Agatha Christie's: And then there were none - Which is the best movie version?

Ten strangers are invited to a mansion on a desolated location. Once there  the butler, on orders, puts on an audio-record which contains a mysterious voice that accuses each and every one of them of getting away with murder. A cruel joke perhaps if not for the unmistakable fact that after this event each and every one of them are killed off one by one. Now; who is the culprit? The last one standing? Or is there something more devious at play?

And then there were none (or ten little n*ggers/Ten little Indians as it was titled originally) is one of my all time favourite crime novels. Ten villains who all get their just reward; with just enough character-identification for me (the reader) to care for them.

One of the main reasons I love the novel has to be the simplicity of it all. If you ever read a crime novel or watched a crime TV-show or movie you'll agree with me that most of the time the suspects pile up. The detective interviews a person (a suspect), then he interviews another, and another. And in some badly written fiction it turns out that the last person he/she interviews is the culprit. In short, from the start of the story, you, the reader, don’t stand a chance.

In And then there were none it's different. From the getgo you get ten suspects of which one surely has to be the killer. So, from the very start the reader can focus all of his/her attention on solving the ongoing mystery. And the brilliance of the novel is of course that, in the end, chances are that you were wrong.

Moreover, because all the suspects are right there in the same house together the reader doesn’t have to read through all kinds of dillydallying of the detective going from subject A to B. No, it’s a mere matter of entering one room and asking: “Did you do it?” “No!” and then entering the next.

Intermezzo

Agatha Christie's: And then there were none was based on a turn of the century nursery rhyme called Ten little n*ggers. Naturally, when the first movie-version came out in 1945 this verbal degrading depiction of the African-American fellow man was frowned upon. So Hollywood changed it to Ten little Indians which, as it turned out, was just as racist to Native Americans. So –later- the title was changed again, this time to the suitable: And then there were none in which the nursery rhyme referred to ‘sailor boys’ – kids are allowed to die, I guess.

Now, I always preferred the original title. This because the time setting was a period in time where racism was commonplace. People of colour were considered lesser. And, for a movie-viewer, living in the today, people uttering racist slur like it's gospel creates a nice little balance between identification and abhorrence. In short, I believe, as a result of this choice, you'd like the characters but (because of the racism) not too much to mind them getting killed.

Going to the island

Before I go into the reason for this article I wish to highlight the structure of the novel. The novel takes place in 'real time'. Yet at the end we, the readers' are given a 'flash forwards' and a 'flash back'-which explains the whole ordeal. Naturally this is far too complex for any movie - so changes were made. Usually the culprit explains him/herself during the last act. I never liked this, but that’s the way it is.

Also, whenever Agatha Christie rewrote her stories to fit a play she often made them more manageable.
The good guys win, as it where. It’s like her novels were the true versions but the plays were the version she would tell her children.
I think, it took a good eighty years before people dared to go against her wishes and try their hand at the original ending.

In this article I will hold my carbon-copy book by my heart as I go through each version.

By now, in 2018 we've gotten quite a few versions of the same story. So in this little article I wish to take on each and every single version based on Christie's novel and tell you about what I liked and disliked about the adaptation. So without further ado, here it goes:

The 1945-version: And then there were none.

The first and, for a long time, only one to take place on an island.

This is one of the best cast versions out there. The judge, the doctor -each and every actor playing the part fits the literary counter. The only character that is a bit out of place is Lombart, who is way too nice in this version. In the novel’s version he is quite the ass (again, see my above statement about Agatha Christie rewriting her novels for plays).

Though it is a bit too serious at times (combined with the obligatory ‘40s overacting) the final twist is served deliciously.

But what I liked most about this movie is the ensemble as a whole. This is the one (and only) movie in which I actually believe that the entire group is thrown together as a haphazard bunch.

They don’t know each other. Some, instantly don’t like each other. But here they are.

I still don’t quite know how this movie managed this. However, by making this group of characters so ‘thrown together’ it does entice the mystery of it all. You simply have no idea (who the murderer could be)!

The 1965-version.

This version takes place in the French alps and it is already a lot more playful. Especially the interactive element this movie tries is quite a bit of fun: One minute for the viewer to guess who the culprit in it all is. Playful in a Pre-Elanor McQueen kind of way (google it!) this movie sets up the mystery and before the final solution asks the viewer to solve it.

