汤米和杜彭斯的初次冒险
关于小说：
Last week, I was determined to indulge myself, each evening after a dumb hour struggling with the phonetic symbols of language German, in several pages (by 'several', I would have had meant ten , but it turned out to be more than forty pages per rendezvous)of one of Tommy and Tuppence's adventures, the first,to be precisely, according to their chronology: the
Secret Adversary. My determination was colossal,and my indulgence extravagant, that as I closed the novel and applauded as could Hercule Poirot:'Et bien, mon ami,Madame Christie est la reine du grand art de criminologie! Hors de questions!', I found myself lying in the dawn of Sunday...
The book, widely-known for its sentimental element, which is rare among Agatha Christie's detective masterpieces, struck me from the first sight, not by a romantic marathon however, but by how skillfully the author went around of it. Tommy and Tuppence entered the limelight as follows:
'Tommy, old thing!'
'Tuppence, old bean!'
See? Only six words, only two brisk and seemingly affectionate greetings--'at an exit of London Metro'--was enough to tell readers immediately that the young adventurers had known each other for sufficiently long, therefore, no extended prologue nor exaggerated scene in want pour fabriquer l'atomosphère romantique de l'amour. Yet there left unbounded hints that the two probably turned closer as the story drove on, a point that a quick reader cannot neglect of. On my part, I'd like to liken this couple as Guo Jing and Huang Rong, Mr Jin's golden pairing. And likewise, I found an absorbing sense of humour in their conversations.
I also noticed while reading--if I have not recommended on it before I am trying my best now-- Dame Agatha'formidability in maneuvering logical,lucid, witty way of narration, which on the contrary invariably fermented progressive waves of suspenses which afterwards cumulated into shocks,shivers,or thunderstorms. A reader seemed to see clearly what was
going on, as if through the glass of a fish tank, which was instead a piece of tricky mirror that only tells lies and veils the truth behind. You may take the mysterious death of Mrs Vandemeyer and how at last the real Mr Brown bragged out his entire sneaky plot as typical examples.
But I have to admit that as the first of Tommy and Tuppence series (meaning Agatha only at her thirties), the book showed the author's attempt to direct multiple major actors (actresses)(even Mr Julius P. Hersheimmer and Sir James Peel Edgerton may be included in) and thus several lines of clue interwoven,one disappearing at another's occurence.
Nevertheless, when a reader repeatedly saw the same personages and similar traps, he(she)was very likely to ask why and formed his(her) own opinion on who could be who and jumped to the last page impatiently to prove the theory. So did I. And unfortunately I got awry as was Tuppence, no more no less. But still, I prefer Agatha's maturer pieces where the bigwigs hidden in shadow or in the more often cases the outwitting detectives hold intense suspensions until the last minute.
However, everything begins hard and at zero. I therefore applauded at the embarkment of the Young Adventurers. I cannot figure out better description of their afterwards performances than un gros succès. Old thing and old bean did really pretty well.
关于电影：
IMDB给汤米和杜彭斯的初次冒险评分很高。不过评分的人很小众，不满一百。说明这一对侦探，相当冷僻。
我对他二人的好感，却不下于对波罗的。我喜欢读波罗，但并不热衷对照着看戏，看了也就抛开。汤米和杜彭斯，却是我看了还要想一想的。
故事围绕着寻找一个失踪的女子和有可能被她背负的一份政治文档。脚本几乎吻合原著。开场那一段，演沉船，叫简芬的神秘女子就在那船上逃生，油纸笼着紧要的文书。然而开场导演玩了玄虚，并未叫简芬出场，以至于我看到快末梢了简芬回顾事发的境况才觉悟过来。其实书里也是这样的排铺，我居然忘得彻底，恨恨地直要拍脑袋。这是导演的高端吧。
看毕回味，却总觉得哪里感觉不对，倒了一次，发现了几处雷同的纰漏，这也许该怪导演太细腻。一次是杜彭斯被伪造的汤米留言给召走，刚回到里兹饭店的汤米拽上朱里斯（自称简芬表兄的富翁）就去寻她。这是个很匆促的过程，无论从事件本身的迫切性还是从杜彭斯在汤米心里的重要性而言，都可算十万火急。可是当镜头切换至汤米和朱里斯驱车搜索时，我很突兀地看见，汤米换过衣服了，裤装背心都变得清爽俏皮。相反朱里斯倒没有换（因为他不够一号重要？）。是以我不知道导演有没有考虑过最起码的轻重缓急。
类似地，杜彭斯和简芬去詹姆斯爵士处告之文书所在，三人立即动身回头找，两位女士在另一场景出现，衣服居然又一并隆重地换过，十分扎眼。再如，汤米从枪林弹雨中逃生回里兹，还是一副衣衫笔挺的绅士派，这不是不奇怪吧。
这部80年代的片，大约想复制阿加莎笔下的战后，因而装束服饰方面，不无考究。可是导演偏偏不愿设身处地为主人公盘算，而阿加莎的手笔，则很注重这些细节的合理与否。
我另外觉得不够妥当的地方，大概是故事本身的一些情节，就如同我曾经说的：when a reader repeatedly saw the same personages and similar traps, he(she)was very likely to ask why and formed his(her) own opinion on who could be who and jumped to the last page impatiently to prove the theory.就是说，情节还欠自然，值得商榷。
比如，幕后黑手，布朗先生的身份是一直到最后一秒才揭露的，那一段也写得很精彩。可是在杜彭斯，她竟然没有怀疑过詹姆斯爵士。而事实上，至少有两处，她应该怀疑这个人，第一次，莉达猝死，在场除了她杜彭斯，就只有詹姆斯爵士和朱里斯。以她对朱里斯的了解，这个时候，她至少应该想到另一个人可能就是真凶，可是她却只浮想一些非自然的力，无端神话了布朗。第二次，她落入陷阱，她应该知道，这个局不可能是朱里斯布的，而知道她住在里兹因而能给她拍假电报的人，除了汤米和她的雇主卡特先生，就只有詹姆斯爵士，为什么她一点不疑心，攒到最后那么震荡的一个震惊？
同样地，汤米也有好几处更早质疑詹姆斯爵士身份的可能，而不该一直踌躇，直待到那个把Tuppence错为Twopence的签名破绽。反而，又是朱里斯，一直就旗帜鲜明地不满詹姆斯爵士，也因为他的冒动，粉碎了敌方已然成形的阴谋。
之前，好话说得很多。看了片子和书对照，倒是汩汩地旁生枝节。自然，这并不妨碍我对阿加莎，对汤米和杜彭斯的喜爱，喜爱本身，本应当有破有立。权作一份综合的观感罢。
Last week, I was determined to indulge myself, each evening after a dumb hour struggling with the phonetic symbols of language German, in several pages (by 'several', I would have had meant ten , but it turned out to be more than forty pages per rendezvous)of one of Tommy and Tuppence's adventures, the first,to be precisely, according to their chronology: the
Secret Adversary. My determination was colossal,and my indulgence extravagant, that as I closed the novel and applauded as could Hercule Poirot:'Et bien, mon ami,Madame Christie est la reine du grand art de criminologie! Hors de questions!', I found myself lying in the dawn of Sunday...
