There was no feeling of recognition at all. I’m not sure how many years have passed since I read Appointment With Death, but it could be close to forty. Generally, though, there tends to be an ‘oh, yes, that’s what happened’ kind of thought when you come face to face with whodunnit.

Last night on ITV I just told myself that I was watching an ITV Poirot, so there was every likelihood of it having acquired a new plot. The summary on Wikipedia bears a little resemblance to the television drama, but not enough to disturb.

What we saw was attractive and sensational, which is how they prefer their crime dramas. Fair enough. John Hannah looked good in his desert outfit, even though he was a bit OTT. And as Son said, it’d be nice to be able to travel like that. Minus the murders.

We have seen recently the dangers of the rising of the flood water across the UK, but the flood of secularism receives somewhat less press coverage.

In what amounts to the first test of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU Commission now says that churches must employ homosexuals. Must? The Commission has now overruled the British government’s decision to allow religious groups to avoid giving jobs to gays. The EU says that the UK’s concessions break the Brussels directive on discrimination. The National Secular Society had complained to the Commission about the opt-outs. Churches will now only be able to turn down homosexual applicants for jobs specifically involving religious activities or practices. One Christian charity responded: ‘If evangelical churches cannot be sure that they can employ practising evangelicals with respect to sexual ethics, how will they be able to continue?’ Simultaneously, Gay campaigners are also pushing for legislation to force churches to bless civil partnerships.

In a very similar vein, do you see the rising of the flood waters in the recent Employers claim that the offering of a “Christmas holiday” is indirectly unfair to other religions?
The Employers Forum on Belief says closing down over Christmas is ‘indirect discrimination’. The Forum, comprising major employers like Barclays, Sainsbury’s, West Midlands Police and the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, advises that shutting offices could be resented by members of other faiths. They have to use up their holidays for their own religious festivals while Christians are given time off for Christmas. The Forum suggests that companies can ease tension by pointing out that shutting down at this time makes economic sense, and admits that celebrating Christmas should not offend minorities, yet recommends avoiding the use of religious-looking seasonal decorations.

A rare voice against the flood is that of David Suchet, the Poirot actor, who last week expressed his fears that Christianity is getting a raw deal

Suchet worries that Christianity is being marginalised in Britain in deference to other religions. The star of the long-running Poirot TV series believes ‘we should embrace all religions and marginalise none. But we seem more concerned with marginalising Christianity, and not offending other faiths.’ His concern crystallised after Government aid was recently withdrawn from a Christian charity that he supports. He says: ‘We are in danger of losing the importance of the Christian faith in our own country.’ Christian Peoples Alliance leader Alan Craig agrees: ‘Christianity is being marginalised by those who rule our society.’ Suchet, who found God after reading the Bible 20 years ago, has been open about his beliefs in several interviews.

It is interesting, in contrast, to read Gerald Warner ‘s celebration of the US Christians’ stand against discrimination. Warner –a blogger for the Daily Telegraph- has highlighted a campaign against anti-Christian legislation launched by church leaders in America. He writes: ‘At last, Christians draw a line in the sand against their PC secularist persecutors’ and hopes that this ecumenical stand will ‘have some beneficial effects even here.’

The Manhattan Declaration, signed by Catholic, Orthodox and Evangelical leaders, says that ‘freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardised by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.’ It continues: ‘We pledge… that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence.

It sounds like something Martin Luther might have said.

Watching an old episode of ‘Friends’ the other night – the one where Ross says the wrong name during his wedding to Emily -  I was reminded of the night I played some songs in front of Jennifer Saunders. Jennifer’s daughter was playing that night too as it was an open mic night at a local bar. I was due to go on after her and it only dawned on me as I was checking my guitar was in tune over in a quiet corner that Jennifer was in the front row, having come to watch her daughter’s performance. She looked softer than her ‘Absolutely Fabulous’ persona and seemed to be enjoying the evening. When I stepped out onto the stage for my slot I tried not to stare directly at her as I knew it would make me feel nervous. I don’t know why, there was a time when I kept randomly bumping into celebrities. Then again, when it is random you don’t ever really get a chance to get used to the idea. I mean you can’t wonder around life think ‘Oh I’m Mr Planet, I bump into famous people.’ Not unless you want people to use the word ‘arrogant’ when they describe you.

But it is true that I’ve encountered celebrities in unexpected situations. Once I was heading to a band rehearsal and walking over a bridge in town. Coming the other way was a blond chap who seemed a little familiar. ‘He looks like David McCallum out of ‘The Man From U.N.C.L.E.’,’ I thought to myself as he drew nearer. “You’re David McCallum,” I suddenly said. “Yes I am,” he replied, “And who are you?” “Oh I’m just a bloke on the street hassling you,” I said, realising that it was really rather rude of me to just blurt out my thoughts at him. He extended his hand and said “Hello bloke on the street.” “Hello David McCallum.” He then pointed at my guitar case and said “You playing tonight?” “Rehearsing with my band,” I told him. “You any good?” he wanted to know. “I’m not bad.” He smiled and said “Well I’m not bad at acting so you never know.” And that was that. He had to go, I was late for rehearsal and I forgot to ask him the most important question which was, ‘What are you doing in this two-bit nowhere town I call home?’

