Lord Edgware Dies by Agatha Christie

  

 My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Category: Adult
Genre: Mystery
Content: Clean

 

When Lord Edgware Dies a most unnatural death, detective Hercule Poirot must solve a most confounding conundrum: if the obvious killer, the slain peer’s spiteful wife, didn’t do it, who did? A classic from the queen of mystery, Agatha Christie.

When Lord Edgware is found murdered the police are baffled. His estranged actress wife was seen visiting him just before his death and Hercule Poirot himself heard her brag of her plan to “get rid” of him.

But how could she have stabbed Lord Edgware in his library at exactly the same time she was seen dining with friends? It’s a case that almost proves to be too much for the great Poirot.

 

It amazes me, that after reading ten books by Agatha Christie, she still manages to surprise me. I enjoyed this and thought it was another cleverly done mystery. It wasn't a favorite out of the ones I've read so far, but still very enjoyable. There are some good red herrings and quite a bit of misdirection in this book, and that's what made it so enjoyable to read. It's just fun to try and figure out the puzzle. Most of the time I've been unsuccessful in figuring out who the killer is in these books. 

I felt like Poirot did less in this book than in some of the others. He uses his little grey cells a lot in this book after getting clues from other people. There were some amusing comments made by him in this book. One thing I enjoyed the most is the banter between Poirot and Hastings. This is one of the books that was published under two different titles. The other title that was used was Thirteen at Dinner. I like the way that title sounds better than Lord Edgware Dies, but both titles actually fit the book well.

I've made a habit of watching the Poirot ITV episode, after I read one of these books, and this time was no exception. I thought this episode was pretty good, but there were some changes. Just like with the other episodes with changes, I don't understand why they decided to change the things they changed. In this version Carlotta does an impression of Poirot and not one of Jane. I had no idea how this was going to work with the story. They pulled it off by making some other small changes, but it wasn't quite as good as the book. Still, I liked this adaptation, and it did stay mostly true to the book. Plus, it just has the right feel to it, and the actors were all well cast.

“Do you not realize, Hastings, that each and everyone of us is a complete mystery with layers. We each try to judge each other, but nine times out of ten, we are wrong.” 

 

 

I also made it a point to watch the 1985 version with Peter Ustinov as Poirot. It used the other title, Thirteen at Dinner. One fun fact is that David Suchet played Inspector Japp in this version! I've said in one of my other reviews that I didn't care for Peter Ustinov as Poirot, but he wasn't the worst casting here. Lee Horsley as Brian Martin was very miscast. He was just dreadful. And Faye Dunaway as Jane Wilkinson didn't work for me. Plus, I really don't care for her anyway. I do have to add here, that David Suchet is a superb actor, and I liked his portrayal as Inspector Japp. He was so different from the Japp in the ITV series, and nothing like his portrayal of Poirot either. The actor that played Hastings did alright, but lacks the spark that Hugh Fraser brought to the character.

I think the worst thing about this version is that it isn't set in the right time period. It's set in the 80s and that just doesn't work for this story at all. It's too modern a time period, and makes the motive that worked in the 1930s, seem silly and unrealistic. Poirot himself, also seems out of place in this time period.

This version also changes the theater setting to a TV show. There are scenes when they are shooting TV shows, and scenes with the actors discussing their roles, and they feel very out of place. Overall, this whole adaptation has cheesy production values, and feels Americanized.

  

 

There's a third version of this that was filmed in 1934. I was thrilled to find this! I watched it on YouTube, and according to The Vault, "This 1934 version of Lord Edgware Dies is the earliest known surviving screen portrayal of Agatha Christie's Poirot. It stars Austin Trevor as the detective, his third time in the role - the previous two films are thought to be lost."

It was quite fun to watch, but in this version Poirot is very tall and missing his signature mustaches! Hastings has the mustaches and is short. I think it would have been better if the actors had swapped roles. This film is very much a product of its time, which is something I find interesting about all three of the films. Carlotta does an impression of Jane by singing in this one, which didn't surprise me at all for a 1930s movie. 

Overall, I thought the actress that played Jane did a good job in the role, but I found the way she talked off-putting. She didn't have the sophisticated accent that I was expecting. She spoke more like a Hollywood film actress, instead of a British stage actress. 

It actually surprised me that this version followed the book as much as it did. There were definitely changes though, and the ending is the most pronounced one. Despite the fact that the actors are all wrong for the Poirot and Hastings roles, and the ending was nothing like the book—and kind of ridiculous, I still liked this one more than the 1985 version. 

It's also interesting to note that this was a cheaply made film, and Agatha Christie wasn't near the height of her career yet when it was made. She was popular, but not considered the queen of mystery yet. She had only written 40 of her novels at the time, so any deal to make her mysteries into movies probably seemed like a good one. Ultimately they made three of these and from what I've read, they weren't well received, so no more were made. I heard that Agatha never liked any of the adaptations of her books. I can't help but wonder if she would have liked David Suchet's version.