Miss Marple: The Moving Finger

I love Agatha Christie. I've read most of her books several times, and "The Moving Finger" is one of my favorites. Each time I open it, I am captivated anew by the adorable English-village setting and the delightful relationship between witty Jerry and his spunky sister Joanna. As I continue reading, I am drawn in further by the rich cast of unique characters and a host of clues. Even though I know who committed the murder -- and it IS a bit obvious in retrospect -- I always enjoy trying to spot all the clues and remember how they fit together.

Unfortunately, this adaptation really doesn't live up to the book. To be blunt, it's boring.

First, I found the acting wooden. None of the characters seem to believe that they live in a village terrorized by anonymous letters and brutal murders. For example, at the end, the murderer's former employee/confidante explains that she needs to leave the village. Instead of seeming shocked and saddened, she positively beams! The placid music and bland lighting add to the absurdly calm atmosphere.

The book features two romances. In both cases, the man and woman start off friends, then have some misunderstandings. All four people experience painful self-discovery: For example, pampered city girl Joanna must decide if she has what it takes to be a rural doctor's assistant. Christie understands how to craft a believable (and interesting!) courtship story. In contrast, in the movie, both couples fall in love almost at first sight (although the understated acting does not convey a lot of passion), and both romances run a smooth, uneventful course.

Miss Marple actually plays a minor role in the book. However, the whole point of film adaptations is to bring beloved characters to life! Viewers want and expect to see Miss Marple blinking her china-blue eyes, fussing with her fluffy white knitting, and reminiscing about trivial events in her village 50 years ago. Sadly, in this adaptation, Miss Marple gets very little screen time, and her character is not developed beyond "old woman." I don't think this adaptation would inspire a new viewer to love Miss Marple and read more about her.

Finally, and most importantly, this adaptation eliminates most of the MYSTERY. Miss Marple's limited screen time allows her to mention the key points of the case, but not to display her deduction process. The script leaves out most of the clues from the book, so the viewer has no real chance to solve the puzzle. (And isn't that the fun of it?) When the solution is presented, there's no thrill of discovery. Miss Marple explains in about two lines because she has so few clues to fit together.

All in all, watching this adaptation felt like reading Cliffs Notes. I got the basic gist of the plot, but I missed out on the pleasure of the setting, characters, and mystery.

I couldn't agree more with Mike. My local PBS station here in the US is currently broadcasting the new Miss Marple series one evening a week, while showing the original Joan Hickson Miss Marple as a daily series at 1:00 PM. There is NO comparison. Even Agatha Christie, some years before her own death, predicted that Joan Hickson would be the perfect Miss Marple. She knew her character, and the right actress to play her. The new series struggles far too hard to be "trendy" and puts far too much present-day "politial correctness" into the plots. Geraldine McEwan's Miss Marple has become nearly as much a caricature as Margaret Rutherford's movie portrayal.

Jim.

Miss Marple is called into action once again. This time it's poison pen letters circulating in her friend's village. However, this wouldn't be Miss Marple without a murder or two and sure enough we get them. Another enjoyable, leisurely stroll through Christie country

I have to agree with Mike. I have no idea what Ted was watching. Miss Marple 'obnoxious" huh? Joan Hickson nails her completely and is charming. She also is able to bring across just how intuitive and intelligent Miss Marple is. I, too, like McEwan as an actress, but her portrayal of Marple is vile. she is better suited to series like "Mulberry". As for Rutherford, she doesn't bother me as Marple because I don't take her seriously in them. It's more like a charming parody of the character. Remember both Lansbury and Hayes also had a crack at Jane and while both very talented could not come close to Joan Hickson. She manages to be both steely and soft, no small feat! Ted's comments show a lack of knowledge about the mystery genre. There is no such thing as just mystery; there are numerous subcategories as well. So, comparing Gardner to Christie is akin to comparing Chandler to Conan Doyle.

I have made no secret of loving the Joan Hickson adaptations of Agatha Christie's wonderful books, and this is no exception. This is a very good adaptation, it is a little slow on occasions I agree, but not bad, not bad at all. The writers also do an above-respectable job adapting, perhaps lacking the humorous touch of the book, but at least the story is coherent. The production values as always are excellent with lovely scenery, costumes, make-up and photography, the music is lovely and the characters are still interesting, especially the Symmington household. The direction is solid as is the writing and acting- Joan Hickson is just superb as Miss Marple and will always be the best Miss Marple to me. Michael Culver is great as Mr Symmington, Elizabeth Counsell is suitably whiny as his wife and Deborah Appleby is very convincing as Megan. Both Gerry and Joanna still maintain their interest and played well by Andrew Bicknell and Sabina Franklyn, and Penelope Lee is good as Partridge. Overall, this is a very good adaptation with a great cast especially. 8/10 Bethany Cox