I’ll be interested to see how the “new” Miss Marple, Julia McKenzie, does in her first of four PBS MASTERPIECE MYSTERY episodes. Again, like in the novel version of Cat Among the Pidgeons where Poirot makes his appearance two-thirds of way into the story, Miss Marple shows up about half-way (Chapter 13 of 28) into A Pocket Full of Rye. I’m assuming she’ll show up sooner in the TV version. Wealthy Rex Fortescue collapses in his office, poisoned. There are plenty of people who wanted the odious Fortescue dead: his sons, their wives, and his own hot, sexy wife. But then other murders occur that fit the pattern of an old nursery rhyme. Miss Marple is the only one who can see the murderer’s design. A Pocket Full of Rye was published in 1953 when Christie was at the top of her game. GRADE: A-
I’ll be watching tonight.
I’m curious to see how Julia McKenzie does as Miss Marple. The bar is set pretty high.
This time I have the DVR ready.
If tonight’s episode is as good as the book, you’ll be glad you set up the DVR, Patti.
I’m still a Joan Hickman fan, though I admit I have not seen Mckenzie play the Marple role.
Note that Ken Burns’ new mega-documentary, The West is also on this afternoon / tonight on PBS.
Doesn’t Ken Burns have a National Park documentary, too? That guy is busy!
Hickson, not Hickman, Rick.
I’m with you on that, but I like Julia McKenzie – I’ve seen her in Britcoms as well as doing musicals in the West End – so I’ll give her a chance.
I’ve heard good things about Julia McKenzie. Marv Lachman is a fan of hers. We’ll have to see how she does as Miss Marple tonight.
This is my day to simply have it wrong.
Thanks, Jeff, you’re right. HICKSON is right.
No The West isn’t new, I had that wrong also. It was a repeat, though we hadn’t seen it. Today we got only the first 3 1.5 hour parts. I guess the rest will be on at another time.
Sorry, everyone. I owe it to myself and especially all of you to check my facts and spelling before publishing a comment. Mea culpa.
We all make mistakes, Rick. Need I bring up SPADE & ARCHER again as proof?
These later Christies were just not as good as the earlier ones. It put me to sleep.
She was fine, however.
The novel version of A POCKET FULL OF RYE is far better than this TV version. With the 90 minute format, I feel like things were rushed. Julia McKenzie was okay, but there seemed to be an excessive number of dissolves.
Although she was okay in the part-I think Christie is too dated in terms of the way she tells a story for me. Every scene is an interview; every character a suspect and nothing more. The period details are fun but the characters are just props for a whodunnit. I loved her books 30 years ago but I guess too much has come since. Crime fiction with real crimes, characters and atmosphere. I am very sad.
I’ve read about 40 Christies and her approach is pretty much the same in each book: make all the characters suspects. But the character that seems the least suspicious is usually the murderer. Once you catch on to Christie’s trick, picking out the perp becomes obvious. You’re right about styles of story-telling changing, Patti.
Between 1971 and 1976 I read over 70 Christie books. I don’t think I could do that now, as my taste has changed dramatically.
Still, for her day and time she was a master.
I liken Agatha Christie’s approach to writing mysteries to that of solving a crossword puzzle. Plenty of red herrings, plenty of indirection, and a twist at the end. But, as you say Jeff, for her time Christie was a giant.
I’m going to disagree here. Are we to throw away Christie, Stout, Hammett, MacDonald, Chandler, Gardner, Doyle, Peters, Allingham… because the characters, times and crimes in their books aren’t what we see in present-day newspapers? Of course not! Personally, I’d much rather enjoy one of those authors than the majority of current writers, whose works often feature serial killers, child endangerment, perversion, slashers, rapists, gangs, hard drug users and paragraphs full of coarse language. Sure, there are some very good authors writing very good books, but the oldies have their own charm. I think the trick is to accept them, enjoy them, for what they ARE instead of focusing on what they are NOT.
I couldn’t read a dozen – even a half dozen – Christie novels one after the other, but I do enjoy reading that many a year. Perhaps it helps that I rarely remember from previous reading who did what to whom.
No disagreement with me, Rick. Christie’s books were basically puzzles with plots. Today’s readers prefer character development. It’s just a change of fashion.