Crooked house – a review

A private detective is called upon by a former flame to investigate the death of her grandfather. She suspects that one of her relatives living in the old man’s estate is in fact a murderer. Who did it and why? On the first visit to the ‘crooked house’ Charles Hayward discovers that each and every member of this strange family is more than capable of murder.

The crooked house has, until now, been the only Agatha Christie novel yet to be filmed. It is also one of the most wickedly dark (and Agatha Christie’s personal favourite) stories she ever wrote.

I for one can attest that it is my favourite amongst Christie’s more obscure novels.

It is perhaps a bit convenient that at the time of the big cinema release of another Agatha Christie adaptation (Murder on the orient express) that this smaller sized drama should come about. But I’m not complaining. Not if it is a drama that is so incredibly well make.

At least it’s not Hollywood bringing out two competing volcano or asteroids movies at the same time.

The rule of thumb when it comes to adapting a novel for the first time has to be: ‘get it exactly right’. Meandering and changes to the story can happen at a later (re)adaptation. For the first one the stakes are high to bring the pages to the screen as accurately as possible.
Knowing this (and wanting this) I simply cannot find a singular flaw (but one –I’ll leave it for the spoiler) in this movie.
Though I must admit that I knew the ‘Who’ in this whodunit  beforehand. So, perhaps, people going in blank might see the obviousness that I disregarded as my ‘insiders knowledge’.

The cast
The cast is comprised with character actors of the highest order. Gillian Anderson is –once again- having a ball playing a different kind of character.
Just take a look at her resume: The cold doctor in Hannibal, the weird bride in Great expectations and, of course, her ‘facts first’ agent Scully in the X-files. She must be living the actress’ dream of being capable (in roles offered) to take on variety. Her turn in Crooked house as the self-centred, faded actress, Magda is –like the bourbon the character pours herself at 10 in the morning: ‘just what the doctor ordered’.

The other pillar of an actress known to take on a variety of female parts is, of course, the grand Glenn Close.

Not always, she’s played a male-character twice as far as I remember.

She plays her ‘aunty’-part with the grace of ancient aristocracy. -Well, grace by the end of a double-barrelled shotgun at least.- Her white hair contrast beautifully with her twinkling eyes as her character is the very definition of the smartest person in the room.
I’ve seen the actress in period pieces before (e.g. Dangerous Liaisons) and, as she grows older, it seems almost as if the time forms around her characters instead of the other way around. Close’s ‘Auntie’ belongs in the estate of the crooked house. It’s her powerhouse performance that makes the story richer as you see her brooding in the background.

To end this segment with one of my favourite male actors: Julian Sands. After his double turn in the popcorn-pleasing Arachnophobia and Warlock he could never do no wrong by me (though he tried in The Phantom of the opera).

He even appeared in a favourite TV show of mine: Person of Interest. His character vowing to

return to haunt Finch and Reese again. Alas he never did.

Seeing him now as the self-destructing better half of Gillian Anderson’s character is a feast for the eyes. Even though his character is only allowed to play (for most of it) the money hungry former aristocrat he plays it with delicious glee.

But only highlighted three of the actors is cutting it short. All the actors in this movie are a delicious watch. From the little girl, her older brother, the extremely young grandmother all the way to Terence Stamp playing the Scotland Yard copper.

A direct spoiler – I thought it was (in the book at least) Stamp’s character who gave the main character the clue to solving the case: ‘The fact that killers wish to talk about their crime.’. This adaptation didn’t use it which makes the character Stamp is playing a tad ‘cardboard copper’. Nothing his natural charm can’t overcome but still. A bit of a missed opportunity.
The movie did keep the possible inbreeding-element as I will mention below. So the two main clues are still present in this adaptation.

The story and directing
Ticking in at almost two hours this movie takes its time for the audience to get to know the characters.
In fact, even though the movie delivers such a strange family of suspects at the basis of the story I found it rather refreshing that, after twenty minutes or so, I knew the various relationships. The movie takes its time for the audience to learn the family dynamic. Who is who and who wants what?
Which; of course leads to the one thing a crime mystery can’t do without: Everybody wants something!

Throughout this lengthy introduction there are also little sneers at the fading British aristocracies in the ‘50s and ‘60s. The fact that ‘Auntie’ hunts moles with a shotgun because the animals are haemophiliacs is a direct reference to the century long inbreeding that went on in the upper-class families.

Then there are the timebased elements that always serve so well for a red-herring or two: communism, mafia, sibling rivalry. It all coats this dark tale with a beguiling fog of secrecy.

But the running time isn’t very long in experience. In fact, the balance of the movie is just right between the main character/detective Charles (Max Irons) questioning suspects and the strange crooked things that go around in that silly old house.
My favourite scene by far is the dinner scene that could have been written by Winston Churchill. Never before have I witnessed such an uncomfortable family gathering wherein insulting one another is treated as an art form.

Well maybe Festen – but let’s keep this article light shall we.

More so the directing underlines the lines spoken. Gilles Paquet-Brenner applies very little tomfoolery with the camera (apart from a nicely dark ballet-scene near the end).
I noticed some nice strange angles the camera uses at times and a rather distorting lens once or twice – but that’s icing on the cake comprised of a solid script and stellar performances. The directing lets the words do most of the work. In this movie the words (in comparison to Paquet-Brenner’s previous movie Dark places) work marvellously.

The one little flaw (maybe)
Which brings me to the one true flaw I could think of.  Which is not even a flaw, to be honest. At least it’s a spoiler to the movie so be wary.

The one flaw that I currently think of is a debatable one: the movie ends with a rather sudden anti-climactic ending. The viewer is denied any experience of the other characters after they learned the truth.
I’m on two minds about this one. One the one hand I would like to see the dramatic effect on the various character. Whilst, on the other, I can accept the choice. In fact, we (the audience) don’t need any further exploration. Our instincts and mental narrative will fill in what happens next.
So this is nicely debatable as an anti-climactic sudden ending needs to be.

Conclusion
If you wish to see Agatha Christie’s darkest novel done right look no further than Crooked house. This is the prime example of a perfect adaptation. Maybe some people won’t like the story – that’s Christie’s fault not the moviemakers. Crooked house singlehandedly restored my fate in book-adaptations for the next year. I really enjoyed it a lot!