Oh that PESKY YELLOW LINE, how it heartlessly dictates the fortunes of the Biggest Loser contestants. Thanks to the ubiquitous recapping I was able to catch all of Friday's missed episode in the first five minutes of last night's weigh in. It was a bike challenge which Tiffany won and gained the all-important IMMUNITY. Yay Tiffany. Surprisingly , Cameron came second. Both Andrew and Sean were worrying about the ALLIANCE. And so they should be. Although anyone with a little nous can see that now Cameron is the biggest threat because he has the most weight left to lose, whereas Andrew and Sean have lost most of theirs. And therein lies the unfairness of the reality TV programming. So sadly, Cameron was once again the BIGGEST LOSER OF THE WEEK, while Andrew and Sean will have to FACE AJAY in the ELIMINATION ROOM. That's a scary prospect for all concerned. However, I do love the moment when she says "It's time to cut the fat". How does she manage to keep a straight face? Perhaps she is a robot with no sense of humour built in.
Who will they vote out? I'm guessing Andrew but will most likely be WRONG. Meanwhile back up at the Survivor Loser Island Ranch, Nathan and Bob had to face a tortuous training session from the Commando. He caught them ENJOYING THEMSELVES with a spot of fishing on the BEACH, so they had to PAY. Bob was REALLY PAYING. However, he continues to lose weight - 9kilos in a week! Are you kidding me? Methinks Nathan was a BIG BIT PEEVED.
And then a surprisingly enjoyable episode of Poirot: The Third Girl. As usual I haven't read the book, although the mother-one tells me this morning that unlike the past few weeks' episodes they mucked around with this one a little bit. Anyway, it had the actress from Lost in Austen as the traumatised heroine, plus Zoe Wanamaker as Ariadne Oliver, so all was well, even Zoe's hair. And I didn't guess whodunnit, and the final scene where Poirot reveals all was not as extensively boring as in previous weeks. Poirot's interior decorating at his apartment was very beautiful also. Last episode next week apparently.
-
Posts
6 comments:
Sadly, in mucking around with The Third Girl, they destroyed everything that was relevant about it, which is why they had to shoehorn in the overly melodramatic extras at the end.
The original novel was published in 1966, and is all about drugs, and alternative lifestyles, and the increasing isolation of people in big urban centres with transient populations (and I don't mean people immigrating from other countries, but people breaking away from the pre-war patterns of long-term family existence in a recognised community).
(Hickory Dickory Dock did some similar in 1955, but it's much stronger here.)
In a way, this is Poirot's At Betram's Hotel, which is the Miss Marple story whose adaptation I hated: The Third Girl is all about Poirot feeling himself becoming old and irrelevant, feeling the world moving into a shape that he can't recognise--not just a post-war malaise, but a world run by and for a post-war generation that he doesn't understand.
Take The Peacock. In 1937, he's just another member of the arty Chelsea crowd, not even that peacocky. He's basically the type of artist that Miss Marple's nephew Raymond West married--and that's not threatening in Christie's world. But in the mid-'60s, he's more sinister to the older generation, because art is taking a shift into something much more aggressive and confrontational.
By setting it pre-war, they destroyed all that, and they destroyed much of the relevance of the novel at the same time. (I mean, the idea of a "third girl" is much more relevant in the 1960s than in the 1930s--and if Norma was so rich, why on earth would she be occupying the smallest bedroom in a shared flat?)
I agree, though: the set-dressing in Poirot's flat is fabulous. I crave those orange armchairs--the sofa might be a bit much. And I loved the huge wooden arches in Andrew Restarick's office building, too. Their location scout is a genius.
Well that gives an entirely different spin on the whole episode. I'n glad I hadn't read before watching it because I would no doubt have had a very different reaction. It would have been very interesting to see it not mucked around with particularly in terms of historical period. I think this might even be one I seek out to read now. Even though I quite like melodrama too.
Yes I totally agree on the location scout...i really want to know where that place is where Zoe Wanamaker got knocked on the head...with all the pillars !
The question remains though - WHY? do they insist on changing so many things in these adaptations? I don't know that I'll ever find an answer.
The book's a bit of a creeper: it didn't strike me as one of her best when I first read it (and, generally, her later ones aren't as good) but on a subsequent reading I noticed some more intriguing aspects.
In terms of mucking them around, I suspect they've just adapted them too often. They're probably worried now that people will say "but I saw that exact story with Joan Hickson (or Peter Ustinov, depending on which detective you prefer)" and become bored or switch off.
Alternatively, since they're adapting fairly obscure ones now with Poirot, they might just be betting on people not having read them.
Hello Anonymous!
you make some good points! Perhaps there's only so many times books can be adapted to our various screens before the adaptations start a downhill slide into mediocrity.
Dammit! I had a nagging feeling I'd left a step out when I posted that last comment. (Still, I'm glad I made some good points!) At least I didn't post as Faral again.
Alternatively, maybe I"m just writing naughty anonymous comments on people's blogs and then suffering a crisis of confidence afterwards and confessing all? That could make an interesting hobby.
it could become a really addictive hobby.
I did wonder if it was you but then didn't want to look like an idiot if it was someone else!
Post a Comment