MovieChat Forums > Ten Little Indians (1966) Discussion > The Way I'd end it...

The Way I'd end it...

posted 20 years ago by dac87
27 replies | jump to latest

As we all know, Agatha Christie's masterpiece Ten Little Indians was never properly brought to screen as it should have been... (yes, I know there was a loyal Russian version, but I meen for an English speeking audience!)

WE know the story, ten guests are invited to an island, only to be murdered one by one... the many movie versions got that point right.... the way the adaptations fouled up would be in the end... This is how I'd end it...

Vera has already shot Lombard when she swipted it from his grasp... She is now re- entering the house... the only thing one can hear is her footsteps echoeing... She has a sudden flashback of the boy she was accused of killing... except, in my version she was directly responsible for his death, as we see her drowning him in her flashback... She drops to the floor in tears... She collects herself and turns into the dining room where there are still three little indian figures on the table... She smiles mysteriously as she approaches the table... she grabes on of the indians and swips the others away as the shadder on the floor.
"You're behind on the times my dear..." she says at the fragments on the floor. Then she clasps the one remaining indian to her breast as she says... "We've won."
This whole section is to mislead the veiwer into believing Vera is the killer. Now we hear her mind reciteing the Indian poem as she makes her way up the stairs and down the hall to her room, she drops the gun in her daze... As she arrives at her door she comes to the last line..."One little Indian left all alone..." She opens the door and is faced with a noose hanging from the rafters... she is not fazed by this at all, but continues her ryme... "he went and hanged himself... and then there were none." She climbes on the chair and kicks it away. The Indian figure falls slowly to the floor and breaks... We cut to the police completely baffeled by the murders in the house... One investigater mentions the fact that Vera couldn't have committed the murders as the chair she stood upon had been moved after her death... then about three months later, a fisherman finds a bottle with a note of confession from the judge... We get flashbacks of him murdering guests as he explains every thing... He ends the movie by saying... " When the boats from the mainland arrive, they will find ten dead bodies and a mystery no one can solve on Indian Island"...

What do you think?

[–] greshfam7 20 years ago

i think that they should just film the play. That way they can be faithful to AC and not have to come up with various endings until they decide which one will get them the R rating.

Your ending is very good, except that in the play, Vera lives and the guy she falls for during the show ends it by him saying, in rhyme, for them to get married.

JACK: Never let go, Rose
(she sneezes and drops him.)
ROSE: (after a pause) Oops.

[–] dac87 20 years ago

I disagree with the fact that they should film the play! I think the need to stick to the book and the original ending... Actually, I think they ought to dub the Russian version in English (well) and everything would be fine!

[–] dbdumonteil 19 years ago

Your ending is the book's ending.They should have kept it that way.

[–] Wulfstan10 19 years ago

This (naturally, considering the topic) has a spoiler.

Right. They all have to die. That's the key to it all and what makes the story so great. Having any live just utterly ruins it and it made me so furious when I watched the one film version I have seen. It's a terrible way to butcher one of Christie's best stories.

[–] dbdumonteil 19 years ago

During the war,AC had to adapt her novel for the stage and at the time it was impossible to keep such a desperate ending.So AC was probably asked to sweeten it.Actually,It's the stage play that was tansferred to the screen.I read it,did you?

[–] Wulfstan10 19 years ago

No, I only read the novel, but to me that is rather beside the point. The ending in the novel is, in my opinion, what makes the story truly great. I don't really care whether this was a faithful adaptation of a stage production, only that it is not a faithful reproduction of the novel and I unequivocally prefer the novel's ending. It still is somewhat interesting and a little different, but nothing special and rather sappy and predictable. In fact, the movie seemed to be so obviously heading in that direction that as the movie progressed I began to suspect that's how it would end even though I had previously been expecting the novel's ending.

I understand that Christie felt the need, or was asked, to provide a "happy" ending to make it more palatable, but that doesn't mean one should like it or that it has no negative impact on the story and its originality. In a story such as this, the ending is utterly crucial and if one changes the ending, the entire direction and aura of the story change as well.

[–] dbdumonteil 19 years ago

The novel was sure damn better than the stage play.But youi know,during the war,it was impossible not to secure a happy end .I would like to see the Russian version where the ending has been kept intact,wouldn't you?Some IMDB users wrote about it and were enthused

[–] Wulfstan10 19 years ago

I agree with your points. Certainly, I understand that WWII was a tough time and people wanted to "escape," but it did hurt the story from an artistic point of view. I also have become curious about the Russian version, which I did not know existed. It doesn't surprise me that the Russians would keep the original ending and not bother to give it a "happy" ending. Being partly Russian and very familar with the country and its art, I sometimes suspect that Russian film makers feel a good movie simply cannot be particularly happy, a peculiar aspect of the Russian collective psyche. I also suspect, though, that from the Russian point of view, historically speaking, a "happy" film would not only seem false and condescending, but that a sad film also gives the viewers the snese that at least others are suffering, too. Of course, many Russian films, again historically, also tend much more than American films to focus on artistic achievement rather than commercial appealability. Only Russian cartoons seem to be happy and fun.