Some years later, when I was at university, I was standing at the queue for the ATM with my son, who was probably about eight or nine years old at the time. There were two ATM machines and the guy alongside me in the other queue looked familiar. Oh my word, he was Dave Davies, guitar player of The Kinks, one of my favourite sixties bands. “Hello guitar man,” I said. He turned round and smiled and said something quite softly. I remembered as he spoke that he’d suffered a stroke a few years back so he might not want people bugging him on the street. So I just gave him the thumbs-up, which he returned. We both stepped forward to the cash machines at the same time and when he’d done he tapped me on the shoulder and said goodbye with another thumbs-up. “Who was that?” asked my son. “He was in a huge band in the sixties.” “Bigger than McFly?” he asked (for the Americans, McFly were the equivalent of the Jonas Brothers over here for a year or two). “Well sort of,” I replied, “But even bigger and much more talented.” “Cool.” And I had to agree, how very cool to just bump into Dave Davies while waiting to draw some money out of the bank.

In similar fashion I have met Donald Sutherland, David Suchet (who plays Poirot over here in the UK), Hugh Cornwell of The Stranglers, Tony Robinson (Baldrick from ‘Blackadder’), and several other minor celebs. But the famous person I refused to get excited about was a member of the royal family. It was my first year at university and I was walking down a corridor talking with a friend. My shoulder brushed against the shoulder of somebody coming the other way. “Sorry,” I said and carried on walking. My friend was agitated. “Oh my god! Do you know who that was?” “Nope,” I said, as I hadn’t even looked up. “That’s Peter Philips.” “Er, and he is?” “Princess Anne’s son. The Queen’s grandson.” I wondered what my friend expected me to do with this information. Run after Peter Philips and throw myself prostrate before him uttering profuse apologies? I grinned. “I doubt very much he’ll have me sent to the tower for brushing his shoulder, especially as I’ve said sorry. He probably likes being treated like a normal person anyway.” My friend still looked doubtful but, as my head was still attached to my shoulders, I assumed I was right and carried on walking.

Stargate Universe co-star Brian J. Smith has been cast in the upcoming TV movie Murder On the Orient Express, an adaptation of the classic Agatha Christie mystery novel.  It’s one of four films in the 2009-2010 season of the long-running British series Agatha Christie’s Poirot.

Smith plays Lt. Matthew Scott on SGU, which is currently airing its first season on Syfy in the U.S. and Sky1 in the U.K.  The actor made the announcement on Twitter, but his role on Poirot is still unknown.

Poirot stars David Suchet as the fictional detective Hercule Poirot, and has aired on ITV in the United Kingdom since 1989.

The movie reportedly starts filming this month in the U.K.  Filming on Universe’s first season wrapped in October, with a hopeful second season tentatively set to begin in Vancouver in late February or early March.

Smith also announced this week that he’ll make his first (non-Comic Con) convention appearance at Chevron 7.4, January 29-31 in Birmingham, England.  The convention is hosted by Massive Events.  (His SGU cast mate David Blue (“Eli Wallace”) appeared just this past weekend at Chevron 7.3, in Northampton.)

Catch Brian in “Time,” this week’s new episode of Stargate Universe, Friday at 9 p.m. (8 Central) on Syfy.

Source:  Gateworld

How do you feel about heist movies? I personally have a weakness for the good ones. I love all that planning and gadgets, the adrenaline and excitement. And if the movie has characters that we can relate to, even better.

Here we have Kevin (Ryan Reynolds), Sam (Kristin Booth) and Rob (Joris Jarsky);  three buddies who have known each other since college. They are also a part of a secret society that theoretically plans and executes heists. They plan every single aspect: the timing, the chemical products needed, the athletic performance expected. It’s fun and harmless; until their robbery plan of a diamond store is captured by an actual bad guy (David Suchet). He is aware of the group’s genius. So he makes a plan of his own and delivers the perfect blackmail: Either the friends execute a 20- million- dollar-heist of bonds for him or he sends the plan to the cops and they go to jail.

Kevin and Sam seem to be taking it worse than Rob. Rob seems to like and respect Leo. And moreover he is getting more and more enthusiastic about his cut. Sam wishes Leo dead; she’s not the type to enjoy taking orders. Their nerves are pretty strained too. This time the heist is going to take more guts, more risks and it is a fun ride to watch the gang do all the tricky work.

I like Ryan Reynolds. I am not sure if he is a great actor, but he is no doubt good. I liked his comedic timing when he was one of the guys in the sitcom Two Guys and A Girl. He definitely has the built and charisma to play the action hero which he shows in Wolverine as Wade Wilson, Blade Trinity and many more. He has starred in some very interesting, not- so- easy- to- be- categorized films such as The Nines; which will in fact be my next review. He is cute and handsome enough to pull off romantic leads as well; such as The Proposal. He is one of my favorite Canadian actors. Speaking of Canadian actors, the other two leads are also fellow Canadians and so is the talented writer/director William Philips – the movie was shot in Canada as well.

