on Poirot.
SPOILER ALERT: If you plan on watching the new John Malkovich adaptation of “The ABC Murders” on Amazon prime, I am going to tell you some details….
I did not care for the new mini series adaptation of this book.
- The Poirot in this book is sad and disgraced. Scotland Yard will not even talk to him. They think he is a joke.
- Japp was a disgraced and discredited figure in this adaptation, all at the hands of Poirot.
- It is revealed that Poirot lied about being a detective when he was in Belgium
- It is revealed that Poirot had been a Catholic Priest who lost his entire congregation to the Germans
I actually went back and reread the story to see if I had missed anything. Was Poirot a former priest and not a detective? Did I just assume things? I just don’t understand. Why would you change the entire backstory of a character, change the entire integrity of a serialized character?
What purpose does it serve to change the heart of a beloved detective?
Are they trying to gain a new audience? I mean, I don’t think my teen daughter was going to turn off “Riverdale” and tune into a Hercule Poirot mini series. Anyone who knows Poirot has a certain image in their head- they expect to see Poirot a certain way. And anyone who doesn’t know Poirot? Well, they’re probably not tuning in anyway.
What’s to gain by making him a Priest? I mean, I don’t even remember him being even vaguely religious either- of course, after watching the show I did consider rereading every Poirot novel in chronological order to see if I didn’t grasp something important.
So- what do we think about directors and screen writers taking full on liberties with a book? What are your worst book to movie plotline wrongs?