[–] thepianist86 19 years ago

the intro to the play version of ten little indians (the one i have anyways) said that ac had said previously that the reason she wanted to write a few play adaptations of some of her books was (for one to see if she could do it, but also) b/c any time someone else wrote an adaptation, it either strayed too far from the original storyline, or stuck to close to the book. i would assume that for the stage version, it was a bit too much to try to communicate the change for each character (vera especially) psychologically on stage. she only says one line to the indian after she kills lombard. in order to communicate her thoughts, she would have to have had a quite long (and probably boring) monologue. i would guess that the movies (especially the older ones) would have had a quite a bit of trouble communicating the depth of her mental anguish as well. i would be quite excited to see a newer version that stuck to the novel, though. especially with how advanced some of the special effects are now. could be quite good.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dbdumonteil 18 years ago

Thank you so much emlodik

[–] bgrubb 18 years ago

Strangly not all films of the WWII period had 'happy' endings. Black Dragons (1942) had everybody die for example and Wake of the Red Witch (1948) had the captain die being reunited with his love (who had died earlier) only after death.

[–] profh-1 12 years ago

"THANK GOD WOMEN CAN'T SHOOT STRAIGHT!"
--Lombard

[–] Eric-62-2 11 years ago

The original ending of the novel is terrible from a cinematic standpoint and those who keep pining for it for this or any other previously filmed version of the story should really get over it. It amuses me how I see more threads about this than I often do about the film itself. Does anyone REALLY think they should see this film end with Shirley Eaton hanging herself?

[–] Thomas_Veil 9 years ago

I have to agree with this. In a novel, the original ending works. On the stage or screen? Not so much.

There are several problems with depicting the book's ending on screen. The first is that it sounds more plausible in the novel than on the screen for Ann Clyde to hang herself. You'd have to depict her as in almost some hypnotic trance. That's kind of what the voice does to her in the novel -- but on screen the audience would recognize the judge's voice immediately, coaxing her to her death. So right away you've given away the ending early.

The second problem is the note in the bottle. How do you represent that on screen? Have the judge's voice narrate? What do we see on screen during that time? Flashbacks to the murders? Maybe.

But even if you did, remember that the book ends rather abruptly, with the judge's signature. Pretty anti-climactic ending for a movie. Remember "Murder on the Orient Express"? That book ends abruptly too, with Poirot announcing he is resigned from the case. Director Sidney Lumet realized that would never work in the movie version, so he and writer Paul Dehn came up with that champagne toast sequence at the end -- and for me, that works.

I don't know what kind of comparable ending you could come up with for this movie.

[–] edias-1 19 years ago

I agree. The movie ending was absurd

[–] Ziaheart 18 years ago

That's a very powerful version. But I feel that you want the movie to be close to the book?

but... in the book... she wasn't directly responsible! She just let him drown while she took her time getting to him. and she IS totally taken aback in the book, too, when she finds the noose.

[–] Harold_Robbins 18 years ago

Apparently it's now felt that theater audiences could handle the more downbeat original ending, for Christie's play has been reconfigured and reverted to the novel's ending - I believe it's still running in London's West End. Will there finally be a "faithful" theatrical film version, or TV-movie? Time will tell.

When the internet was invented, suddenly everyone became a critic!

[–] hornacek 8 years ago

"but... in the book... she wasn't directly responsible! She just let him drown while she took her time getting to him."

And how is this not directly responsible for the death?

As the book progresses she has more and more flashbacks about Cyril (the child who died) and Hugo (Cyril's uncle, who she loved) and the flashbacks eventually reveal that Hugo would inherit the family fortune is Cyril died, and that she encouraged Cyril to swim to a rock in the water and she knew he couldn't make it. She reveals that she did it deliberately so she could marry a rich Hugo, but that he suspected her after the inquest.

In the book she is *definitely* guilty of the crime she is charged with. The Judge's confession says that the people that were the "least guilty" were killed first and the ones that had committed the most horrific crimes he saved for last. Lombard killed 21 people, and Vera killed a child. They were the worst of the murderers.

[–] hornacek 8 years ago

One of the biggest problems with the film versions (except for the Russian film) using the play as the source material instead of the novel is that it makes Mr. Owen look incompetent. He has researched all of these people to find out their crimes and how to lure them to the island (either by hiring them for a job or impersonating their friends to send them letters inviting them). He has done his research!

But in the play, the real Lombard is already dead, and his friend Morley impersonates him. Which means that Owen does not know what Lombard looks like! How can he have done all of this research on Lombard to investigate all the details of his crime and not know what he looks like?

And even worse - Vera is innocent! Which means he brought her to the island without being 100% sure that she was guilty and deserved to die. In the novel Owen's confession describes how he researched each murderer. But in the play (and the films) he must have skipped on the research for Vera. Owen planned this out for a long time, there's no way he should have invited anyone to the island that he wasn't 100% sure was guilty and deserved to die.

