Ever since the release of the BBC recent adaptation of Agatha Christie’s 1939 novel, "And Then There Were None" television viewers and critics have been praising the production for being a faithful adaptation. In fact these critics and fans have been in such rapture over the production that some of them have failed to noticed that the three-part miniseries was not completely faithful. As long as the production followed Christie’s original ending, they were satisfied.
Mind you, I thought this new production, "AND THEN THERE WERE NONE" was top notch. However, I have found myself growing somewhat annoyed over this attitude. Why do so many people insist that a movie/television production should be faithful to the novel it is adapting? I honestly believe that it should not matter. Not really. I believe that sometimes, it’s a good thing to make some changes from the original novel (or play). Sometimes, it’s good to remain faithful to the source novel. Sometimes, what is in a novel does not translate well to the television or movie screen.
A good example is the two adaptations of Christie’s 1941 novel, "Evil Under the Sun". The 1982 movie adaptation, which starred Peter Ustinov as Hercule Poirot, made some major changes in regard to characters and a minor subplot. The 2001 television adaptation, which starred David Suchet, was somewhat more faithful . . . but not completely. In my personal view, I believe that the Ustinov version was a lot better . . . . and more entertaining. Why? If I have to be brutally honest, I am not a big fan of Christie’s 1941 novel. No matter how many times I tried to like it (and I tried), it simply bored me. And its revelation of the killer struck me as something of a rip off of a previous Christie. At least the 1982 production added something more to the tale that made it seemed fresh and original to me.
In regard to the adaptations of "And Then There Were None", there are only two adaptations that I really enjoyed - Rene Clair’s 1945 adaptation and this new version. The 1945 film is actually an adaptation of the 1943 stage play written by Christie. Because the play first opened in the middle of World War II, Christie had decided to change the ending in order to spare wartime theater goers the story’s nihilistic ending. Two years later, director Rene Clair and 20th Century Fox decided to adapt Christie’s stage play, instead of the novel. In fact, Clair made a slightly different twist to Christie's 1943 ending. Several other movie adaptations – including the ones from 1966 and the 1974 – did the same. As far as I know, only the Russian 1987 adaptation followed Christie’s original ending.
And how do I care about these numerous adaptations? I have seen both the 1966 and 1974 movies. I am not a fan of either. Personally, I found them rather cheap and lurid. I have never seen the 1987 Russian film. As for the 1945 and 2015 versions . . . I am a big fan of both. You read my words correctly . . . both of them</i>. I do not care that 2015 miniseries stuck to Christie’s original novel, despite some changes; and Clair’s 1945 movie did not. I simply happen to enjoy [i]BOTH versions. Why? Both versions were made with great skill and style. And I found both versions fascinating, despite the fact that they have different endings.
I do not believe it should matter that a movie or television ALWAYS adhere to the novel it is adapting. What should matter is whether the director, writer or both are wise enough to realize whether it is a good idea to be completely faithful or to make changes … for the sake of the production. If producer John Bradbourne and director Guy Hamilton can make a superior adaptation of "Evil Under the Sun" by utilizing major changes to Christie’s original story and if there can be two outstanding versions of "AND THEN THERE WERE NONE" . . . with different endings, I really do not see the need for any film or television production to blindly adhere to every aspect of a novel it is adapting.
