@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society 12/05/25 -- Vol. 44, No. 23, Whole Number 2409
Table of Contents
Mini Reviews, Part 29 (film reviews by Evelyn C. Leeper):
MURDER, SHE SAID (1961): The problem with the Margaret Rutherford "Miss Marple" movies is not so much Margaret Rutherford, but Ron Goodwin, because while the music he composed might be fine for a comedy, it is all wrong for a straight mystery.
(Rutherford's Marple is a bit more active, and a bit more eccentric, than Agatha Christie's creation. Joan Hickson was more to my taste, with Geraldine McEwan once again a bit too active than the original. Christie, however, did like Rutherford's portrayal.)
They needed to change the title from the original British title of the original novel (WHAT MRS MCGILLICUDDY SAW), since they eliminated the Mrs McGillicuddy character altogether, along with Lucy Eyelesbarrow--Miss Marple takes the position herself (maid rather than housekeeper). And they must have decided the American title (4:50 TO PADDINGTON) lacked punch or sounded too British or something, so they settled on MURDER, SHE SAID, as clearly relaying to the audience what was to be expected. (And, yes, I'm sure that the television series title "Murder, She Wrote" was a nod to this title.)
Joan Hickson, who later played Miss Marple on television, has a small part in this as Mrs. Kidder.
Released theatrically 07 January 1962.
Film Credits: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055205/reference
What others are saying: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/murder_she_said
MURDER AT THE GALLOP (1963): They definitely needed to change the name on this, to cover up that it was based on a Hercule Poirot novel, AFTER THE FUNERAL. They also cut down on the number of characters. This is generally necessary when making a novel into a film, but it also cuts down on the number of suspects.
(There was an old-time radio show episode in which the budget was enough for only three characters, one of whom was a continuing character, so when one was murdered, it was obvious who the murderer was.)
And they decided to promote the comedic aspect of the film (and increase it as well).
The murder weapon was changed; being bludgeoned or worse by an axe was a bit stronger than MGM wanted to depict. But for that matter all the plot between the initial set-up and the reveal of the murderer was changed.
As in the first film, the murderer is revealed not in the traditional "gathering of the suspects", but when Miss Marple lures the killer to try to eliminate her.
Released theatrically 19 December 1963.
Film Credits: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057334/reference
What others are saying: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/murder_at_the_gallop
MURDER MOST FOUL (1964): Again, this is based on a Hercule Poirot novel, MRS MCGINTY'S DEAD, and so changed the title, this time to a phrase Miss Marple used in the previous film. A lot has been changed, though the basic underlying plot is still there. By now it's clear that the murderer will be revealed when Miss Marple traps the killer in some sort of direct confrontation in which she gets to say she won the 1923 Women's Archery Cup or whatever. (She seems to have an inexhaustible supply of sports awards in every field--golf, riding, fencing...)
Released theatrically 23 May 1965.
Film Credits: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058383/reference
What others are saying: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/murder_most_foul
MURDER AHOY! (1964): Unlike the previous three films that were adapted from Christie novels--THE 4.50 FROM PADDINGTON (MURDER, SHE SAID, the only Miss Marple novel used), AFTER THE FUNERAL (a Poirot mystery, adapted for Miss Marple with the title MURDER AT THE GALLOP) and MRS MCGINTY'S DEAD (another Poirot novel, adapted as MURDER MOST FOUL)--this film used an original screenplay that was not based on any of Christie's stories. In my opinion it suffers for that. Having Miss Marple adopt a naval uniform is a bit much, and the original Miss Marple would never have gotten involved in a sword fight. (For that matter, neither did this one, really--by careful use of a double and editing the sword fight is at least passable.)
Released theatrically 22 September 1964.
Film Credits: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058382/reference
What others are saying: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/murder_ahoy
THE ALPHABET MURDERS (1966): This is simply appalling, on the level of the Woody Allen version of CASINO ROYALE. Tony Randall plays Hercule Poirot as a would-be Inspector Clouseau (and with only a fairly ordinary moustache), and Robert Morley's Captain Hastings is now an MI5 agent whose scenes include running down a street wearing nothing but a towel.
For that matter, most of the original plot was jettisoned.
There is an uncredited cameo of Margaret Rutherford as Miss Marple, complete with her theme music (Ron Goodwin did the music for all five films). The title was apparently changed from the novel's title (THE A.B.C. MURDERS) because there was a cinema chain called the ABC Cinemas, and the producers were worried that the original title might offend them.
Had they seen the finished product, I would hope they would be offended.
Released theatrically 17 May 1966.
Film Credits: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060094/reference
What others are saying: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_alphabet_murders
[-ecl]
Counting Countries: The Final Update? (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper):
[This is called a final update, because I don't envision myself ever flying anywhere in the future; flying has become so miserable.]
