While on vacation Maigret's wife becomes ill (appendicitis) and she must be hospitalized. During a visit to see her Maigret, by a mysterious note he finds in his coat pocket, is made aware of another hospital patient, injured in a car accident. When that patient dies Maigret decides to investigate. His "vacation" becomes a working one, but it's clear he doesn't mind the diversion. But that diversion becomes tragic with another death, this one clearly a murder, and then a missing person. Has the one missing been murdered as well? Maigret will piece together what little evidence there is.
I love George Simenon's Maigret mysteries and have read them all, some more than once. I enjoy the Magret series starring Bruno Cremer, especially for its adherence to the tone, the style, the ambience that Simenon weaves into his stories. Episodes in this film series don't adhere exactly to its corresponding novel-what film does?-but they're usually quite close. I don't mind an addition or embellishment here or there--it's the nature of book-to-film--but if one does it then one better do it well. I believe that with this episode the filmmakers do it VERY well. Some changes are of no consequence: In the film the Maigrets vacation in Belgium at the home of Mrs. Maigret's sister; whereas, in the book they go to coast. In the film there's an important segment involving a hunting party, but no such thing happens in the book. These changes are of no consequence. The biggest difference book-to-film is the ending, and I find the film to be an improvement. In the book the murderer admits to everything and details the events that Maigret has already surmised. In the film Maigret connects the evidence and makes the accusation. The murderer, that murderer's motives, and the murderer's victims are the same in both book and film. I think the film's ending to be better, though, because it concludes with Maigret determining the location of the body of a murder victim, and that determination is quite logical and in keeping with Maigret's character. With that discovery the evidence is solid. The subsequent unraveling of the murderer makes sense.
I love George Simenon's Maigret mysteries and have read them all, some more than once. I enjoy the Magret series starring Bruno Cremer, especially for its adherence to the tone, the style, the ambience that Simenon weaves into his stories. Episodes in this film series don't adhere exactly to its corresponding novel-what film does?-but they're usually quite close. I don't mind an addition or embellishment here or there--it's the nature of book-to-film--but if one does it then one better do it well. I believe that with this episode the filmmakers do it VERY well. Some changes are of no consequence: In the film the Maigrets vacation in Belgium at the home of Mrs. Maigret's sister; whereas, in the book they go to coast. In the film there's an important segment involving a hunting party, but no such thing happens in the book. These changes are of no consequence. The biggest difference book-to-film is the ending, and I find the film to be an improvement. In the book the murderer admits to everything and details the events that Maigret has already surmised. In the film Maigret connects the evidence and makes the accusation. The murderer, that murderer's motives, and the murderer's victims are the same in both book and film. I think the film's ending to be better, though, because it concludes with Maigret determining the location of the body of a murder victim, and that determination is quite logical and in keeping with Maigret's character. With that discovery the evidence is solid. The subsequent unraveling of the murderer makes sense.
