![]() ![]() The only explanations I can come up with are padding, the director’s friends needed jobs, or to prove that Alex Restarick is an avant-garde theatrical type.Ĭould it be Walter Hudd’s mysterious purchase of a horse for his wife, Gina? At no point are we given a reason why Walter buys the horse. Was it the mysteriously added scene where Miss Marple and her old friend Ruth van Rydock watch a bizarre performance of modern dance set to a modernistic, challenging, virtually atonal score? The three dancers wear what looks like body paint (one rather Satanic) and roll around on the stage with enthusiasm. It was flat, flat, flat flat like the surface of the pond at the climax but without the sparkle. Up till now, all the Joan Hickson Miss Marple films have been good to excellent. It was obvious! And not just because I read the book! It never came to life, allowing me plenty of time to ask why this murder was so hard to solve. ![]() There’s also the weird addition of modern dance, Walter’s horse, and a survivor of murder who died in the book. It was far more dramatic than the novel - necessary for a film - but badly thought out. ![]() Minor characters get removed, Inspector Slack replaces Inspector Curry, a name change here or there. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |