"Phelps' adaptation is less about a simple whodunnit and more about fear of the other...The pace and tone may have divided the nation, but the larger story is one of sharp sadness and unique staying power; qualities that eluded previous adaptations."


As Britain crawls towards the end of 2018, we all attempted to put our political differences aside to sit in the stony silence of Christmas: in front of the telly. After all, classic Christmas movies are so saccharine and based in nostalgia that they are the perfect thing to half-pay attention to while desperately messaging your friends. But not this year. The BBC decided to shatter our already splintered and frayed relationships to start the hottest debate since someone thought the word Brexit was a clever headline. On the 27th of December, the latest adaptation of Agatha Christie's ABC Murders was aired, starring John Malkovich and Rupert Grint. Within a single hour of the three-part series, the country was rawly divided once more.



For the uninitiated, ABC Murders is an Agatha Christie novel written in 1936 where (no spoilers) a criminal mastermind, going by the name of ABC, taunts the famous Belgium detective Hercule Poirot with a series of letters before murdering people with the same alliterative names as their hometown e.g. Alice Ascher in Andover. This celebrated novel is argued as one of Christie's best pieces of work and has been adapted time and time again for film, TV and radio.
Basically, we Brits love it.

Those adaptations have been tailored time and time again in order to fit modern audiences, under the guise of introducing the latest generation to Christie's work. The 1965 version starring Tony Randell was basically Austin Powers in the 30s, whereas the 1992 version with David Suchet follows the story blandly, yet truthfully. The latest 2018 adaptation by Sarah Phelps is darker and closely resembles a modern "gritty drama"; a decision which has divided the nation in a way Farage can only dream of.

Personally, I found Phelps' adaptation to be less about a simple whodunnit and more about the fear of the other. Xenophobia and mental health stigma appear throughout the three-part series and for the first time (at least in for me), we are forced to consider how life as a foreigner might have been like for a post WW1 refugee from their pov. 

The level of distrust and outright aggression towards Poirot feels out of place initially -after all, he is a celebrity, one of the most famous detectives in the world. The angry public response is in stark contrast to how Poirot has been received in the past, allowing us to see glimpses of his raw genius without bravado - which, in a world of quirky misfits and loveable anti-heroes, is slightly uncomfortable to watch.

The only real negative I could muster for Phelps' version has nothing to do about being "loyal to the source material"*, but rather consistency. No spoilers: The ending was anti-climatic and honestly, just didn't make much sense. I thought a colder, more dismissive confession would've mirrored the calculation and chill of the overall show. The villain's rush of passion and affection, I thought, were misplaced and forced unnecessary exposition. Closing with a whimper.

To conclude, this latest version of the ABC Murders by the BBC is greater than the sum of it's (three-)parts. The pace and tone may have divided the nation, but the larger story is one of sharp sadness and unique staying power; qualities that eluded previous adaptations.





*I imagine the only people who get upset about that are the sort of people who hate Greggs' releasing their new vegan sausage roll. The original is still around gang, chill out.)