Teresa reviews “Murder in Three Acts” (1986)
Teresa reviews “Murder in Three Acts” (1986) and wishes the movie had more than a strong performance from Tony Curtis.
Fidelity to text: 3 poisoned cocktails
Updating to 1986, moving from Cornwall to Acapulco, swapping Hastings for Satterthwaite, name and nationality changes, but the biggest issue is the most subtle.
Quality of movie on its own: 3 poisoned cocktails
Acapulco looks great! Tony Curtis turns in a stellar performance. There are some nifty boats too. After that, well …
Read more of Teresa’s Agatha Christie movie reviews at Peschel Press.
Also, follow Teresa’s discussion of these movies on her podcast.
Similarly, why not film in Acapulco as opposed to Cornwall? The weather’s probably better and it’s exotic, always nice for the audience. You get dramatic scenery, such as “The Crow’s Nest,” Charles Cartwright’s house built high up on the crags for stunning views while still remaining close to the water.
It’s a gorgeous house, too, designed to take advantage of the ridge line. It used to be Lana Turner’s Acapulco getaway! Sadly, somewhere along the line, a new set of owners tore it down and rebuilt it so don’t bother looking for it the next time you’re in Acapulco.
I didn’t mind Hastings replacing Mr. Satterthwaite. The novel takes place mainly from his point of view, as he watches Charles Cartwright and Egg investigate. It’s a Watson perspective, one step removed, and since he’s so unfamiliar (Agatha rarely used Satterthwaite and even more rarely with Poirot), why not go with what’s familiar? Thus, Jonathan Cecil reunites with Peter Ustinov.
Except Cecil was given nothing to do other than be the butt of beachcomber jokes, make introductions to the British expat community, and take notes, which Poirot ignored. It was painful to watch. I enjoyed Cecil’s performances in Thirteen at Dinner (1985) and Dead Man’s Folly (1986) and looked forward to watching him strut his stuff. Why? Because in the novel, Satterthwaite was in virtually every scene. Poirot shows up at the beginning, has a scene in the middle, and then takes over the last few chapters. Hastings — in place of Satterthwaite — would have been interesting, running the investigation and filling in a faraway Poirot. But alas, no. He got shunted off to the side. This was a sad way for Cecil to end his run as Hastings. I hope he enjoyed his Acapulco vacation and getting to act in sandals and an assortment of guayaberas instead of a suit and tie.
The rest of the cast, other than Tony Curtis, turned in acceptable performances. They’re a wide range of TV actors, nearly always (other than Emma Samms as Egg) the second tier. That is, they turn in strong supporting roles but they can do more. Not here. The novel’s complex with plenty of red herrings as to who handed a poisoned cocktail to Reverend Babbington and then, later, to Dr. Strange. All of those layers got swept away, leaving a group of people standing around while Poirot and Charles Cartwright chewed up the scenery and hogged the limelight. It’s a pity because sometimes, one of them got to step forward. It showed how good this movie could have been, with a better script and about ten more minutes of running time.
Why was Freddy Dayton a lush? What was the deal with Miss Milray behaving as much like a wardress as a secretary? Why, in 1986, did Janet Crisp feel the need to write her plays under a man’s name? Where did Daisy Eastman’s money go, so she encouraged her daughter to chase after Charles Cartwright, aging movie star, instead of Ricardo Montoya, who was young, rich, and obviously well-connected? What was the relationship between Charles Cartwright and Angela Stafford (a wasted Diana Muldaur)? She didn’t like young Egg chasing Charles, but why she care? Why was Ricardo so passive in his pursuit of Egg? All those hints and possibilities left lying about like pebbles on the beach.
Tony Curtis played Charles Cartwright. This role needed a big star to fill it, an actor capable of playing a flamboyant actor, someone who’s always altering his performance to suit the audience in front of him. From the moment you see Charles Cartwright on his sailboat in the fjord by his home, he’s the center of attention. It’s a very nice sailboat and he’s handling it smoothly in the wind and waves.
The more you see of Charles, the more you can understand why he fascinates Egg. It’s the allure of a lion just past his prime, but when compared to all the other men around her, very prime indeed. He makes Ricardo, the would-be boyfriend, resemble a neutered tomcat.
Peter Ustinov is Poirot again and he’s jokier and more mannered than in previous outings. Not to the OCD-extent that Suchet sometimes is, but he didn’t seem to take it seriously. Some of it is the plot. Some of it is Acapulco. Despite being an eyewitness to Reverend Babbington’s death, he doesn’t believe it’s murder. There’s no reason and murder always has a reason. He took over most of Satterthwaite’s role in the novel, leaving even less for Hastings to do.
The big issue that you’ll notice is the ending. This is because there are two versions of the novel; one in the U.K. and one in the U.S. When Agatha wrote Three Act Tragedy (the original title) in 1934, it had a different motive for murder. The motive worked in England because the laws were different. There were very few acceptable reasons for divorce back then. Insanity was not one of them. If your spouse was a lunatic, you were stuck. Remarriage was out of the question. However, in the United States, the laws were different. By 1934, twenty states allowed you to divorce your crazy husband.
So the book’s climax got rewritten with a different motive for the U.S. market. The clues remained the same, the plot is the same, the murderer is the same. And thus, here we are today, with two rather different endings for the same novel! It depends on which one you read as to whether or not you gasp with horror at how some hack scriptwriter rewrote the climax. If you’ve read the American version, it’s fine. If you’ve read the English version, you’re horrified at how Hollywood once again played fast and loose with Agatha’s text.
Except they didn’t. Despite the name, setting, and date changes, and radically compressing the script, this version follows the text surprisingly closely. The American text.
Which brings us back to Tony Curtis. He was terrific, from start to finish. He’s the only reason to watch this film twice. The first time you’ll admire Acapulco and learn the plot. The second time you’ll reinterpret everything Tony Curtis does as he portrays Charles Cartwright, famous actor, madman, and murderer.
Read more of Teresa’s Agatha Christie movie reviews at Peschel Press.
