horses, pale or otherwise, running amok

[rose_griffes]

I watched an Amazon Prime miniseries adaptation of Agatha Christie's The Pale Horse. I remember only a few small details from the novel, so that meant not remembering who the dastardly deed-doer actually was. I did remember the how of the murders, but that was about it. Also, this adaptation took several liberties with the basic storyline.

Plusses: the aesthetics were fantastic. They set the story in the early 60s when it was written and published. The clothes, the makeup and hairstyles, the cars and home decor--all of it was great. The eerie ambiance of the story had an effective impact, with its supernatural overtones.

The acting: I like looking at Rufus Sewell's face while he swans about in a desperate funk because his first wife has died. (This gets established in the opening scene, so I'm not really spoiling anything.) I enjoyed the angst of the next woman in his life, and the too-wealthy family and their fraught friendships.

All of these plusses, and yet: they didn't stick the landing. The resolution is an acceptable swap of mood for actual murderer, but it's a bit confusing when I think back on how the murderer accomplished everything; that's not a desirable quality for a murder mystery. And then the ending itself is deliberately ambiguous, and not in the "oh, cool!" way for me. Someone else might get more out of it than I did; I felt like it was confusing for the sake of confusion, rather than to add something of value to the story.

I will say this as well: Christie's books sometimes had stark or grim overtones but she usually balanced that with humor and warmth in the personal relationships, or in the detectives on the case. This story was one of her Ariadne Oliver mysteries, but the adaptation has no equivalent character. The personal relationships are altered enough from the book--sacrificed for the moodiness of the story--that it ends up leeching most of the light from the tale.

Comments

[singedsun]

It's so pretty but I stalled out somewhere mid-episode two and haven't felt too much like I really need to go back to it. I do love Rufus Sewell chewing up the scenery though, he's excellent.

[rose_griffes]

Yeah, it's mostly an aesthetic experience, so... eh. Don't rush back to it if you don't feel like it.

[yourlibrarian]

. This story was one of her Ariadne Oliver mysteries, but the adaptation has no equivalent character. The personal relationships are altered enough from the book--sacrificed for the moodiness of the story--that it ends up leeching most of the light from the tale.

Huh. Like you, I've read this long ago enough that I don't recall all the details but I agree that this would make a big difference.

Boy do I need a "little gray cells" Poirot icon.

[rose_griffes]

My own summary: worth watching for the three As - aesthetic, ambiance, and acting. But it doesn't really feel like a Christie story anymore.

(Has any film or TV adaptation done a good Ariadne Oliver mystery? Hmmm...)

[yourlibrarian]

I'm trying to recall if there was ever one done of Ariadne on her own as opposed to Poirot novels where she also appeared.

[rose_griffes]

Ah! Wikipedia to the rescue! Her first book appearance was in the short story collection Parker Pyne Investigates. But every other appearance was in a Poirot novel.

[lyssie]

Marple did an adaption of that which was pretty cracktastic iirc. I'm... tempted to see if I have it somewhere, now. I need something else to watch during work tomorrow.

[rose_griffes]

Hm. I'll have to dig around and see if there are any Christie adaptations worth watching on Amazon or Netflix. I've always been more of a reader when it comes to her stories, though.