Dr Jacques COULARDEAU A simple story about a rich old man who is going to adopt a dancer to give her his money or at least a good part of it against the will of his children, or in-laws, but Miss Marple is a lot trickier than that and the criminal is someone who wants to put their hands on that money by marrying one of the two official heirs, though the heirs don't seem to really care for the "caprice" of the old man: they may at most be condescendingly looking down upon the fancy of a sick old person. Clever but not enough for Miss Marple to be fooled. It is true she cheats because she has "accomplices" in the police, but she remains entertaining and the older actress that impersonates her is so quaintly delicate and dainty that it is a pleasure to listen to her shy and hardly impressive voice. But don't get fooled by her.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID

Mr Dark Pink There are two sorts of viewers of this film. Those who see it having first read the novel, and those who see it not having read it.Those who have read it first recognize a superlative job done by the scriptwriter and director, getting all the essentials of the story included within three fifty minute episodes. Those who have not read it first find the film filled with matters that only seem to dither along as Miss Marple herself and merely obstruct the eventual conclusion.Agatha's novels are very difficult to condense into 90 to 120 minutes. There are always delicious elements left out or plot lines that are not developed or explanations not made.In this adaptation, SPOILERS COMING!!, the conclusion wraps up the sleuth's thinking, but leaves out the novel's attention to what happens to Conway Jefferson's daughter in law and her son Peter, resolving the question of the final distribution of the old man's wealth. Maybe the director and scriptwriter decided that the woman was not sympathetic enough to talk about. Indeed, they did present her as something of a cold fish who flirted with two men without any resolution of their fates in the film. It's all explained in the book where she comes across much more sympathetically.But this may be a minor quibble. Many commentators have rightly given this film very high marks. I agree with those who accord this movie top rank or near top rank for its kind.

rbolt2008 Joan Hickson's first appearance in her outstanding portrayal of Miss Marple - and the first BBC adaptation written by Trevor Bowen. It was first broadcast in three 50-minute episodes.Suspense: For me, the structure of the adaptation is one of its qualities: each episode ends with a cliffhanger, while parts two and three begin with a shot of the body in the darkness of the Library at Gossington Hall. Watch out for the macabre ending to episode two involving a bonfire, a laugh and a native mask. The use of shadows and closeup shots to create sinister effects are a feature of the BBC adaptations and the first film contains some good examples of this. In my opinion, the closing ten minutes are worthy of a Hitchcock thriller or an expressionist film of the 1920s or 30s.Characterisation: Each member of the cast is suited to their respective roles. Moray Watson's staccato accent makes him an ideal Colonel Bantry; Jess Conrad's appearance is perfect for the role of Raymond Starr; Gwen Watford is brilliant as Dolly Bantry - she is what I would expect a wife of a retired colonel in the 1950s to look like. Members of the cast interact well together: I am thinking here of the opening scene in bed where Dolly browbeats her husband into viewing the dead body in the library. There's also the bond between two elderly friends in the form of Sir Henry Clithering and Miss Marple when the retired professional detective and the amateur sleuth are reunited.Comparison with ITV version: I do not mind the ITV version, but there's no where near as much thought given to casting and scripting as there was in the BBC version. There is too much overacting, particularly with Simon Callow as Inspector Melchett and Joanna Lumley as Dolly Bantry. There are also some comical elements which seem a bit cheap and contrived.Overall, the BBC's adaptation of the Body in the Library is highly recommended and is something I will never tire of watching.

tedg Spoilers herein.Detective mysteries are one of the most lavishly adventuresome experiences in literature, if one is interested in how narratives are constructed. The contract between reader and writer is rather complex, often involving virtual contracts with some of the characters as well. Christie is a master of these tricks.Christie and Sayers usually put a character in the story to denote this ambiguity of realities: either a writer or a moviemaker. Here it is a movie fellow. (In "Death in the Clouds" it was a detective writer with a multiple personality disorder, and one of the persons was the fictional detective!)The BBC takes all these intellectual adventures, all these notions of multiple parallel realities and flattens them to productions of lush setting and colorful characters. A real shame and we shouldn't put up with it.But in this case at least, we have two redeeming qualities: the first is the way the director has chosen to handle the staging. It is remarkably intelligent: many of the perspectives use very creative camera perspectives. Lots of the talky recounting sessions are very cleverly presented, most notably that of the dance partners, which we see over and over. Each time is slightly but significantly different.Which brings us to the other asset. Trudie Styler, whose assertive, confident presence is a perfect counterpoint to Hickson's practiced withdrawal.The technical aspects of the story are interesting as well. Old detective stories were of the form: a body is discovered in a manor and the inhabitants are the suspects. The impossibility of who did it and how is the game. Here, the rules of the game are all adjusted. Many people do not know the others. The place and body are usually the anchor of such stories. Everything must tie to that navel. Here that anchor is cleverly fooled with.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.