Not a Clue: Ordeal by Innocence (2018)
Too many changes render this glossy adaptation ponderous and bleak
A good mystery must have some melodrama at its core, but what happens when psychology overshadows the whodunit? This is the case with Ordeal by Innocence, an BBC miniseries and Amazon Prime Original movie based on the Agatha Christie novel by the same name. In both the movie and the book, a stranger casts doubt on a convicted (and executed) murderer’s guilt, upending the family who had long put this aside. However, the Amazon movie focuses on the psychology and sociology of the characters rather than actual detection to uncover the murderer, which is more in line with contemporary thrillers. But without an actual detective uncovering the truth, the suspense seems unfocused, and there are no real clues to uncover the truth.
The Story
When Rachel Argyll is brutally murdered in her study, suspicion falls on her wayward adopted son Jacko, who had been demanding money earlier. Despite Jacko’s claim that he was nowhere near the house, he is arrested and dies in jail. Some time later, Dr. Calgary arrives at the Argyll house to support Jacko’s alibi and state that he had picked up Jacko in his car at the same moment that Rachel was killed, and knew nothing about the murder because he was out of the country at the time. This leaves the rest of the family members suspecting each other of the crime, unable to move forward in their lives until the truth comes out.
The Adaptation
Agatha Christie’s novels were almost always murder mysteries, but her keen eye for character also reflected the world she lived in. She was particularly interested in how family members related to each other, unable to see each other as independent human beings. Only neutral observer can see the personalities in a family, and find the truth — in this case, Dr. Calgary. It’s Christie makes it clear that Rachel’s children — all war orphans adopted from disparate backgrounds — were never comfortable with their mother or new surroundings. The streak of snobbery evident in Christie’s novels leans towards xenophobia here; they cannot be Rachel’s “real” children because of their racial heritage as well as where they come from. Christie makes it clear that Rachel’s actions, far from altruistic, were actually selfish as the children could not possibly fit in — a reactionary view even for the 1950's.
The movie centers almost entirely around the Argyll children, which includes an African-American daughter (Crystal Clarke) and their various strained relationships with the stern Rachel (Anna Chancellor). This does make use of the psychological and sociological aspects of a novel — what is family? — but relies heavily on flashbacks to flesh out both the personalities of the characters and the solution to the murder. While the movie (unlike the novel) shies away from the assertion that they would have been happier in their original families, it does add new, more modern backstories about their individual conflicts with Rachel.
It’s fashionable to update Christie’s mysteries, to make the far more troubled and flawed so that they seem more human. After all, most of her stories take place in a British Empire that no longer exists. With that said, the movie makes so many changes to the novel that it’s hard to keep track of them. Dr. Calgary (Luke Treadway) is no longer a helpful outsider motivated to investigate the mystery; he’s as hapless and mixed up as the children are. Gwenda, about to marry the widowed Mr. Argyll (Bill Nighy), is changed from a sensible assistant to a seductive tart and mousy housekeeper Kristin (Morvan Christie) has a very different secret than in the novel. Even the identity (and the motivation) of the murderer is changed, though it’s hard to see why the update was necessary. It sacrifices Christie’s genius and simplicity just to make things familiar to contemporary audiences.
The movie works hard to give every character a motive and to keep the audience guessing, but the mystery is revealed through flashbacks without any of the characters doing any detecting. While the audience has sympathy for the long-suffering Argyll children, it’s tiring to live in the movie’s world without a sensible character unraveling the truth. If Poirot or Miss Marple had been present, they would have found the murderer through logic and deduction, but without them, the movie just gives up and gives us the right answer in flashback. Add a ridiculous denouement, and you have the rare adaptation that should have kept the outdated themes and undemanding characters if it told a mystery story with a logical solution.