[–] Eric-62-2 8 years ago

Making Owen incompetent actually serves the better effect of making him a truly evil psychopath whose search for perfect "justice" is still nonetheless the product of a madman. It's far easier to imagine a madman making a mistake.

I again question whether the Morley bit comes from the play given how that's not the device used in the 1959 live TV production which seems more like the one based on Christie's stage version. I have to wonder if it was Dudley Nichols who came up with the Morley device for the 1945 movie. Compared to the cop-out they used for Lombard to be innocent in the 59 production, the Morley one is more credible. If Morley resembled Lonbard to a degree he could easily pull it off (one has to assume that the Owen research likely used only a generic fuzzy photo. In those days, people didn't have access to crystal clear pictures. In those days it was far easier for that kind of confusion/deception to be pulled off)

The book ending to me is overrated because a lot of people just seem to love dark, depressing endings on the grounds that they are somehow more "artistic". For the medium of film, I think the book's ending would be a cheat of the first order. Especially in *this* version of the film.

[–] hornacek 8 years ago

In the book Owen is mad but he's not a madman. He knows that he's mad for wanting to kill these people and commit the perfect crime, but he's very logical about it, he's methodical and detailed. He even accounts for he himself not being one of the Indians/Soldiers because his victim (Seaton) was actually guilty and in his epilogue he describes that it's the lawyer he uses to lure everyone to the island that is the real 10th Indian/Soldier.

The fact is that in the play and the movies the Judge is smart and detailed enough to research all of these people and figure out how to lure them to the island and plan out all of these deaths, but he's careless enough to not figure out that Vera is actually innocent or that the Lombard that shows up on the island is not the Lombard he would have researched.

From what I've read, having Vera and Philip turn out to be innocent was a creation of Christie's for the play, and that was before any film versions (the play was 1943, the first film was 1945). The film version took the ending from the play so they could have a happy ending.

I love the book ending because you have everyone on the island dead, then you get the epilogue with the two police officers but they can't solve it, and they tell the reader new information (Vera's chair was set upright after she hung herself) so the reader still doesn't know what's going on. Then you start reading the final epilogue, a letter from the killer, and you don't realize for a few pages who it is.

[–] Eric-62-2 8 years ago

From what I've read, Christie created the happy ending for the play to have Vera and Lombard be innocent, alive and in love at the end. This ending has been used in all the subsequent films (except the Russian one).

The general idea, but not evidently the *specific* idea. Again, I think we need to check a copy of Christie's original play and find out just *how* was Lombard made an innocent because the 59 TV version sets that up entirely different from the film versions and makes me believe that was Christie's original altered template of Lombard and Vera innocent (in which its the real Lombard having been falsely accused of a rumor he never bothered to rebut and Wargrave merely fell for it) and that the "Charles Morley" twist is in fact the invention of Dudley Nichols. The irony is that it's the Morley version that in the end works better toward your assessment of the Judge because he was still right about the real Lombard. He just didn't bank on the fact that a switch would take place.

[–] hornacek 8 years ago

According to what I read online, the change of having Vera and Lombard be innocent survivors was created for the play by Christie and/or the playwright.

Even if Wargrave was right about the real Lombard killing those natives, it makes him look incompetent for not recognizing that the Lombard who arrived at the island was not the Lombard he had spent months researching. I know it's pre-internet times but he still spent months investigating all of these murderers as he explains in the epilogue, talking with people who knew them, reading newspaper accounts, talking to witnesses. He would have gotten pictures of everyone.

I would have liked it better if he had been Lombard's twin brother, at least that would have explained how Wargrave would not have realized that the Lombard who showed up on the island did not look like the man he had researched for months while planning everything.

[–] Eric-62-2 8 years ago

According to what I read online, the change of having Vera and Lombard be innocent survivors was created for the play by Christie and/or the playwright.

I just want to make sure you're understanding the question I've been raising. *Of course* Christie made Vera and Lombard innocent in the stage version, the issue is *how* did Christie make them innocent? What I want to know is if it was Christie who came up with the "Charles Morley" explanation for Lombard or whether that was the invention of the 1945 film script by Dudley Nichols? The reason I keep referencing the 1959 TV production is that Lombard's innocence in that one is entirely different (in that one he's the real Lombard but the story about him is a false one) and leads me to believe that this TV production would have been using Christie's original explanation for Lombard's innocence.

[–] hornacek 8 years ago

What I read online is that Christie made the change for the stage version to make them innocent by (a) making someone else be the murderer for the crime Owen has charged her with, and (b) "Lombard" is actually a friend of the real Lombard. So those two people on the island had not killed anyone, so they were innocent and two people the play-goers could root for in the end because they hadn't killed anyone and didn't deserve to be killed for their crimes (in the 40s, they probably wouldn't have allowed two of the ten killers to survivor and win if they actually committed the murders Owen had accused them of).

As far as the later film adaptations, from what I know Christie had nothing to do with them, so any changes made to their screenplays was entirely the screenwriters' doings. By 1959 movie censorship wasn't as bad as it had been (Hayes Code) so you could have had the "hero" (i.e. survivor) of a movie be someone who had killed someone and gotten away with it.