Simply Perfect

People are voting emotionally.

Absolutely Fantastic

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Spoilers ahead!I've seen this 1984 Joan Hickson version several times over the years, and I always like it, which is why I give it an "excellent" 10-level rating. But last night on seeing it again, it struck me: how can it be that the "rock solid" alibi for several characters is that they were in the presence of the murder victim, with many other witnesses seeing all of them together, while the victim was alive? An alibi has to apply to the period of time during which the victim was killed, not earlier, while everyone knew the victim was alive. Yet this is how the alibi for the eventual killers is described several times by the police. The real way the alibi worked is that the killers were seen in the presence of the victim while the victim was alive, and then remained in public, visible to many witnesses, continuously for at least an hour after the victim left everyone's presence, right up to and beyond the very latest time that the police later state is the latest moment that the victim (being elsewhere) could have been killed. Think about this strategy for a moment from the viewpoint of the killers, in planning their murder. They have to get a double, whom they will dress-up to impersonate the victim, and kill the double early enough in the day that when the police find the body and do their estimate of the time-of-death, the latest time-of-death the police will come up with happens to be within the window of time after the real victim leaves public view but while the killers are still in public view. But they also have to wait long enough before killing the double that the moment of the latest time-of-death is after the victim has left public view of the witnesses. That's cutting it pretty fine, and requires the killers to have a very good idea of how the police go about determining a victim's latest time-of-death. They also have to gamble that one of them will be called to view the body and make the identification (calling the substitute the real victim) and that no one else will be called on to make an identification. Otherwise, the substitution trick fails, and with it, so too fails the determination by the police of the latest time-of-death. One other interesting point: the killers planned to frame the film-studio man for the murder, leaving the body of the "double" at his house. He foils this temporarily by moving the body to the Bantry home - home of the rich squire of the county. Inadvertently, this saved him from the frame-up -- because it brought in and focused the excellent detectives on this case. It brought in not only Miss Marple, as friend to the Bantrys, but also the regional police Chief, because he was a neighbor to the Bantrys, and because the Chief would give special attention to anything affecting the Squire. Moving the body anywhere else, or leaving it in his own home, would have left the film-studio man at the mercy of the bone-headed detective who fell for the frame-up, because Marple would not have become involved and the Chief would not have given the case so much attention. Thus the film-man's moving the body to the Squire's house proved to be a disaster for the killers, because it brought in a swarm of detectives along with Miss Marple, all looking to find the killers. The killers certainly never expected that. The inadvertent lesson for us: if you want a murder to get solved, drag innocent rich people into it -- they'll have the money and insider connections to bring vast resources to bear on finding the real killer, not so much to pursue justice, but to clear their own names.

While I slightly prefer A Murder is Announced(my personal favourite of the 12 feature length adaptations) and Sleeping Murder, The Body in the Library is a beautifully done adaptation of a very good book. And yes, it is much better than the Geraldine McEwan version, which was spoiled significantly by that wretched ending. I know people will say it is unfair to rag on the Geraldine McEwan adaptations, but I have to admit while I don't despise them with the exception of about four they are disappointing, particularly Nemesis, Sittaford Mystery and At Bertram's Hotel.Back to this version. While a tad overlong and a little slow, The Body in the Library is an interesting and very worthwhile adaptation, not to mention more faithful. It is lovingly photographed, with the photography, costumes and scenery as always beautiful, and the music is lovely. The story rarely loses interest, the direction is attentive and the script is sophisticated and thoughtful. The acting once again is very good, with Joan Hickson simply terrific as Miss Marple(and I concur with the reviewers who say she was the best Miss Marple, she is certainly the warmest and the wisest) and Gwen Watford delightful as Mrs Bantry. So in conclusion, a very good start to 12 worthwhile, beautifully filmed and thoughtfully acted and written adaptations with Joan Hickson. 9/10 Bethany Cox

This was the first of the BBC Miss Marples to feature Joan Hickson. I thoroughly enjoyed it when it was first shown and still do BUT it does seem a little slow now. It was originally shown over three nights and is very steadily paced. Hickson of course is marvellous as Marple and will not offend in any way (unlike the cheekier McEwen) and she has some terrific support. I am particularly fond of Gwen Watford as Dolly Bantry even if she tires of the investigation more quickly than she does in the book. I have to confess to liking the newer ITV cast more in most of the other roles but I do think that Jess Conrad was born to play Raymond Starr! David Horovitch has his first outing as Slack and is still quite fresh here - I did come to wish that the BBC didn't use him quite so much by the end of the series. On the whole, its good stuff and highly recommended.

For a Christie near-addict, I find it difficult to even watch the Geraldine McEwan versions...esp. since Hickson was so flawless! I gather Christie herself had chosen her originally. Geraldine: way to ditsy. Rutherford: trying too hard to be comical and the novels are not comedies ! Hickson is scarily CONVINCING as the amazingly shrewd, analytical "old maid" who can still flutter and cluck on occasion...but the intelligence she brings to the role should discourage others. It's like Olivier in Richard III...and possibly Henry V. Case closed; find something else to play. Also: why fiddle with the setting? Christie set it in prewar England. And the supporting cast: most of whom I gather have sadly passed on--just show how deep the "bench" was in the matter of character actors of a certain generation. I doubt you could rustle up the same caliber today.