Is The Adaptation Better? - An Essay

Martin Scorsese once said “Cinema is a matter of what’s in the frame and what’s out”. As a big fan of Agatha Christie’s work, especially her locked room mysteries, it was not my initial intention to compare And then there were none with its adaptation to film, because, and perhaps with a slightly closed mind, I assumed that the book would be the best possible version of the story. However, I must admit my mistake. After watching the series, written by Sarah Phelps, and directed by Craig Viveiros, my judgment changed, and I found myself enjoying it more than I did the book.

The atmosphere is heavy In both forms of the story. However, in the film, we feel more tension and suspense. In the book, the reader can feel the heavy atmosphere growing in intensity throughout the story. Nonetheless, anyone who is aware of the reputation of Agatha Christie's books of being extremely hard to solve is constantly trying to pay attention to every little detail while reading. As a result, the reader interrupts the suspense solely to think about whether they should remember each specific element or not. In opposition, someone who is watching a film is not regularly pausing the story. This happens because, for example, while in a book a room is only described once, in a movie the audience is regularly seeing it. So, while watching Viveiros’ adaptation the spectator would feel the rising tension continuously, which leads to a significant growth in suspense.

It is also essential for an excellent story to have an exceptional ending, and the adaptation of And then there were none was able to intensify the book's finale. In the book, and as it occurs in a lot of Agatha Christie’s work, we only discover the truth in the last words. However, this is only an incredible ending for the first reading, since it only gives us the explanation of the crime, leaving out any emotion except for the reader’s desire to discover the truth. By reading the letter, we assume that Wargrave is insane, but we do not feel his insanity. He is already dead, and the reader, or even the detectives, do not feel vulnerable or threatened by him anymore. Contrarily, even if it was easy for the director to do this ending in the adaptation by using a voice over and some images (and I must confess that this was what I was expecting), in the series, the ending was created to touch the audience. We feel Wargrave’s insanity because the explanation is given to us while he is still alive, by him. We see his true self with our eyes and not just by written words. This ending was able to impress me even if I already knew the story.

When I read a book, I build its entire world in my mind. However, if I see the adaptation after and it is very similar to the book, the characters and the scenarios are replaced by these ones. In And then there were none, Viveiros and Phelps were able to create a parallel world using the central points of Christie's story, respecting it. They were able to use the differences of film to build differences in the story, so that people can appreciate both individually. In the book, we cannot say certainly whether the guests are or are not guilty of what they are accused of. We only have the judge's words and theirs. We also do not know if the judge is the one who is really behind everything, because we only have a letter that, even if it is signed by him, can be a fraud. On the other hand, in the adaptation, all these questions are solved as we see that they are guilty, and we see Wargrave admitting everything in the end. In addition, we also connect more with the characters because, in the adaptation, we know their pasts and we see their relationships on and off of the island. Also, even though someone could argue that in the film no one will ever know what happened on that island because there is no letter, fiction should satisfy the audience, not the society in which the characters live.

Coming back to the initial statement, And then there were none is a great adaptation because it fulfils its purpose: it takes Agatha Christie’s book and uses the power of film to create an entire world that was not possible to create in a book, elevating the story. Cinema is all about what is shown on the screen and the story behind it. From my point of view, this adaptation was incredibly respectful to the book and was able to create a different perspective of the story. As defended, and as a lesson to me, there are still book adaptations able to create better versions of written stories.