My point? The movie has the perfect combination of action, comedy and friendly banter – leading to wonderful twists and suspicious behavior. It is fun and deserves a viewing. Go team Ryan!

for the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3qndVGGsM4

An actual scene from the movie. Is it fun or what?

There is a competition to win a deluxe edition of The Jesus Storybook Bible, but that’s not the (primary) reason for this post.

As a testament to how brilliant this children’s storybook is, we read it to our not-even-two-year-old in the mornings, and she listens and engages with it each day. To be fair, she probably doesn’t understand the majority of it! But nonetheless, anything that engages a child of that age, particularly something that so wonderfully and faithfully points to the Lord Jesus, has to be a good thing. We even find that the stories so engage our hearts with the truth that they are a source of encouragement to us as well. Double bonus!

The subtitle of the book is “Every story whispers his name.”  As a parent, it’s a breath of fresh air to have a Bible storybook that isn’t all about being good and learning moral lessons from key Bible events and characters.  The Jesus Storybook Bible has a theme running through it from beginning to end.  It’s the same theme as the Bible!  It’s God’s covenantal love and faithfulness fulfilled in the Lord Jesus Christ.  It’s put into child-friendly language like this: “God’s never-stopping, never giving-up, unbreaking, always and forever love.”  That’s brilliant.  I couldn’t summarise that better in adult language!

If you have young children I know of no Bible story book that I could recommend more than this one. BUY IT! NOW!!  Check out the website here and listen to excerpts from the new audio version read by none other than Hercule Poirot (aka David Suchet!) here, which is to be available as part of a deluxe edition.

Alright, let’s make some money!

– Kevin Swain

This movie flew way under the radar that it was barely a blip when hearing some moderately positive about The Bank Job after it was released in early 2008. I wanted to check out this movie. I’m glad I did, because it is a fantastic thrill ride.

It recounts the true story about bank robbery in 1971 when a car dealer, Terry (Jason Statham) that owes money from a sleazy smut peddler, Lew Vogel (David Suchet) is recruited by his friend, Martine Love (Saffron Burrows) to help rob a bank, Lloyds Bank United, that was upgrading their security system, which would leave them vulnerable.

Terry recruits his best friends, Dave and Kevin (Daniel Mays, Stephen Campbell Moore) to help him carry out the heist with the help of Guy Singer (James Faulkner), Bambas (Alki David) and Eddie (Michael Jibson) as a lookout.

The group doesn’t know that Martine is a secret informant for the government with Tim (Michael Lintern) as her liaison. The real reason for the robbery is to recover some incriminating photographs of Princess Margaret (Louise Chambers), and other top officials in compromising positions by shady character named Michael X (Peter de Jersey).

They think that everything will go according to plan, but everything that would go wrong, does to their benefit. It made them think that they were real professional bank robbers instead of a bunch of amateurs. After they pull of the bank heist, the shit hits the fan. Interpol, MI-5, corrupt cops and villains are after the group for various reasons.

This intense movie had me on the edge my seat at every twist and turn. The movie is not perfect. I had a problem about what happened to some of the characters at the end of the movie that were forgotten.

Some of the names of the real people were changed to protect them from any exposure. How could this movie be “based on a true story” when the people’s names have been changed, and possibly the situations for dramatic effects?

Judgment: An awesome, slick action movie that should be seen.

Rating: ****1/2

Letters to elected Officials and speculations on and about the subjects of war and recession, with links to today’s realities.  Not much has changed, except for some of the faces of the players.

ARAB-ISRAELI LOVE-FEST:

Ltr to Ron Wyden, Senator, OR. – January 8, 2009

The ancient Arab-Israeli confrontation is not worthy of support on either side.  Only some radical change of policy will break this savage inhumane cycle.  The Senate’s recent unequivocal support of Israel is disgraceful.  Why do we support violence from anybody toward anybody?  Why not give peace a chance?  It has never been done, and we seem instead incapable of overcoming our religious, ethnic, and other generational prejudices.  We support people who coach their children to kill their enemies’ children.  This is madness.  It is insupportable.  The morass of the middle east does not reveal a champion for the United States to support, and Israel cannot claim the Holocaust as refuge or excuse for a holocaust of its own making that it refuses to stop.  Hamas‘ despicable actions are not an excuse for Israelis to murder, and the dead children they describe as collateral damage are not an acceptable cost for their security.

Murder and violence are what they are, not the stuff of virtue, right, or decent national policy – Israel’s, Palestine’s, or the United States’. I urge you to re-think this issue outside of its historic insanity – and the personal blindness of culture and peer pressure.  Help devise an alternative approach to international murder and mayhem.  Help, too, to take the United States off its century-long war status.

Yours in sorrow and regret.   j

EXIT STRATEGY:

I am a veteran and senior citizen.

