Murder is Easy, again?

[Janinejones]

This new one is being plugged hard. Do we really want them to make another 1950s version? It was written before WW2 but I have not seen one set then.
We have 3 recent ones set in the 50s already I think.

If I want to be ‘educated’ about colonialism, I’ll go on YouTube and find a lecture on there about it.

How rude; I doubt very much that AC's great grandson has read her works as closely or as many times as I have. I pay my licence fee to the BBC and I'm perfectly entitled to have an opinion on how they spend it, and to share that opinion on a forum that exists for that purpose. Maybe if you're so triggered by your views being challenged, you shouldn't be on here where people might disagree with you.

IMO 'Vera' handles the subject of people of colour well. Not that they have a lead character though I will admit.
My friends and I have criticisms of the "Murder is Easy Show", the incidentals are wrong. Fitz's suits and jackets were a months wages each, the grand party had Fitz in a dj, others in spongebag trs and tails like it was a wedding. The Red dress: I expected her to take it off and stand it up in a corner and wait for her. The cars were in ridiculous colours that may not even had existed. Nobody would have painted the radiator body colour on the MG.
What message were they projecting about the police? There was something about the uniform that reminded us of White South Africa. Never have UK Constables walked around with drawn truncheons other than a riot or chucking out time in Z cars. Neither did they show handcuffs when not needed.
My favourite version is with Julia McKenzie and Benedict Cumberpatch.
Now is the time for TV companies to commission new 'cosy crime' stories. They did it successfully with Midsomer Murders and Morse/Lewis. Much less successfully with Agatha Raisin. Time to move on I think.

Personally I like David Jonsson - he was great in Industry and I think he did OK in Murder is Easy given how awful the material was. And he's easy on the eye. There is nothing in the book to suggest Luke Fitzwilliam is black (despite the utter nonsense talked by the screenwriter, who has literally quoted words that don't exist in the book) but if they'd just cast Jonsson as Fitzwilliam and not fannied about with the whole plot to shoehorn in a massive backstory, all the stuff about the Empire, colonialism, west African artefacts being stolen etc etc I would not have minded. As it was, there have been so many changes to the original to accommodate Luke's new backstory and all the modern moralising that it's barely recognisable. I'd rather the BBC had left Christie out of it and come up with something new for David Jonsson. I don't think many people really have an issue with black actors in leading roles - Luther seems to have been pretty popular!

I gave up fairly early on. I’m so sick of woke interpretations that don’t feel authentic .

As a general crime/period drama enthusiast, I enjoyed it. I felt the backstory made sense and I enjoyed most of the actors apart from lord Whitfield. David Jonsson is cute to me rather than attractive but I loved his outfits and swagger and felt he and Bridget had great chemistry. Felt a bit sad that Tamsin outhwaite has been resigned to old maid territory!

IMO 'Vera' handles the subject of people of colour well.

Not sure where this obsession about the race of the main character is coming from.

My comment was about the implausibility of the script. ie a lot of Vera makes no more sense than the concept that someone from Nigera waiting to take up a post with the Colonial service would set off for a strange village. ie Vera just happens to know the family connections of every murder victim and so on.

Also, in some ways the script was accurate because many Brits who had worked overseas has a far more enlightened attitude to people of colour than the little Englanders who had never travelled more than a few miles from their birthplace. That was why, in a stupid attempt to show welcome, the Henshall character didn't approach our hero until he had sorted out in his own mind where he originated from so he could greet him in the correct language.

I think what is interesting about all these different interpretations, the common factor is of course class.

I've never seen, all though there may have been one, an interpretation of an Agatha Christie plot where the lead character is working class, and probably has more difficulty getting the chocolate box villagers to even listen to what they have to say!

From a lot of the posts, it seems that it's generally those who know the story who are irked at the recasting.
I've never even heard of it, as I'm not a big reader, and really enjoyed it as being a short drama story.
I loved the colours, I loved the gorgeous tailoring, and the scenery, and didn't give two hoots how accurate it was to AC or to history. I just enjoyed it for what it was.

Incidentally, anyone who hasn't seen Rye Lane, pls do watch it, it was the only other thing I'd seen him in, and was one of the best films this year

I’m a little bit in love with Douglas Henshall. I so miss him and his sweaters, in Shetland.

I've read the book and I really like it and find this version far less irksome than the terrible ITV version.

I saw a trailer for Rye Lane a while ago, I'm definitely going to watch it now.

I think the problem is that we've currently got a) pressure to give more roles to non-white actors, b) a risk-averse culture in entertainment where there is less original writing than there was and everything has to be a rewrite or regurgitation or franchise of something we have already. And so you get yet ANOTHER Christie adaptation/Henry VIII saga/Austen drama, and then the diversity box gets ticked by crayoning in some of the characters as being non-white.

