Book vs Adaptation: N OR M? by Agatha Christie

The book

N_or_M_US_First_Edition_Cover_1941Tommy Beresford and Prudence ‘Tuppence’ Cowley  are first introduced as the somewhat unlikely young heroes of Agatha Christie’s second published mystery novel THE SECRET ADVERSARY in 1922. They appear a few years later in a collection of short stories and, more than a decade after that, in this novel. Unlike Christie’s other serial protagonists the Beresfords (they become engaged at the end of the first novel) age in real-time so here, following the outbreak of the second world war, they are begrudgingly inhabiting middle age. Their adult children are involved in the war effort but though both have offered their services neither of the senior Beresfords are required. That is until Tommy is approached to uncover the identity of fifth columnists working against the British who are thought to be hiding at a seaside guest house. Overhearing his conversation and unwilling to be left out of the adventure, Tuppence inveigles herself into events as well and, with the help of a faithful old friend, they unmask some truly dastardly spies.

Although a thriller rather than detective novel the book does use some elements of Christie’s successful formula. The beach-side boarding house, with its odd assortment of guests and staff, bares a marked resemblance to the country houses in which many of her tales are set and the protagonists are on the trail of a who-will-do-it if not the classic whodunnit. But there are departures from her standard fare too, not least due to the more political nature of the story. I suppose that’s not surprising given its release during war time, though clearly the book’s main aim is to be uplifting at the difficult time as it maintains the air of a romp even with its dark themes and realistic tone. Indeed the book even caught the eye of authorities because one of its characters is named Bletchley (at that time a very secret code-breaking facility) but this was an apparent coincidence.

In many ways Tommy and Tuppence are Christie’s most realistic characters and I wonder if it is this that has made them less popular than her solo creations. Do we prefer our fictional heroes to be larger than life rather than people quite like us? Unlike Poirot or Marple the Beresfords have domestic tensions and face the realities of life, like actually aging, even while drama unfolds all around them.

N OR M? is complicated but believable and its twisted ending is among Christie’s most devilish. The cast of potential suspects is all a bit familiar (now) but this is still a thoroughly enjoyable tale and not as dated as some of Christie’s other stories. In fact the issue at the heart of the novel, why and how a country might be betrayed by people from within, is as fresh now as it was in 1941.

The adaptation

AgathaChristiePartnersInCrime2015For the past couple of decades televised adaptations of Dame Christie’s more popular works have proven a gold mine for her estate and producers alike. But having completed filming all the Poirot stories with world-wide favourite David Suchet and begun scraping the bottom of the narrative barrel with the less voluminous Marple tales, it was probably inevitable that someone would bring Christie’s crime-fighting duo, Tommy and Tuppence Beresford, to the small screen again even though the characters are less well known. To that end the BBC aired two 3-part adaptations of Tommy and Tuppence stories earlier this year. N OR M? is the second of these and presumably the last we’ll see of this particular incarnation as the series has not been renewed.

The most noticeable thing about the adaptation is its almost total lack of connection to its source material. I am not such a stickler for authenticity that this fact in itself would have deterred me but the changes made here make for a fairly preposterous standalone narrative. Set a decade later than the novel, the adaptations plays out as if they keystone cops were running MI5 – there is much bumbling and fumbling – and for some inexplicable reason the one of the baddies is revealed at the outset. There’s little enough drama in this absurd tale that it could afford to give away its own spoiler.

I suppose the source material for these characters is problematic because they age so dramatically across the stories. If such a jump is impossible for a hoped-for long-running TV series, due to the difficulties of aging both the actors and their surroundings, then the producers might have been better off opting for an older couple even if they chose to set the stories in a different time. Or at the very least they needed a more credible couple. In the lead roles David Walliams and Jessica Raine do not exhibit much in the way of chemistry and Walliams in particular seems entirely miscast. His playing of Tommy as a well-dressed buffoon doesn’t sit well with the character’s depicted role. It is inconceivable to an audience who watched the first adventure that even a truly desperate MI5 would ask for his assistance again. Raine is a better fit, showing the spunk and intelligence that Christie gave the character, but she’s not given a great deal to work with script-wise.

The elements that work best in the source material – Tommy and Tuppence’s relationship and the authenticity of the spy romp – are both entirely missing from this adaptation. And even though Raine’s ever-changing hats are to die for they don’t make up for this otherwise lackluster affair.

The winner?

N OR M? isn’t Christie’s best work but it’s still a cut above the pastiche that its adaptation became. A shorter script (the adaptation did not need to be nearly 3 hours long) and a more credible Tommy might have made the match more even but it’s hard to tell. I’m glad the series aired on local TV so I only wasted time not money to watch it.

Have you read the book and/or seen the adaptation? Agree or disagree with me? Have I missed something vital? Has anyone seen the 1980’s adaptations of the Tommy and Tuppence novels that were done for TV? Are they worth the small fortune they would cost at our current exchange rate for me to procure?

Creative Commons Licence
This work by is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

This entry was posted in Agatha Christie, book vs adaptation. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Book vs Adaptation: N OR M? by Agatha Christie

  1. tracybham says:

    Bernadette, this novel is the next in the Tommy and Tuppence series that I am due to read. Having read more Agatha Christie books lately, I do acknowledge that the Tommy and Tuppence books are not her best, but I always look forward to them. I hope I get to it in 2016.

    I thought I might give the new series a try, but it does not seem worth it.


  2. You confirmed my suspicions about the adaptation, Bernadette. Shame, too, because, as you say, Tommy and Tuppence are realistic characters and this one’s a solid Christie story. I thought the solution was fiendishly clever, too. And I liked the boarding house setting. I probably shouldn’t be prejudiced against the adaptation without having seen it. But I think I’ll live without that…


  3. I thought the TV version was absolutely dire, with the exception of Jessica Raine. David Walliams was just wrong in the part. It was terrible and if I hadn’t read the books it wouldn’t have enticed me to read them – such a shame. I haven’t seen the 1980s TV adaptations, but they couldn’t be worse than this!


    • Apparently Walliams was one of the producers/backers for this production – which is presumably why no one could tell him to sod off and get a more suitable actor in for the role.


  4. MarinaSofia says:

    I heartily disliked the TV adaptation as well, although I really liked the interaction between Tommy and Tuppence and their wit in the books.


  5. I quite like the book, though it’s not a favourite. Normally I can put up with a lot in the way of TV adaptations: I separate them in my mind from the original and hope for nice clothes (!), witty dialogue, good characterizations. But the recent ones were dire, I was very un-enchanted by them – I gave up on them in the end.
    I remember the 80s adaptations and I would say only bother if free or very cheap – definitely don’t waste big money on them. Nice to look at, but uninspired.


  6. pastoffences says:

    The 80s show is emphatically *not* worth a small fortune…


  7. Norman Price says:

    The 80s T&T was a lot better than the recent effort, of which I only watched a couple of minutes of David Walliams, and that was enough.
    In the 80s Tuppence was played by the fragrant Francesca Annis so to me the plot, other actors,and other factors were totally irrelevant. Ah…….Francesca.

    The task of trying to revive an excellent series was also tried recently with E.L.Benson’s Mapp and Lucia. We happened to be in Rye last year when it was being filmed. The original series starred Prunella Scales {Fawlty Towers}, Geraldine McEwan {Miss Marple}, Dennis Lill and Nigel Hawthorne {Yes Minister} meaning that anyone who had watched the 80s version was bound to be disappointed.


Comments are closed.