The mystery of the blue train

The last few days have been spent on a favourite pastime - that is to say compare and contrast the original Agatha Christie story (AV) - the mystery of the blue train - with the adaptation for television (TV).

TV preserves the  main lines of the story: rich young lady goes to Nice on a luxury train and is murdered for her jewels on the way. Nice young lady, newly rich as a result of an inheritance from an old lady to whom she had been companion, also happens to be on the train. Plus Poirot, semi-retired. Plus the rich young lady's estranged husband, aristocratic but impecunious; a marriage of convenience. Plus the French bounder who is her lover.

Estranged husband the red-herring in both versions. But, oddly, TV makes him into an unpleasant alcoholic with no redeeming virtues apart from the prospect of a title. Whereas in AV he has an exotic French dancer for a mistress, he does have redeeming virtues and he ends up getting together with the nice young lady. Why did the television people suppress the exotic dancer, whom one might have thought was good for a bit of telly? Why did it make the husband into such a bad lot?

TV also minimises the role of French justice and eliminates that of the Greek jewel dealer. Perhaps having a dodgy Greek Jew who deals in fancy stolen jewels was deemed incorrect. OK in the thirties of the last century, but not now. Also perhaps that it was OK in the thirties for AV to have the good Poirot on friendly terms with the bad Greek; both gentlemen of honour - who just happened to be playing on different sides. It wouldn't really do now, when we worry about morals and conflicts of interest. I note in passing that Chesterton's Father Brown, from roughly the same period, also has his tame villain, Flambard, to provide a bit of colour. And rather earlier we had Balzac's Vautrin. Both French as it happens.

TV also eliminates old lady 2, of St. Mary's Mead (the home of Miss. Marple), to whom the nice young lady returns to await the denouement.

To make up, it introduces us to the father's wife (mad) and mistress (exotic and foreign), this last taking the place, at least in part, of the exotic dancer. It makes rather a meal of the introduction of the nice young lady into the sort of society to which her new found money entitles her. Much period colour.

It preserves the satisfying ending, with the two people who are supposed to be trustworthy, the maid and the aide, turning out to be the villains. Can't get the servants these days. I note in passing that the aide might well have been damaged, not to say brutalised, by his service on the Western Front during the First War - a point not made in either version.

I suppose, as one might expect, that the overall effect of all this is that TV simplifies things and leaves out a lot of background. Necessary for the medium and the time allotted - say 100 minutes for 300 pages.

PS: I think that the small safe introduced by TV to hold the jewels while on the train was the original of module 1 of the luggage discussed at reference 1.

Reference 1: http://psmv3.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/a-dream-in-four-parts.html.