Le mystère des sept cadrans

Sly vixen that she was, Agatha Christie had other arrows in her quiver besides her usual crew of detectives.

For instance, "The Seven Dials Mystery" is a beautiful filmed production set among the magnificent houses of the great if not so good between the two World Wars, far from the tranquil world of Miss Marple.

There is no middle-aged Belgian detective or village busybody here, but a pert girl with impeccable breeding and a nose for adventure.

In "The Seven Dials Mystery," originally written in 1929, and produced as a British TV film in 1981 (directed by long-time "NCIS" director Tony Wharmby) , Christie's sleuth is a young noblewoman named Lady Eileen "Bundle" Brent (Cheryl Campbell) . Just a few years older than Nancy Drew, this delightful daughter of a marquess (Sir John Gielgud!) engages in some very clever (and very dangerous) detective work.

Set in a gorgeous old pile, and involving a whole House of Lords of wealthy aristocrats, including several very rich and (sigh!) very stupid gilded youth, "The Seven Dials Mystery" has plot enough for a dozen mystery movies.

During the day, Bright Young Things screaming, "By Jove!" and "I say!" play away the hours. But as mysterious gunshots ring out at night, to the grim accompaniment of ancient clocks tolling away the hours, the bodies begin to add up.

As the cute "Bundle" Brent tries to figure out what's going on, Dame Agatha adds still more layers of mystery to the puzzle, and what started out as almost a day trip to the Fun House becomes a terrifying excursion into the unknown.

Along for the ride is the great Sir John Gielgud, in a charming, often hilarious performance as an eccentric peer of the realm (he easily steals every scene he's in), and the marvelous Harry Andrews, as, of course, a Detective-Superintendent from Scotland Yard.

Christie doesn't let you off lightly, and there are nuances and subtleties that you might miss on your first viewing. So watch "Seven Dials Mystery" over and over, and don't look at the clock while the movie's playing, because Dame Agatha has a surprise for you every minute of the film.

Unbelievable adaptation! Completely and utterly faithful to the novel, except for 2 things: 1) The climax is slightly altered to make it more "scary" 2) During the climax, #7 explains the purpose of the Seven Dials before revealing him/herself

The acting was fantastic! (Bundle's dad is portrayed so perfectly, it's almost scary!) You could watch this while reading the book, that's how faithful it is! The humorous scenes are still there, Bundle and her dad providing most of them. Some people complain that it is too long. Not at all, the length is just right! A long and drawn-out adaptation is WHY DIDN'T THEY ASK EVANS?.

An overall summary: One of those rare "perfect adaptations" which you'd like to watch over and over again. It deserves more than 10/10, but that is not allowed.

I saw this version of one of Agatha Christie's earliest, and fluffiest, stories when it was first broadcast in 1982, and remembered it so well as an adult that I was delighted to find it in a video store.

The plot doesn't recount well - basically, several outrageously wealthy young aristocrats amuse themselves by chasing after a secret society called the Seven Dials. But the pace moves right along, and the oh-so-British styling is wonderful, including discreet foreign policy dealings amid cards and cocktails at country house parties (populated by perfectly-coiffed young ladies in flapper dresses, of course).

Not for everyone, but British mystery buffs will eat it up. 1920's obsessives will also want to see this one just for the gorgeous costuming and a series of stunning vintage cars that look as though someone raided a Concours d'Elegance just for this film.

I have an all-encompassing quest to experience films in a lucid, coherent way. Within that are several little projects that have become hypnotic vortices of their own. One of these, in a sort of self-referential way is the quest for the best film of a Christie novel.

This comes close in terms of Christiness. That's because it is a pretty faithful rendering of the book. As such, it follows her nice form of introductions. In these novels, it is all a game of defining people that sew into each other. The people come first and we find of course that by the end we have sewn them together incorrectly because of the simple order in which they were introduced.

Christie (and others, Sayers) have this game of limited watching. Everything we see is true, but we don't see everything we need to in order to weave a coherent narrative until the end. That's when we revisit many scenes, which we "see again." Its all about seeing, really. And that's especially so when she writes book without her regular detectives. With the detectives, there is some internal sight, some mental perspectives, but with these it is purely about what is seen physically.

Here's the interesting part. Movies, and especially these puzzle movies are also about what we see and what we don't. That's the root of the cinematic experience. But Christie didn't write with a cinematic imagination. So the two conventions of visual trickery are close but not the same.

That's why I'm so fascinated by films of Christie stories. It is a wonderful cinematic challenge for the filmmaker, and in a way — because all this is collaborative construction — one for the viewer as well.

This adventure plays with secrets in three ways (signage, association and "state" secrets) and allows us to confuse them by natural assumptions that prove false. It is clever. As a book it is clever, I mean.

As a film, it goes on too long and asks us to accept some rather extreme portrayals.

Even with its length and observance of the story, there is a pretty jarring discontinuity between the first part of a large group of young, silly people. We need this large number to justify the eight clocks. But managing so many red herrings in a movie isn't feasible so all the girls are dropped.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

At almost two and a quarter hours, it's a very long drama, but it's worth watching, as it is absorbing, fun and intriguing. It's a slow, ambling mystery, full of espionage and intrigue. Don't expect great drama or sudden shocks, it's all very subtle.

I quite like the book, it's worth noting that this is a very accurate adaptation, the one thing I would point out is that here you're given subtle clues as to who the killer is, whereas in the book you're given hardly any. The solution always baffles me.

I love the style of it, it looks terrific, nice sets and lovely costumes. It is a production of its time, sometimes it looks more like a stage play.

Cheryl Campbell and James Warwick are excellent together, they work incredibly well, although producers were guilty of casting Mr Warwick too frequently, in all fairness he's perfect for them. Sir John Gielgud adds the humour, he's wonderful.

I like that we have references to Chimneys, Inspector Battle appeared in a few novels, including Chimneys.

Long, but lovely for a wet Sunday afternoon.

Intriguing. 9/10