Ltr to Representative Earl Blumenauer, OR -  July 26, 2005   10:32 AM 

Subject: Please support House Joint Resolution 55, toward ending the Iraq occupation.

The war in Iraq has been a personal project for George Bush using American lives and treasure.  I believe he is ruining the world’s finest military.  For what?  He fights like the boneheaded English general Kitchener at Gallipoli, who observing the troops running uphill against Turkish guns said, “Stout fellows these Englishmen, they always run for the thickest part of the fence.”

Added to which, Bush’s war toys don’t work?  They do if they’re just designed to fill the pockets of his war-profiteering cronies; that’s what they accomplish.

I was glad to see that Rep. Jones is leading a bipartisan effort to press President Bush to create an exit strategy and timetable for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.  Being an occupying force with no end in sight only fuels insurgency there.

I ask you to join the thirty other members of Congress already cosponsoring the resolution, and to support it by voting for it.  Thank you for your consideration.

IRAQ DEBATE:

Personal historical view – February 14, 2007; 3-1-08 rev.

Colin Powell said, “Don’t get into war unless it’s absolutely necessary, and when we do, go to win, no half measures,” but it doesn’t apply very much in real life.

As a Vietnam era veteran, I know Johnson’s phony Gulf of Tonkin Incident fished us into war (I was drafted).  He bought into the radical right’s communist containment scare.  The Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars wrote:

      “In part, the process of deception has also been unintentional.  Much of the rhetoric and many of the actions that have accompanied our… involvement have been ad hoc responses to situations of stress: a cumulative series of reflex moves and lunges produced by deepening executive anxiety, defensiveness, alarm, desperation, and even a sensed state of siege.  Similarly in rhetoric, our ‘national honor,’ ‘[enemies] with nuclear weapons,’ and the goal of ‘peace with honor’ – all have misled the public.  At the root of executive deception is a vast amount of executive self-deception – or, .to put it bluntly, stupidity.”

America blithely ignores offers of friendship and makes enemies as fast as we can throw the first sucker punch.  This is not military sense; it’s a bad case of ideology and invention over reason and fact.  But, Americans don’t run out when the fight’s tough – see: Khe San.  We stood nearly twenty years while our military-industrial complex ruined Vietnam.  Our prolonged stay, and side invasions of Cambodia and Laos, generationally disrupted and destabilized Southeast Asia, distorted America’s rule of law, and led directly to the Bush leadership miasma.

We are now fighting a war for the health and life of the republic.  Look at how the radical right Republicans have warped the nation they want us to fight for, die for, and honor.  The self-destructive insanity of the radical right Republican way of war makes it looks as if the bad guys have already won.

These are politically motivated wars, fought to extremes because of ill-informed egos and profit.  Bush’s indefensible “give war a chance” was disgusting; so is Obama’s current pursuit of it.  End the war now, no matter how wimpy it looks to arrested-adolescent bullyboys.

We’ve got a lot of positive work to do, and one dollar spent on peace really is worth ten wasted in war!

COST OF DOING WAR WITH YOU: – 3/21/08

Ltr to Rep Blumenauer; Recession and the War

The recession will force states to cut back their budgets.  Most likely, the cuts are going to affect the services that working families need to survive.

The Iraq war costs Americans more than $338 million a day.  We borrow $343 million every day to finance it.  Gas prices are close to double what they were before the war.  Oil hovers around $100 barrel [sic].

That money could help people who are hurting.  For less than we spend on the war, we could pay for affordable housing, healthcare, or education scholarships for hundreds of thousands.

Our skyrocketing debt is a growing drag on the economy, slowing recovery and robbing generations of a secure future.  Iraq sucks up the resources we need to make our economy work again.  MoveOn writes, “The tradeoffs are stark: bombs or unemployment insurance, billions for Halliburton and Blackwater, or help for people on the verge of losing their homes because of the sub prime meltdown?”

Economic forecasts will be grim as long as we continue to dump billions into a reckless war that has no end in sight.  The excessive and increasing degradation of our domestic economy is an attack on the nation.  Thank you for continuing to oppose this excessive, costly and ultimately criminal war.

LAST WORDS:

A secret reformation helped to create the United States of America; it eradicated many of the weeds of prejudice; a spirit of freedom and moderation was diffused.  The liberty of conscience was declared a common benefit, an inalienable right; the free government introduced the practice of toleration; and the narrow allowance of the laws was enlarged by the prudence and humanity of the times.  In the exercise, the mind understood the limits of its powers, and the words and shadows that might amuse the child can no longer satisfy adult reason. – Paraphrase – Gibbon, p1937.

Maybe human civilization has progressed; it depends upon what you’re measuring.  Human progress and perfectibility are two man-made ideals without much moral evidence to support them.

“One crowded hour of glorious life is worth an age without a name.” – Travis at the Alamo quoting Thomas Osbert Mordaunt, Verses Written During  the War, 1756-63.

“Sin sangre, y sin lagrimas, hay no es gloria.” – Santa Ana (“without blood, and without tears, there is no glory”).

