Poirot, Holmes (Granada) and Jeeves/Wooster are a remarkable trinity of TV adaptations

Cafe Society
1

I have been watching some episodes of Poirot recently and it occurred to me that it along with the Granada Holmes and Jeeves and Wooster were a remarkable trinity of great TV adaptations of popular fiction classics.

They were each made around the same time in the 80’s and 90’s (with the later Poirot seasons stretching later). They had fine casts and the lead performances are often considered the finest portrayal of their iconic characters. They had excellent production values which beautifully re-created their period settings. And they were each faithful to the source material.

As such they are “definitive” and it is hard to imagine anyone even trying to remake those adaptations for TV unless ,like the newer Holmes, in a different setting. They have a timeless quality and will be enjoyed by fans for generations.

2

Which version of Miss Marple do you prefer—the TV series with Joan Hickson or the movies with Margaret Rutherford?

3

Haven’t seen any Marple yet but I would imagine the Hickson show would be very much in the vein of the other three. Will give it a shot some time.

4

I agree with your entire post, OP. The actors (supported by the directors, production people, crew, etc.) just made the characters spring right off the page.

Among the three you mention, if I had to choose, I’d say that David Suchet as Poirot nailed it the most precisely.

5

I would respectfully suggest that a close examination of the performances comprising Jeeves and Wooster are perfect portrayals that also managed to redefine the written characters. Exemplary. Shall I lay out your suit?

6

For purposes of comparison:

7

From what I recall, the Holmes series was pretty faithful to the original literature, while Poirot did more to change the plot and pacing for television and modern audiences. Where did J/W fall in that range?

8

I love Margaret Rutherford’s incarnation of Miss Marple, but true to the source material it is not.

Essentially she plays Miss Marple the same way she plays Hildegard Withers (a sleuth role created with her in mind, I think).

9

In the cases of Poirot and Holmes, both series are, I believe, exhaustive. That is, they filmed every story in the respective canons. As someone mentions above, the Poirot may not be quite as faithful, but AIUI, the Holmes series is about as faithful as could be desired. This level of fidelity to the source material and completism is very unusual in television production.

For instance, the popular Father Brown series bears almost no resemblance to any of the Chesterton stories, beyond the presence of a somewhat pudgy Catholic priest named Brown who solves crimes. It’s been a while since I read them, and I may not have read every one, but I have recently watched the full run of the show. I don’t believe Chesterton wrote the characters of Mrs McCarthy or Lady Felicia, or any of the other regulars in the show. If he did, I don’t think they appear in many of the stories.

The only other similarity I can recall is the jewel thief Flambeau, who in the stories is a former crook, now friend of Father Brown, where in the show he is a sort of frenemy, but still actively thieving. (Someone who is more conversant with the full Father Brown oeuvre can correct me if I’ve forgotten other similarities, and certainly will, if I know my fellow Dopers.)

The Chesterton stories are also not all plotted as neatly or as conventionally as the show. Often the story just stops dead with Brown’s explanation of whodunit, with no followup. We don’t see the apprehension of the criminal, or any other tidying up of loose threads.

The Jeeves and Wooster series was not exhaustive. There are only 23 episodes of the show, and according to Wikipedia, Wodehouse wrote 35 short stories and 11 novels featuring the pair.

But although I love most of Wodehouse’s stuff (except the stories that center on golf or cricket, sports I don’t know – or care – anything about), even his most devoted fans have to admit that his plot lines were a bit repetitive. An inordinately large percentage of them have to do with the hero, whether Bertie or someone else, trying to get out of an engagement of marriage he has somehow blundered into.

So it was probably pointless to even attempt to do an exhaustive Jeeves and Wooster. In fact, you could probably just copy and rename an episode and have Stephen and Hugh overdub the names of the girls in question, and tickety-boo, there’s another story checked off.

10

Yeah I think there was a short window in late 20th century Britain in which these shows could have been made. There was just enough of that cultural traditionalism which is largely gone today while at the same time there was enough money for decent production standards. For example I Claudius from 1976, while a fine show, does not look nearly as good.

11

The Fry/Laurie versions of Jeeves/Wooster are too compressed. You cant get the essence of a novel like Joy In The Morning into a single 51m episode. I always thought the Richard Briars/Michael Horden ones were better.

Not all of the Holmes stories were filmed - some were unfilmable without drastic changes.

12

I think much of the joy from Jeeves and Wooster came from not from the intricate and original story-telling but from all the actors so clearly enjoying the costumes and dialogue themselves. Fry and Laurie particularly seemed to be having a whale of a time and were perfectly suited to the roles (and I know they love PGW’s work)

13

Several of the Jeeves and Wooster episodes cover more than one short story, especially the ones set in the south of France.

14

The Poirot adaptations were definitely faithful to the character of Poirot himself. The plots, somewhat less so – one of the biggest differences is playing up Hastings, Japp, and Lemon in the early series, far beyond what they were in the books, creating a kind of ensemble show. When ITV Took over the show around season seven, that ensemble was ended, but then the show took on a much more violent, dark tone…not necessarily narratively out of line with the original plots, just darker.

Quite a few episodes had plot changes, often for the better (Anthony Horowitz for example has to do a fair amount of work to make “Murder on the Links“ work for TV), but occasionally for no reason that can be discerned.

In terms of temporal fidelity, the books existed in real time more or less as Agatha Christie wrote them, whereas the TV series is jammed into what feels like a very narrow decade.

All that said, I agree that Suchet’s Poirot is definitive, and it would be difficult to portray him better or more memorably than Suchet does.

15

When John Malkovich, of all people, was chosen to play Poirot, I lost all hope in the casting decisions these days. I grew up watching the Suchet version, having read the books, too.

16

I just recalled a U.S. counterpart to these series: A&E’s A Nero Wolfe Mystery.

Two seasons, 27 episodes that cover 20 of the 70 or so Wolfe stories (seven are two-partners). The production values are pretty good, and the eps are named after Wolfe stories, but I can’t comment on their fidelity to the source material.

I’m a big fan of Nero Wolfe, so I bought the box set of the series, but after watching a few episodes I quit, because I found Maury Chaykin completely inadequate as Wolfe. Timothy Hutton (who also produced) was only barely adequate as Archie, but lacked a certain solidity (dare I say manliness?) that I associate with the character. My impression is that overall it just wasn’t as good as the British shows. Maybe because the quality of British acting is just generally better?

However, the series seemed at least to be attempting the same level of faithfulness and production quality as the three British shows we’ve been discussing, and it was produced in roughly the same time period: 2001-2002.

Perhaps someone who has seen more of it can compare it to the others better than I.

17

They weren’t even trying with The Big Four.

18

No, they weren’t, though that book is a mess since it’s a bunch of short stories cobbled together into a supervillain-team narrative.

It would have been fun seeing Poirot playing his own twin, though.

19

Not the case with Holmes. I believe that they hoped to, but Jeremy Brett’s death prevented that (and given the age of the actors, it’s hard to imagine how they could have adapted A Study in Scarlet, in any case). The wikipedia article on the show lists 19 titles that were not adapted; 2 novels and 17 short stories.

20

Thanks. I think I was remembering that they had said they were planning to film all the tales, and either didn’t know or didn’t remember that they never made it. Sorry for the error.