Miss Marple: La plume empoisonnée

The Moving Finger sees Miss Marple sort out the unpleasant events in the small idyllic village of Lymstock. The identity of a writer of spiteful poison pen (PP) letters is revealed, and a killer is unmasked.

There is a quality that ran through this series, and The Moving Finger is a particularly good offering. Joan Hickson gives the usual immaculate performance which cements her as the quintessential Spinster detective, and the accompanying cast do a great job.

The story is so full of spite and malice, a great book is very much brought to life, as a mystery you'll be kept guessing right until the end (if you've not read the book of course.) You get a true taste of the effects of the PP letters on the community, mistrust and gossip galore.

I especially like the performances of Andrew Bicknell and Sabina Franklyn, they do a great job as the unsuspecting Burtons, but it's the performance of Michael Culver (Symmington) that I most enjoy. Hilary Mason is also well cast as the vinegary Miss Barton.

THE PREMIUM version of The Moving Finger, 9/10

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.

The Moving Finger sees brother and sister Gerry and Joanna Burton (Andrew Bicknell and Sabina Franklyn) move to a quiet English village for Gerry to recooperate after injuries sustained in a car accident. Everything seems hunky dory and all so ordinary, but pretty soon they receive a poison pen letter. It turns out that a number of the villagers have received them, but little do they suspect that before long it will result in a death. And when it does, it is Miss Marple who suspects there may be a far more sinister cause behind it all.

My first encounter with the story was the actual novel some years ago. I can't remember it that clearly, but I know I enjoyed the book. And this serves up as a decent adaptation, creating an ordinary quiet village community of the post war period where it seems unlikely that anything untoward could ever happen. That it does makes it all the more intriguing. There's the village doctor Owen Griffith and his sister Eryl, vicar Rev Calthrop and his wife Maud, solicitor Edward Symmington and his wife and children, including awkward tomboy Megan Hunter, plus spinster Miss Barton (whose house the siblings rent out while Gerry recovers) and waspish Mr Pye, a man who lives on his own in a grand house. For me when reading the book I immediately thought of Richard Pearson as Mr Pye, so when I finally got to see this adaptation I was delighted to find him playing the part. He is perfect in the role. His character is clearly gay but without overstating it as they do in modern adaptations of period dramas, he is seemingly affable at first but soon flexes his critical claws when he gets talking. He makes Mr Pye both a slightly camp character and at the same time also sinister, which is perfect when trying to create the possibilities of who the poison pen writer may be. Also good is Michael Culver as Symmington, the cultured solicitor who all the village women like working for. His understated acting gives an added edge of quality and realism to the proceedings just by keeping it ordinary, but he still keeps your attention regardless. And then there is Hilary Mason as Miss Barton, who can conjur up sinister just by her appearance in Don't Look Now (1973). Here she is a genteel spinster of the Victorian generation, still coming to terms with the new world, and Mason plays it beautifully. But is her character actually just an act hiding something more macabre?

Indeed, I have to say the support cast probably make more of an impact than the main leads, though both Bicknell and Franklyn do well enough as the brother and sister. There is little really at fault with the cast performances, though some - like John Arnatt's vicar - are somewhat bland, and I could of done without the 'comic' turn of Victor Maddern's policeman, despite loving him in the Carry ons. But it's Deborah Appleby's role as Megan that is a little conflicting for me. She's decent enough in the role, but she looks way too old to be playing a girl of 20. It's nice the writers stayed faithful to the novel and didn't decide to sex her up for the TV version, which makes her character so interesting from the usual glamorous "girl in peril" parts. But at times Appleby looks a little awkward in the role, and not just because her character is supposed to be. And there is one scene where Gerry whisks her off for a surprise makeover that looks decidedly cheap. Instead of seeing footage of her being done up, it inserts montage snaps of the event that robs us somewhat of her moment. It's surprising the makers chose to do that, considering the lavish treatment they have done in recreating the past in both costume and sets.

I reiterate that it is a good adaptation, intriguing to the viewer. But that's what puzzles me - it's intriguing, rather than absorbing, and I can't put my (moving) finger on just why. Maybe it's because the suspects are so everyday they struggle to make this mystery truly stand out. Yet there are moments in this that stay in the memory, both involving poor tragic maid Beatrice (played by Juliet Waley, who I remember from Look & Read's Dark Towers). The first is the image of her waiting fretfully for her boyfriend to turn up among a series of scenes about the village as it builds up to the first murder. The second is when Megan eventually discovers poor Beatrice, with the scene notably effective and creepy. Indeed, it is even more effective than the fate of another maid in A Pocketful of Rye which I do recall as a kid (what DID Agatha Christie have against domestics?). And considering sometimes they say crime writers don't play fair with the viewers, there is a remarkable scene where it practically shows the killer placing the book used for the poison pen letters to plant on another villager, but you don't realize this until the culprit is later exposed. Talk about having confidence in your direction, but it works neverhtless. And at least this time Joan Hickson's character is introduced into the story more naturally, paying a visit to old friend Maud Calthrop (Dilys Hamlett) who happens to relay about the poison pen letters to her in conversation.

So an intriguing mystery overall, and enjoyable to watch. But for some reason it doesn't feel in the same quality as the truly great Miss Marple mysteries. And I really can't put my finger on why.

Oh dear, poor Ted, he seems, from his email address to be in Education, and one would suspect that his academic speciality is "Mystery Writers". A pity, excessive analysis over the years appears to have rather distorted his power of judgement. I was lucky enough to have been brought up in 1950s England, and I have never seen a series which more accurately reflects the life and people I remember then, less the murders of course! The real problem Ted has with the whole series is revealed in this comment: "At least this one emphasizes the obnoxious, mousey character of Jane more than the others." He just doesn't like Joan Hickson's characterisation. Well, sorry old chap, I knew many friends of my grandparents who were extremely similar to this Miss Marple, intelligent ladies of the Raj who had returned to England or daughters of the prewar middle class coping with the new society that was being shaped. They were used to a 'certain standard' in all things. Behind the fierce formal exterior, though, there was a twinkle, although often buried quite deeply. If Ted doesn't like this Joan Hickson characterisation, then I'm pretty sure he would have not have got on with Agatha Christie either. Probably Erle Stanley Gardner's more his type! This episode is up to the standard of the rest of the series, and it was directed by Roy Boulting, who would also remember this time well since it was his heyday at Shepperton Studios, producing classics like 'I'm alright Jack'. Hence the accuracy of the period feel. If you want to see Miss Marple really messed up, then check out the new 2004 series featuring Geraldine McEwan, whom I admire in the right part (Mapp and Lucia for example). But she is NOT Miss Marple, Miss Hickson IS.

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.