“The urgent consideration of the public safety may undoubtedly authorize the violation of every positive law.  How far that or any other consideration may operate to dissolve the natural obligations of humanity and justice is terrible to contemplate.” – Gibbon, p830. 

Politician 1:  “Why do politicians treat everyone else like idiots?”  Politician 2:  “Probably, because they voted for us in the first place.”  — Poirot, “The Incredible Theft,” BBC, David Suchet.

San Francisco Dems Tell Pelosi to Support McGovern ‘Afghan Exit’ Bill, by Tom Gallager, www.commondreams.org.  http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/24-3

Can America Prevail on Afghanistan/Pakistan Front? No! It’s Obama’s war now, and a Vietnam-like quagmire is dead ahead.  by Helen Thomas, www.Minneapolis/St.PaulStarTribune  http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/23-13

Blackwater Seeks Gag Order, by Jeremy Scahill.  www.thenation  http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/23-2

Biden: Afghan War is ‘Worth the Effort’.  www.bbcnews  http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/07/23-0

Em inglês mesmo, para não perder nada na tradução.

Michael Gambon sobre Dumbledore, da série Harry Potter.

Michael Gambon has played Hogwarts headmaster Albus Dumbledore for five years but he hasn’t been setting a good example for his students when it comes to finishing their homework: The beloved old wizard hasn’t cracked a single one of J.K. Rowling’s “Harry Potter” novels.

The choice not to read Rowling’s book series, he explains, is deliberate and he points out that costars Ralph Fiennes and Alan Rickman haven’t taken up the books either.

“No point in reading the books because you’re playing with [screenwriter] Steve Kloves’ words.”
[...]
In fact, many riled-up muggles also took to the Internet after the third film to complain that Gambon didn’t have the same kindly grandfather aura that they came to expect in the books and in the first two films when the role was portrayed by the late Richard Harris. [Los Angeles Times, 13/07/09]

David Suchet sobre Hercule Poirot, de Agatha Christie.

To prepare himself for the role, Suchet actually read every Poirot novel and short story by Agatha Christie. Said he on The Strand Magazine online: “What I did was, I had my file on one side of me and a pile of stories on the other side and day after day, week after week, I plowed through most of Agatha Christie’s novels about Hercule Poirot and wrote down characteristics until I had a file full of documentation of the character. And then it was my business not only to know what he was like, but to gradually become him. I had to become him before we started shooting.”
[...]
David Suchet is careful in his performance as Poirot. He knows that fans are aware of the oddities and mannerisms that are Poirot’s. Suchet says this on his accuracy of Poirot: “I always carry around a list of ninety-three things to remember about him. As mundane as how many lumps of sugar he puts in his tea, and how many in his coffee. Because, you know, people WILL notice these things if you make a mistake. And they do write in about my accuracy. One of the nicest descriptions of him is that ‘his eyes twinkle’ and I’ve had some lovely fan mail in from some ladies who love him purely because of that. I wanted him to have . . . charm.” [Hercule Poirot Central]

Adivinhe de qual interpretação eu gosto e de qual não.

Capa da edição britânica

Vinte anos após a estreia na TV inglesa, a série Poirot chega ao Brasil em DVD. Segundo o comunicado distribuído à imprensa, o Grupo Paris Filmes informa que a primeira temporada da Coleção Poirot será lançada no mês de setembro nas lojas.

A série é estrelada pelo ator David Suchet, que foi recomendado para o papel pela família de Agatha Christie. Para interpretar o detetive belga, Suchet leu todos os livos e contos em que aparece, fazendo anotações de cada peça que descrevia o personagem. Em entrevista para a revista The Strand, ele disse que mantinha um arquivo de um lado e uma pilha dos livros de Christie do outro. Dia após di, semana após semana, ele cavou todos os romances de Agatha Christie sobre Hercule Poirot e anotou suas características até que tivesse um arquivo cheio de documentação a respeito do personagem. E então seu negócio não era apenas saber como ele se parecia, mas gradualmente tornar-se ele.

Assim, muitos afirmam que, dentre os diversos intérpretes que Poirot já teve, Suchet é o mais fiel ao personagem dos livros.

Em cada episódio, Poirot resolve um crime misterioso, geralmente ao lado de seu fiel colega inglês, Capitão Hastings, ou de seu amigo-rival, Inspetor Japp. Seja porque o crime lhe chama a atenção, seja porque um cliente lhe paga para resolvê-lo, uma coisa é certa: nada escapa à mente afiada de Poirot. [Yahoo! Notíciais]

No site do Grupo Paris Filmes ainda não há informações a respeito da coleção mas, se seguirem as caixas lançadas na Inglaterra e nos EUA, a primeira temporada consiste dos seguintes episódios:

The adventure of the Clapham cook
Murder in the mews
The adventure of Johnnie Waverly
Four and twenty blackbirds
The third floor flat
Triangle at Rhodes
Problem at sea
The incredible theft
The king of clubs
The dream

Site do Grupo Paris Filmes [link]
Episode guide das doze temporadas no site TV.com [link]
Hotsite da série no site do canal britânico ITV [link]
Lista dos episódios na Wikipedia [link]

Who would want to bludgeon to death a humble country charwoman? Suspicions lead Superintendent Spence (Richard Hope) to conclude that her dodgy tenant James Bentley (Joe Absolom) who has fallen on hard times was motivated by theft to commit the crime. After Bentley is convicted and sentenced to die by the gallows, things still do not seem quite right, and he calls upon Hercule Poirot (David Suchet), the greatest detective in the world to confirm his doubts and help him discover the real murderer, as Masterpiece Mystery continues with Agatha Christie’s, Mrs. McGinty’s Dead on PBS. 