This movie fully accepts that a lot of the people the viewers are about to see are going to die. But in a way there is quite a bit of fun to have in seeing characters die in various ways. From the start this movie hints at who are going to be the last few ‘Indians’. The rest of the cast is just happy cannon fodder.

Again the Lombart character is terribly cast. But then again we do have Shirley Eaton taking the movie as the woman protagonist.

I do like the fact that, after this, several versions took place on some other obscure location. It begs the question -where will we go next?

The 1974-version.

A desert in Syria is where this version takes place.

If there's one thing this version does right it has to be casting Oliver Reed as Philip Lombart. Lombart, in the novel, is an alpha-male. Previous versions casted a good looking man but without any meat on his bones. Oliver Reed, however, was a strong man with a great deal of muscles. The 1945-actor might punch me. Oliver would punch me to death and bury me afterwards. In short, I would say, that Reed was the perfect Lombart. And there are more well cast actors in this version (like Froebe, Lom and Attenborough).

Other things this version did right is the music and, of course, Orson Welles as the 'voice'.

Just the ‘walking up to the block’-scene one character does after she/he confesses the crime is (underlined by the music) marvellous to see.

The 1987-version (Desyat Negrityat).

Leave it up to the Russians to make the most accurate adaptation ever. It takes place on an island for starters.

If you need to make a book-report about the novel and you don't like to spent three (point) five hours reading the novel: spent two hours watching this version instead. It is a carbon copy (celluloid copy?) of the novel.

True, the ending is a bit rushed and the movie doesn't include the elastic string (so read the last twenty pages); but overall this is the ultimate version word for word.

However, because it is so literal it ‘forgets’ that it’s a movie after all. So the characters come across a bit uninteresting. You don’t care who lives or dies. It’s a bit like a monotone voice reading out the book in a radio play.

The 1989-version.

The African Jungle. Why not.

Sly Stalone's brother Frank is in this one. And even though he's not much of an actor he nails the part of Lombart. He is on equal footing to Reed's version - no doubt (even though his acting has a bit to want for).

The murders, in this version are far more comical than has been before. In previous adaptations each and every murder was considered with the righteous amount of  respect. In this 1989-version, however, the slasher-influence of the 80s has touched upon my beloved story. The victims are spread out in gruesome manner with all kinds a blood pouring out of them ‘but’ with a funny twist to it. For example: The person ‘crushed by a bear’ is hilarious in its gruesomeness.

This isn't a good adaptation unless you are a 'die hard' fan of either the original book or the the reassuring presence of Donald Pleasence.

The 2016-version.

Finally back on the island. And...finally, the original version -of sorts. The killer is still the same. But now the ending is like it was supposed to be. Now, without spoiling the 'who' in the 'dunnit' I can tell you that the actor/actress playing him/her is perfectly cast. This is the person I depicted in my mind's eye when I first read the novel.

For the rest this movie opts for the ‘insanity of it all’. Knowing you are going to die creates an interesting dilemma. You don’t want to die so you hold on to every strand of life you can grasp (the great party scene). Yet, at the same time you go looking for the culprit.

It’s this personal approach that I found to be the most interesting in this series. Here we have several people who are terrified. They go partying whilst mistrusting each other each second through –alcohol induced- second.

The 2016-version (being a mini-series) is the longest of the adaptations. Yet, at the same time, it does feel a bit lacking on the character department. Still, as faithfull adaptations go the 2016-version is on par with the Russian adaptation.

Conclusion

So which is the best version?

To start with the character Lombart I would certainly opt for the 1971 or 1989 version.

Then, I want the story to take place on the original island. I even want it to be called the original racist name (because of the ‘lips’ on a rock formation). So that leaves only three true versions: the 1945-one, 1988 and the 2016-one.

Finally I want characters to care for; but not too much to mind them getting killed. So that brings the 1964 and 1945 to the table.

I will go for the first (1945) adaptation. Yes it has the happy ending but, then again, each and every character is so well cast that it counters my wish for the original ending.

No matter how much I love the Russian version or the 2016-version. I need characters in my movie that I don’t want to die (too much). The 1945-version gave those to me. So strangly enough after all those remakes (and I do hope Hollywood does another one) my conclusion is this: stick to the original. See it here: (link).