The Pale Horse by Agatha Christie

I saw that on the One Show in the week looks interesting.

Oh thanks, I’ll enjoy that .

How close is it to the book? Have they 'modernised' it for what they see as a mentally challenged audience who cannot cope with something set in the 1950s?

Wasn’t keen on the ITV version a few years ago with either Geraldine McEwan or Julia McKenzie, can’t recall which one. But no one matches Joan Hickson, the definitive Miss Marple IMHO.

Monica, I don't know. It is possible they have changed it. I have liked some of the different adaptations. Crooked House was very good.

According to the Daily Telegraph, The Pale Horse is 'loosely based on Christie's 1961 novel'; the main character is no longer the hero but a liar and womaniser; the author Sarah Phelps has 'taken liberties and changed loads and loads of stuff'. She previously upset viewers by drawing parallels between Brexit and Thirties fascism and adding sex and foul language to some of her 'adaptations', because apparently Christie laid clues to these darker elements in her writing and her script is 'what I think the story is about from her point of view.
You have been warned. ( I hope she wasn't the one who produced that dreadful one with the moustache masquerading as Hercule Poirot.)

I'm sort of looking forward to this because I love the book, but I'm afraid it will be the usual "reimagining"

Thank you, OP.

Yes thanks. Something to look forward to!

I'll give it a try. I'm a great fan of Agatha Christie but like some adaptations more than others.

eazybee, Thank you for the info. I will give this one a miss.

Sara Phelps is now bracketed with Andrew Davies as being a warning signal that any book eiter of them dramatise will bear only a passing resemblance to the original.

her(SP) script is 'what I think the story is about from her (AC) point of view. No, Agatha Christie wrote a book with characters and plot as she saw them. Much as I enjoy reading Agatha Christie, they are not books of any intellectual depth. She wrote a good straightforward story and you got what it said on the tin.

You would think they would find it depressing that the only way they are capable of dramatising a book and holding an audience is by adding extraneous sex and traducing the character of half the characters.

I've got the book on my Kindle. I will reread tthat instead.

Blimey, I didn't think posting something to watch on telly would cause such a to do.

I'll look forward to it. One of my favourite stories.

Sometimes reimagining can be very good but other times it's dire. One of my favourites is Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. All the genteel manners and social comments you expect from Jane Austen but with Zombies....what more do you need?

I'm not holding out much hope for this. Sarah Phelps made a complete dog's dinner of Ordeal by Innocence and also over complicated The ABC Murders, although at least that was watchable.

I really hate this new thing of sexing up and rewriting Agatha Christie stories. It's really just writers indulging themselves and using her name to get a guaranteed audience.

Beswitched we all dropped out of ABC murders after the first episode.It was a shame as I seem to remember it was broadcast at Christmas and the whole family were looking forward to watching it.

I do not know exactly what it is, but some writers/ directors can marmelise a book. yet keep its essence. We read the Christmas Carol every Christmas - and then watch the Muppet's Christmas Carol because, somehow, they keep the essence and feel for the book. It was the same with this year's version of Little Women, frankly it was a real dogs breakfast of an adaptation, but kept the quintessensce of the book, which means I loved it in a way I have never enjoyed any previous adaptations. I am told by my most reliable critics - my family- that the new David Copperfield is another such, so we are off to see it.

I love Agatha Christie novels in their natural form but I suppose they could be described as old fashioned. I suppose the rewriting is an attempt to update the stories and make them more palatable to the modern viewer.

IF Agatha Christie's books are old-fashioned, why bother with them at all? The author of the screenplay should just try and write some plots of her own.

Well, I shall be watching so I can gaze at the divine Rufus Sewell.

I’ve never read an Agatha Christie so I have no expectations.

Like SueDonim, Rufus Sewell will be my reason for watching!
I don't know the story at all, but the fact that it's a Sarah Phelps rewrite does ring warning bells ...

I loved AC books as an older child, but have read them all (some more than once), and seen the David Suchet Poirot and various Marples over and over, too.

I am pleased to see more adventurous adaptations, so I don't know for sure whodunit in the first scene. I do remember what happens in this one, so if Phelps plays around with the plot, so much the better.

But surely it would be better to write new dramas than to mangle stories written by a hugely popular author. It's a cynical way of making money out of her name while not respecting her work.

The Pale Horse was the first Agatha Christie book I read, when I was about 10.
I've read and watched lots since.
I can't remember what happens in the Pale Horse so may watch this.

That's a fair point, Beswitched. I suppose they are out of copyright now, but that's no excuse, really.