Poirot travels to Broadhinny, a country village to investigate the scene of the crime meeting his friend Ariadne Oliver (Zoe Wanamaker) the novelist visiting a local playwright Robin Upward (Paul Rhys) who is adapting her novel into his next play. Poirot begins by interviewing all of Mrs. McGinty’s family and work connections. Even though she led a simple life, she worked for many wealthy residents in the village with secrets to hide. What did she discover that was so important that would prompt her murder? When Poirot inspects the remains of her personal belongings, he discovers a recent Sunday paper with an article cut out on the whereabouts of two women involved in separate murders from thirty years ago. One picture is of a young child Lily Gamboll, and the other of a young woman Eva Kane. Which woman in the village could each of these women be? There are plenty of red herrings appearing before Poirot uses all of his little grey matter and discovers the identity of the real murderer. 

This second Poirot episode of the Masterpiece Mystery season had been adapted for the screen from Agatha Christie’s 1952 novel by Nick Dear who brought us the incredibly moving adaptation of Jane Austen’s Persuasion in 1995. Riding on that cloud of glory, I expected the same sensitivity and nuances that he had delivered previously in this new production. The result was quite the opposite. I may be comparing apples to oranges with genres, but his choices in pacing and dialogue had me confused and replaying certain parts of the DVD screener over again. Because of the layered affect of Christie’s plots, if you miss one clue, the next does not make sense. Ah, mon ami, I may be being too critical of Mr. Dear, since producers and directors do not always shoot the script that was presented to them. 

As always, the production values were outstanding. The costumes, locations and cars, yes the vintage cars, were just stunning. The large cast was quite impressive and I particularly appreciated the performances of Siân Phillips as Mrs. Upward, Zoë Wanamaker as Mrs. Oliver and Amanda Root as Shelagh Rendell. Viewers might recognize these three British actresses from their roles as Madame de Volanges in Valmont (1989), Madame Hooch in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001) and Anne Elliot in Persuasion (1995) respectively. 

Masterpiece Mystery continues next Sunday July 5th with A Pocket Full of Rye with Julia McKenzie, in her premier as Miss Marple, Christie’s famous elderly spinster amateur detective whose deductive skills are as sharp as her knitting needles.  

• Watch previous episodes of this seasons Hercule Poirot at the Masterpiece website
• Read the complete synopsis of Mrs. McGinty’s Dead
• Read my previous review of Cat Among Pigeons 

The 27 things project is about reducing, reusing and recycling. In this case, it’s about reinventing.

If you’ve been here any time at all, you know the man in my life is a short, round, bald, impecably dressed, egg-headed Belgian detective – yes, I am in love with Inspector Poirot.

Agatha Christie’s little detective captured my heart years ago, first in print, then in a series on the Arts and Entertainment channel featuring  David Suchet.

In nearly every episode of Inspector Poirot, his “little grey cells” are pondering a murder most foul, over a typical English breakfast complete with gorgeous porcelain place settings, real silver and a toast rack.

A toast rack is just that. A depository to keep toast fresh and separated at breakfast. My little want-to-be-English heart longed for one. My little Dickensish poor purse could not afford one.

Much to my surprise, my boss at the time, Betty, who then became my friend, bought a toast rack for me for Christmas one year.

I have used it several times for its intended purpose but, since becoming a self employed gal, breakfast is mostly downed at the kitchen counter or at my computer.

So the little beloved toast rack has sat forlorn in my cupboard for years.

Until today.

I pulled it out, shined it up and it’s now a place for my folders. I’d checked out this desktop file system in Staples and Office Depot and just could not justify the cost.

I put my own “little grey cells” to work and came up with the toast rack as folder rack.

I think Inspector Poirot would be proud.

Genre: Detective, Crime, Drama
Country of Origin: UK
Languages: English
No. of Seasons: 11
No. of Episodes: 60
Running Time: 52 minutes and 103 minutes
Channel: ITV1
Broadcast: 8 Jan 1989 –

This is a British series which brings to life Agatha Christie’s Belgian detective, Hercule Poirot (played by David Suchet), whose sleuthing, for the purposes of this series, belongs chiefly in the 1930s. Based in London, with the very English Captain Hastings (Hugh Fraser) as his Dr Watson, Poirot’s field of operations ranges around the world.

