After seeing the first film trailer, it was obvious that A Haunting in Venice was not going to be a faithful re-telling of Hallowe’en Party, the Agatha Christie novel on which it is based. But it still looked like it would be a fun movie, so we went to see it right away. It is quite different from the book, but there are more similarities than I thought there would be. I would never divulge spoilers, but here are some amusing tidbits to watch for if you go to see it:
Because I’ve been focusing so much on the 1920s novels, I hadn’t re-read Hallowe’en Party in a few years. I remember it fairly well, but I went back and read it again to be sure I wasn’t missing any references. I’m glad I did, because I don’t think I would have remembered the two teen-aged boys in the book, Nicholas Ransom and Desmond Holland. In Venice, a brother and sister pair work for Michelle Yeoh’s character. They are named Nicholas and Desdemona Holland.
Many of the other character names are used as well. Joyce Reynolds, the first person to die in the book, is the name of the medium played by Michelle Yeoh. Joyce had a brother named Leopold and there is a boy named Leopold in the movie, although his last name is now Ferrier. The movie Leopold has a father named Leslie Ferrier, who, in the novel, was a law clerk with a criminal past. In the film, he is a doctor.
Olga Seminoff is another name that is in both the book and the film, but the characters are quite different. In the book, Olga is a young woman, au pair to Mrs. Llewellyn-Smythe, and we don’t meet either of them in the story. In the film, Olga is Mrs. Seminoff, a more mature woman who works for Rowena Drake but maintains her own household with, presumably, Mr. Seminoff.
Christie describes Rowena Drake as “a tall, handsome woman of forty-odd, her golden hair lightly tinged with grey,” and that describes the way actress Kelly Reilly plays her fairly well. But the fact that Rowena is an opera singer who uses a medium to reach her daughter in the great beyond is a new addition.
The trailer features a séance and we hear a little girl’s voice. It immediately brought to mind Christie’s short story, “The Last Séance” which was first published in 1926 and is one of several paranormal tales she wrote. In it, a woman whose daughter has died speaks to her through a medium. The medium insists that no one touch her while she is channeling the spirits and Michelle Yeoh says the same, although that’s where the similarities ended, to my disappointment.
Speaking of disappointments, if you are expecting an Ariadne Oliver who is really Agatha Christie’s alter ego, you won’t find her in this movie. In the novel, Ariadne is seen “lowering her bulk onto the arm of a settee" and Tina Fey is certainly not “bulky.” I can’t even imagine Fey with “an apple core nestling on her broad chest.” But as I have gotten over Kenneth Branagh as Hercule Poirot and I like Tina Fey, I tried hard to accept Fey as Ariadne Oliver.
I was less accepting of Fey’s offhand remark about “only apples before dinner.” That made it sound like she was on some kind of trendy diet. In the books, Ariadne often munched on apples while ruminating about plot points and such. I’d be interested to know how much of the character was written before Fey signed on and how much was re-written to fit her since Ariadne is obviously younger and brighter in the film and much less prone to ruminating.
Gardens figure in both the film and the book. In Hallowe’en Party, there is a fantastical sunken garden where Poirot talks to witnesses and in Venice, there is a neglected rooftop garden where he conducts an interrogation. Also, and I thought this was a nice touch, the film starts with Poirot in retirement, caring for raised garden planters. That was definitely reminiscent of Poirot growing vegetable marrows in The Murder of Roger Ackroyd.
As many changes as there were, I was impressed by how much in the film was, in essence, the same as in the novel. I have watched many of the films and television shows that were “based on” Agatha Christie stories, and frequently they’re so altered, that even the murderer is different. It can be jarring to a fan, but even Christie herself rewrote some of her mysteries.
So I was prepared for some out-of-the-blue twist. What I should have been prepared for was that many of the film characters had the same personality traits as their book counterparts, traits that drive their actions. I didn’t re-read Hallowe’en Party until after I saw the film, and I had forgotten quite a bit of it. If I had read it just before, I might have caught on quicker as to who was hiding what.
I read one reviewer who was angry that A Haunting in Venice was “advertised as a horror film” because it wasn’t. Certainly, it isn’t a slasher movie, but it’s very atmospheric. I loved the scenes of Venice and the palazzo interiors. I am partial to stories set in the 1920s, but the post-World-War-II vibe was minor and infinitely more atmospheric than the 1960s, which is when Hallowe’en Party is set.
In general, I wasn’t much annoyed, and I actually enjoyed it, which I believe is high praise from a rabid Agatha Christie fan! As I say to other fans, I have come to terms regarding all the alterations to her work lately if it means more people will read Christie’s books and go to the Christie movies and keep her legacy alive.
I hope I have succeeded in not mentioning any spoilers! If you have gone to see the movie, how do you think it compares to the book? I’d be interested to know.
Movie poster by Wikipedia