People often ask me how many countries I have visited. It is not a simple question to answer. (States are easier--all fifty, though even there one has to add "and Washington, D.C.").
First, there are 50 unequivocal countries:
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Botswana, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Palestine/West Bank, Peru, Romania, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Tanzania, Thailand, Turkey, Turks & Caicos, United Kingdom, United States, Vatican City, Vietnam, Zimbabwe
(The West Bank was never annexed by Israel, so I have to count it separately.)
Then there are four countries that were all part of one country when I visited, but split up starting literally the day after I left:
This would add four but subtract one.
And another two that also split (though more peacefully):
This would add two but subtract one.
Two "countries" were actually British territories, but are usually counted separately:
(And Hong Kong is now part of China, but not completely incorporated there either.)
While we're at it, some people would count four more I have visited as countries (if not sovereign nations):
Those last six are not sovereign nations, but are countries in the sense of being treated as separate entities from their governing nations by various organizations--for example, the International Olympic Committee and AMPAS (Puerto Rico and Hong Kong), and various sport associations (Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland).
Seven others--which at least are undisputed countries--barely count:
And finally, a "one-off";
Well, almost finally. It turns out that the "Travelers Century Club" has a list of "countries" which takes into account (e.g.) continental separations and island groups. So when counting from their list we would add Alaska, Hawaii, and the Galapagos Islands, and count Turkey in Europe and Turkey in Asia as separate countries.
Now I think the TCC rules are questionable. For example, they define an island group that is within 200 miles of its home country, but has a population of at least 100,000, and is administered as a separate state, province, or department, as a separate "country." So Prince Edward Island counts as a separate country (being a Canadian province), but Manhattan Island does not. (Hawai'i does, because satisfies another requirement: it is more than 200 miles from the home country.)
On the other hand, they clearly exclude the United Nations, because it has no resident population.
(See http://tinyurl.com/void-tcc-rules for the full list of rules.)
Anyway, here's the summary:
So I believe that currently the strictest count would be 50, and the most inclusive would be 71. [-ecl]
THE STONE TAPE (letter of comment by John Kerr-Mudd):
In response to various comments on THE STONE TAPE in previous issues of the MT VOID, John Kerr-Mudd writes:
Suitably late night scariness; too much for me, I fear. Luckily I never saw it back when I was an impressionable youth. [-jkm]
This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper):
I've been watching the Great Courses series "History's Greatest Voyages of Exploration", and have discovered that while not everything we learned was wrong, many of the "firsts" weren't:
Columbus did not discover America, and was not even the first European to arrive there. That was the Vikings.
Virginia Dare was not the first white child born in the Americas. That was Snorri Thorfinnson.
Virginia Dare was not the first white child born in what would become the United States. That was Martin de Arguelles, Jr. (She was the first English child, if one wants to put that much restriction on it. But then why not narrow it down further to first English male?)
Magellan was not the first to circumnavigate the globe, nor was Sebastian Elcano. That was Enrique of Malacca.
Vasco de Gama was not the first to round the Cape of Good Hope, nor was Bartolomeu Dias. The Phoenicians did it first a few thousand years earlier.
Robert Peary was not the first to reach the North Pole, nor were Matthew Henson nor Frederik Cook. That was Aleksandr Kuznetsov (by air), and Ralph Plaisted and team (by land). (Basically, all the earlier claims were either intentional fakes or genuine errors in calculation.)
Also, people in Columbus's time did not think the earth was flat (blame Washington Irving for this myth), and George Washington did not chop down the cherry tree (Parson Weems invented this). However, Lincoln may actually have walked miles to return money he accidentally overcharged a customer.
(And if Irving's biography of George Washington was this unreliable, one has to wonder about his biography of Mohammed.)
I followed this with "Polar Explorations", done in conjunction with National Geographic. Or perhaps more accurately, "Polar Explorations" seems to be a National Geographic production with the name "Great Courses" tacked on. It is not a series of college-like lectures, but more like a series of NOVA episodes, with several different lecturers, full of anecdotal stories, long visual sequences, and somewhat disconnected observations. It's not that it's bad, but it is not the "Great Courses" as one has come to expect it.
Another Great Courses series ("The Joy of Science") perpetuated a different common misconception, claiming Charles Darwin went on the Beagle as the ship's naturalist. Actually, the official naturalist was Robert McCormick; Darwin was on board as a companion to Captain FitzRoy, who otherwise would have had very few men of his own class to socialize with on the ship. [-ecl]
Evelyn C. Leeper
evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com
Quote of the Week:
Enveloped in a common mist, we seem to walk in clearness
ourselves, and behold only the mist that enshrouds
others.
--George Eliot
Go to our home page