Clips:
Poirot trailer
Poirot opening theme
Lord Edgware Dies – solution

Cast:
*David Suchet – Hercule Poirot
*Hugh Fraser – Captain Arthur Hastings
*Philip Jackson – Chief Inspector Japp
*Pauline Moran – Miss Felicity Lemon

The Inlaws, 2003, USA/Tyskland

Regi: Andrew Fleming

Jerry (Albert Brooks) är en lugn och stadig familjefar och när hans dotter ska gifta sig med sonen till CIA-agenten Steve (Michael Douglas) blir han rädd. Det blir inte bättre av att Steve kidnappar Jerry och tar med honom på ett farligt uppdrag. De möter den farliga maffiabossen Thiboudoux (David Suchet) som tror att Jerry är den “välutrustade” yrkesmördaren ‘Feta Kobran’ och blir därför helt kåt på honom.

.

Triboudoux säger i och för sig att han egentligen tycker att homosexualitet är äckligt. Är han ett garderobsbi eller bara en MSM (=Men that have Sex with Men)? Filmen är i alla fall fånig, smyghomofobisk (filmteamet är mycket noggranna med att försöka hålla den politiskt korrekta balansen uppe) och allmänt dålig/underhållande. Papporna male-bondar utan att gå över gränsen till homoerotiskt och för att göra deras vänskap ännu säkrare så har de alldagliga (fula?) utseenden och snygga fruar. De är dessutom precis så avslappnade gentemot homosexualitet som man får vara som man i en Hollywood-film nuförtiden : ha med en hysterisk och översexuell bög och låt hjälten avvisa honom med en snäll ton men med ett äcklat ansikte. Gör dessutom ett skämt av homosexualitet 1000 gånger istället för att bara lämna det. Jag menar, sista meningen är typ “jag tror Triboudoux kommer att trivas i fängelset!” med syftningen att han nog kommer våldtas i duschen. Yay! Nu har huvudpersonerna bevisat att de är straighta.

/Johnny

Complicit -but not clear or explicit

In short, the protection of sources is a sacrosanct rule of journalistic endeavour (see clause 7 of the National Union of Journalists’ Code of Conduct) and as much a matter of justice as of journalistic privilege.

If a potential whistleblower - privy to important or classified information – fears identification they won’t talk, meaning matters of public interest will remain hidden. To encourage whistleblowers to come forward that principle must be upheld – at all times, in all situations – and although there might be times when, exceptionally, journalists break the rule, informants must feel certain that their identity will never get out. Yes, that means journalists should be prepared to go to jail before revealing a source.

So would this not be the understanding of a working journalist? And, specifically, a pulitzer-prize-winning investigative one with decades of experience? Of course it would have. But not according to playwright Joe Sutton. This, for me, was the primary failing of Complicit. It also had secondary failings, tertiary failings, failings throughout in fact, but this fundamental flaw lost me in the opening scene of Sutton’s mish-mash mess of a play.

If Spacey has used superior ingredients, Richard Dreyfuss as the journalist, Elizabeth McGovern as his wife and David Suchet as his lawyer, this caviar, champagne and oysters trio of theatrical talent was served covered in ketchup. A recipe of mediocrity. Their talent was obscured by Sutton’s disappointing treatment of the subject, so meaty it could have made for a strong piece of writing.

The basic premise of Complicit - which, whatever it is, is so well hidden in a plot of red herrings and a script of pointless diatribe as to be rendered useless - is that Ben (Dreyfuss) is in the middle of a trial relating to the US use of torture in Guantanamo Bay. He has written an opinion piece that appeared to advocate US torture methods, while an informant appears to have told him secret information about said torture. But who can be sure. Even Dreyfuss himself seems baffled. What is clear is that Ben may be jailed if he fails to tell-all to the courts, and that he, despite being ensconsed in this trial for 10 months, seems to have no idea what to think, do or say about his predicament.

McGovern is so whiningly and two-dimensionally short-sighted in her role as the nearly abandoned wife that she leaves you hoping Ben gets life for some peace and quiet alone. She, like her husband, never seems to grasp the fact that this trial is at the very epicentre of his profession, and spends the entire play in tired rhetoric and mobile phone calls to Ben’s lawyer.

Why Sutton thought convoluted mobile phone conversations between Ben’s wife and lawyer would be more exciting than the action of the courtroom, which we never see, is a mystery. If it was to highlight the behind-the-scenes minutae of a high profile court case, it could have worked, but the minutae in Complicit is never gripping, relevant or evocative. And when you’re dealing with a protagonist who could face life incarceration that really is a failing. 

Sutton, and the clumsy performances by what should have been a stellar cast, makes it impossible to care about his characters, who never seem to understand their situation enough to draw an audience into their world.

Charles Spencer in his Telegraph review sums up most of my thoughts on Complicit when he writes:

“…as poor Dreyfuss wanders forlornly around the Old Vic’s high-tech, in-the-round stage he resembles a bedraggled and confused old-age pensioner who has got lost on his way to the day-care centre rather than a wily campaigning journalist engaging in the fight of his life. But he shouldn’t shoulder all the blame. The play itself is a dead loss.”

