Itty-bitty SPOILERS. Deal with it.
Christie's "Ten Little Indians" (republished under the stronger title "And Then There Were None") was an outstanding book with a precariously well-structured ending. For reasons obvious to anyone who's read the book, that ending cannot be performed on stage....at least not without some OUTSTANDING technical tricks. It makes perfect sense to have a different ending in the play version. But film is not stage. In the movies anything is possible, and through a simple camera maneuver, the novel's brilliant conclusion would become child's play for any competent filmmaker (This includes the final chapter in the police station and Wargrave's letter). The only reason I can think of to tamper with the book's conclusion for the movie is to satisfy Hollywood's requirement of whitewashed images of life back in the time this film was made.
Agatha's characters are also precariously well-designed in order to fit the story properly. There is no reason for the perfectly named Judge Wargrave to adopt the laughable moniker of Quinncannon or for the referential McArthur to become the irrelevant Mandrake. NO reason for playboy Anthony Marston to become a foreign prince. And ABSOLUTELY NO reason for Lombard's "secret identity". I have no idea what the motive was behind these changes. That's the basic old-school Hollywood playbook in action, I guess.
Unfortunately, René Clair was daring in neither technical nor artistic areas, and we are stuck with a film featuring contrived/awkward characters and a cop-out ending. Add in the mediocre performances of most of the cast, and it all combines to form a pathetically weak self-contained film, and an even weaker literary adaptation.
It could've been wonderful, but it settled for mediocrity.
Christie's "Ten Little Indians" (republished under the stronger title "And Then There Were None") was an outstanding book with a precariously well-structured ending. For reasons obvious to anyone who's read the book, that ending cannot be performed on stage....at least not without some OUTSTANDING technical tricks. It makes perfect sense to have a different ending in the play version. But film is not stage. In the movies anything is possible, and through a simple camera maneuver, the novel's brilliant conclusion would become child's play for any competent filmmaker (This includes the final chapter in the police station and Wargrave's letter). The only reason I can think of to tamper with the book's conclusion for the movie is to satisfy Hollywood's requirement of whitewashed images of life back in the time this film was made.
Agatha's characters are also precariously well-designed in order to fit the story properly. There is no reason for the perfectly named Judge Wargrave to adopt the laughable moniker of Quinncannon or for the referential McArthur to become the irrelevant Mandrake. NO reason for playboy Anthony Marston to become a foreign prince. And ABSOLUTELY NO reason for Lombard's "secret identity". I have no idea what the motive was behind these changes. That's the basic old-school Hollywood playbook in action, I guess.
Unfortunately, René Clair was daring in neither technical nor artistic areas, and we are stuck with a film featuring contrived/awkward characters and a cop-out ending. Add in the mediocre performances of most of the cast, and it all combines to form a pathetically weak self-contained film, and an even weaker literary adaptation.
It could've been wonderful, but it settled for mediocrity.
Tell Your Friends