Thing is, the UK was genuinely an overwhelmingly white country until quite recently, and a visibly non-white person walking around in the 1950s UK village would not be going around without a lot of comments, stares and noticeable...."reactions."

So you've then got this awkward dilemma of, OK, so do you actually reflect that reality? If you do reflect that reality and have the white characters reacting realistically to non-white people as they would have done, the whole drama is likely to end up being "about" race. That's not an issue in itself, but when more and more dramas do this, it does start to feel tiresomely samey and even people who are not unsympathetic to the politics themselves are, I think, starting to get a bit twitchy and feel like "I'm basically getting a sociological lecture every time I watch drama on TV." Or, if you choose to have everyone "act colorblind," with all the white characters just treating the non-white characters in a neutral and unexceptional way and apparently not even noticing race, you are essentially lying about the past in a pretty major way. No, I don't expect historical dramas to be 100% accurate fascimiles of the past complete with smallpox marks, but wholescale untruths about the values and attitudes of people make historical dramas feel pretty fake, TBH.

Murder is Easy is actually not very good Christie, but this adaptation doesn't improve it. The real issue of MIE is the silly main premise of the murders themselves (mad and incredibly elaborate conspiracy theory - sorry, trying not to create spoilers for those who have not read or watched) - rewriting that bit would improve the story.

If we want more dramas with non-white characters in, well, a complete rewrite of MIE set in modern times (a la "Clueless" as a modern take on Emma) would be interesting and you could put what kinds and colors of people you like in it. Or, just write some new and original material!

Yes, completely agree.

I watched this and really enjoyed it.

@Kokeshi123 has nailed it. It just didn’t feel authentic. I grew up in a little village in England in the 70s; the racism then was quite rife. Imagine what it was like in the 50s? A black person would absolutely not have been accepted as he was in the programme. It annoyed me because this inauthenticity was distracting and so I couldn’t really get into it. I love Agatha Christie’s but I have never read this particular book, so it wasn’t that, it was just all a bit fake and that was annoying!

I'm not triggered by people disagreeing, as evidenced by the fact I'm clearly happy to discuss.

It seems you feel you have some special insight into Christie's work, but I think it unlikely you know the works better than the estate given they have access to drafts, diaries, paperwork - and also knew her.

My point is I understand some people have a personal preference for old-style adaptations and luckily there are lots of those already available - and probably more to come in future. However I do take issue with 'woke' being trotted out as a generic criticism - it's the same reactionary nonsense as 'political correctness'.

What is the downside of variety? Why ever should we collectively be stuck with repetitive 'faithful' adaptations for the rest of time? I like a mixture, variety is good in the arts.

I liked it. It’s just a light, pleasant tv show - nothing to get worked up about. The main character was good - portrayed the outsider well and I liked the fact that he was wealthy and quietly self-confident. Loved seeing the Shetlanders. Liked the pretty colours, scenery and costumes. As a pp said I felt sorry for Tamsin outhwaite being an old maid rather than a leading lady. Why the fuss about a book being adapted in a new way. I love Agatha Christie, firstly the books and then especially David suchets Poirot, but reimagining them isn’t a crime! Think how often Shakespeare is reimagined or set in different times or with ‘colourblind’ casting that isn’t explained - that is generally considered to be admirable!

No one has any interest in 'educating' you - the director just made a creative decision about what they wanted to include in their adaptation of this story.

Colonialism happened, obviously. It is therefore going to feature in some artworks set in that period.

No one has any interest in 'educating' you - the director just made a creative decision about what they wanted to include in their adaptation of this story.

So they could accommodate having a black actor as Luke, and do some clunky preaching at the same time.

1975wasthebest - I think your user name is rather telling!

BBC adaptations are always dire. One year the screenwriter boasted in the Radio Times that she didn't read Agatha Christie and I suspect that included the books she adapts. I didn't mind the colour blind casting, though they wandered rather far from the storyline, but Tom Riley and Tamzin Outhwaite were a few decades too young for their roles and what the blazes was the vicar ranting about? Nice settings, nice costumes, dreadful script.

@Meadowgrasses You know nothing about me, my history, most of my views. I'm an online stranger to you, nothing more.

1975 - I do know that you didn’t like this show, and that you didn’t like there being a black lead and that you don’t like people disagreeing with you and your name suggests that you liked the 1970s.

Yes, you already said upthread you have an issue with the casting of a black actor.

But please don't worry about being 'educated', no one can impose an education on you. People can only educate themselves.

But please don't worry about being 'educated', no one can impose an education on you.

Yes, I realise nobody can do this, but in this context I find it annoying when scriptwriters etc try to, for some woke agenda.

It depends. People were pretty accepting to Black GIs during the war, perhaps partly to spite other Americans, and Paul Robeson was warmly embraced by Welsh minors in '
50s because he supported their politics (and was a great singer :)) There may have actually been more racism in the 70s than the 50s due to tension around integration plus the whole Enoch Powell thing poisoning the waters...