What a shambles. What a complete and utter shambles. And how entertaining.

Hang on, scrub that last sentence. Complicit wasn’t in the least bit entertaining.

The only entertaining aspect to the evening was the discreet yet mesmerising, scandalous earpiece which Richard Dreyfuss was sporting because – so rumour has it – he does not know all of his lines.

Hard to believe? You can read about it here, here and here and a million other places.

Indeed, according to one source (who, of course, can not be named) a highlight of at least one early preview was the sound of David Suchet loudly calling “prompt” on Dreyfuss’ behalf which – as our Deep Throat conjectured – surely can’t have done much for dressing room bonhomie.

But the West End Whingers are proud to report that they can now reveal that there is in fact a wholly legitimate reason for Dreyfuss’ inability to remember his lines.

It is, quite simply, that every line of Joe Sutton’s play is utterly forgettable. Indeed, the wonder of this whole sorry saga is not that Dreyfuss can’t remember his lines but that Elizabeth McGovern and David Suchet can remember all of theirs.

Complicit is a tedious, aspiring-to-worthy (but unworthy of being staged) half-written play which hits the audience lightly about the head with plodding arguments played out between people for whom the audience cares nothing.

There is almost certainly a good play to be written on the use of torture by the USA and another one on the protection of journalistic sources but unfortunately this isn’t either of them and it certainly isn’t both of them.

Kritzer (Richard Earpiece) is a journalist facing a Grand Jury over an article he’s written about the US administration’s use of torture post 9/11 He faces the prospect of a lengthy jail sentence if he doesn’t reveal his source.

Staged in the round most of the “drama” involves Kritzer’s dilemma as he discusses his plight with his wife played by Elizabeth McGovern. She is very dull, but to be fair she doesn’t have much to work with, her primary purpose being to make Kritzer’s choice more “agonising” by whining on about his obligation to his family.

The third “character” is his lawyer (David Suchet, the only one to bring any pep to this wearisome evening).

So as the three characters circle the stage we’re often left looking at the back of the characters’ necks**. This is despite Dreyfuss’ “acting” which is dominated by a constant pacing of the stage like a caged tiger man who can’t remember his lines. He also does some arm waving and at least he’s constantly on the move. Perhaps his earpiece is of the kinetic variety and he has to keep moving to keep it charged?

Director Kevin Spacey has only himself to blame really. As artistic director he must take responsibility for choosing this play. Sutton seems to have two signature styles which compete as to which can be the most irritating. The first is repetition. Repetition? Repetition; the other is ellipsis and by god it’s…

On the plus side, it’s all over in one hour and 40 minutes including the interval; it just feels a lot longer. Perhaps if they cut the interval the audience could be out even earlier giving them more time to pull it to pieces in the bar.

Even more thrilling was that the Whingers ran into someone after the show who “knows the person who made Dreyfuss’ earpiece”. They can not, of course, reveal their sources as they are far too principled. But if threatened with the torture of sitting through Complicit again they’d spill the beans in an instant.

To be fair, one or two of the Whinger’ entourage were more enthusiastic (and will not be receiving invites to future outings) and a handful of the audience even ovated, but one should bear in mind that this was meant to be the press night, and a party after the show was going ahead as planned.

So this wasn’t your typical West End audience, they were probably friends of the Old Vic (good enough friends to have been given the right start time) and of Mr Spacey himself, judging by the number of people Kev was going up to and saying hello to before the show and during the interval. Heck, he even put his arm round one of the Whingers’ group then brushed against him again in the interval. It seems Spacey knows everyone, or at least wants to.

Certainly there were many people there from the Norman Conquests and in fact Andrew was sitting two seats’ away from Lesley Manville and engaged in conversation with her briefly at the interval to complement her on the size of her handbag.

He didn’t actually know it was Miss Manville he was talking to, but Phil patiently explained who she was later on. The Whingers last saw her in Her Naked Skin which was the Whinger’s post that first introduced the Fram Scale (though not because HNS was quite that bad). Sadly, Phil was reminded that even though only mid-January it was already time for the Whingers’ infamous tool to receive another airing.

Oh well, we look forward to the real reviews which – at this rate – should come out a couple of days before the damned thing closes.

Footnotes
* Despite a “Full House” sign outside the Old Vic last night there were plenty of empty seats. Perhaps they were the seats of others with a 7.30 start time on their tickets.

** In Jonathan Croall’s article in the programme about sitting in on a rehearsal for Complicit Spacey is quoted: “And I think that after The Norman Conquests the audience will be a little bit used to the idea that you can watch a scene and for a time have someone’s back to you, and actually not lose anything. It can be a very strong thing: it’s what happens all the time in real life”. Well, no actually it doesn’t, the Whingers usually look at people when they’re talking to them and if they’re watching a play they want to see the actor’s face.

*** Unreserved apologies to Brian, Helen, Paul, John, Jorge, Oliver, Simone and Sue.