Two Christie novels fare less than well in new TV series
Compared with the Poirot and Marple mysteries, Agatha Christie's "Tommy and
Tuppence" novels are decidedly third place. The idea of a young couple wanting
to solve crimes in the style of other fictional detectives was a cute one and
the plots and the approach were lighthearted.
In 1982-1983, British television came out with "Partners in Crime," in which
the Beresfords, Tommy (James Warwick) and Tuppence (Francesca Annis), sleuthed
around through 11 tales, one of which was "The Secret Adversary." Warwick was
rather dull, Annis a bit over the top; but they were enjoyable on a somewhat
For some reason, it was decided to redo "The Secret Adversary" and give "N or
M?" a try, with yet a new team: Jessica Raine (Tuppence) and David Williams
(Tommy). Each story is given 3 parts of 55 minutes each—and I read that the
British viewers' reaction was less than favorable.
For one thing, Christie's spy novels are never quite as good as her murder
mysteries. Secondly, Tommy and Tuppence are forever making the wrong moves, and
in the real world they would have wound up dead in the first few hours.
Alas, Warwick's Tommy was dull, but he looks like Olivier when compared with
Williams. As some actor once said about another of the profession, he "runs the
gamut of emotions from A to B." Nor is he handsome enough and certainly not
young-looking enough for the part. Raine is a better actor but again not
young-looking enough. So you can see that a much better set of leads might have
helped the clunky plots. And each story having165 minutes running time merely
emphasizes the awkwardness of the plots.
With an eye to a second series (which has been blurred by the poor reception of
this first series), the writers established two permanent secondary characters.
James Fleet plays Carter of the Secret Service, while Matthew Steer is the
scientist Albert. Neither is encouraged by the director to bring any life into
At least the older series had the advantage of the colorful costumes of the
1920s. Here, the far drabber costumes of the 1950s are of no help. So while I
usually carp about television's taking a good series and remaking it into a bad
one, here we have a not all that good a series being made into a poor one. If
there is a lesson to be learned, why hasn't it?
There is some interesting bonus material and the subtitles are much
TALK TO US
If you'd like to leave a comment (or a tip or a question) about this story with the editors, please email us. We also welcome letters to the editor for publication; you can do that by filling out our letters form and submitting it to the newsroom.