The book, widely-known for its sentimental element, which is rare among Agatha Christie's detective masterpieces, struck me from the first sight, not by a romantic marathon however, but by how skillfully the author went around of it. Tommy and Tuppence entered the limelight as follows:
'Tommy, old thing!'
'Tuppence, old bean!'
See? Only six words, only two brisk and seemingly affectionate greetings--'at an exit of London Metro'--was enough to tell readers immediately that the young adventurers had known each other for sufficiently long, therefore, no extended prologue nor exaggerated scene in want pour fabriquer l'atomosphère romantique de l'amour. Yet there left unbounded hints that the two probably turned closer as the story drove on, a point that a quick reader cannot neglect of. On my part, I'd like to liken this couple as Guo Jing and Huang Rong, Mr Jin's golden pairing. And likewise, I found an absorbing sense of humour in their conversations.
I also noticed while reading--if I have not recommended on it before I am trying my best now-- Dame Agatha'formidability in maneuvering logical,lucid, witty way of narration, which on the contrary invariably fermented progressive waves of suspenses which afterwards cumulated into shocks,shivers,or thunderstorms. A reader seemed to see clearly what was
going on, as if through the glass of a fish tank, which was instead a piece of tricky mirror that only tells lies and veils the truth behind. You may take the mysterious death of Mrs Vandemeyer and how at last the real Mr Brown bragged out his entire sneaky plot as typical examples.
But I have to admit that as the first of Tommy and Tuppence series (meaning Agatha only at her thirties), the book showed the author's attempt to direct multiple major actors (actresses)(even Mr Julius P. Hersheimmer and Sir James Peel Edgerton may be included in) and thus several lines of clue interwoven,one disappearing at another's occurence.
Nevertheless, when a reader repeatedly saw the same personages and similar traps, he(she)was very likely to ask why and formed his(her) own opinion on who could be who and jumped to the last page impatiently to prove the theory. So did I. And unfortunately I got awry as was Tuppence, no more no less. But still, I prefer Agatha's maturer pieces where the bigwigs hidden in shadow or in the more often cases the outwitting detectives hold intense suspensions until the last minute.
However, everything begins hard and at zero. I therefore applauded at the embarkment of the Young Adventurers. I cannot figure out better description of their afterwards performances than un gros succès. Old thing and old bean did really pretty well.
关于电影：
IMDB给汤米和杜彭斯的初次冒险评分很高。不过评分的人很小众，不满一百。说明这一对侦探，相当冷僻。
我对他二人的好感，却不下于对波罗的。我喜欢读波罗，但并不热衷对照着看戏，看了也就抛开。汤米和杜彭斯，却是我看了还要想一想的。
故事围绕着寻找一个失踪的女子和有可能被她背负的一份政治文档。脚本几乎吻合原著。开场那一段，演沉船，叫简芬的神秘女子就在那船上逃生，油纸笼着紧要的文书。然而开场导演玩了玄虚，并未叫简芬出场，以至于我看到快末梢了简芬回顾事发的境况才觉悟过来。其实书里也是这样的排铺，我居然忘得彻底，恨恨地直要拍脑袋。这是导演的高端吧。
看毕回味，却总觉得哪里感觉不对，倒了一次，发现了几处雷同的纰漏，这也许该怪导演太细腻。一次是杜彭斯被伪造的汤米留言给召走，刚回到里兹饭店的汤米拽上朱里斯（自称简芬表兄的富翁）就去寻她。这是个很匆促的过程，无论从事件本身的迫切性还是从杜彭斯在汤米心里的重要性而言，都可算十万火急。可是当镜头切换至汤米和朱里斯驱车搜索时，我很突兀地看见，汤米换过衣服了，裤装背心都变得清爽俏皮。相反朱里斯倒没有换（因为他不够一号重要？）。是以我不知道导演有没有考虑过最起码的轻重缓急。
类似地，杜彭斯和简芬去詹姆斯爵士处告之文书所在，三人立即动身回头找，两位女士在另一场景出现，衣服居然又一并隆重地换过，十分扎眼。再如，汤米从枪林弹雨中逃生回里兹，还是一副衣衫笔挺的绅士派，这不是不奇怪吧。
这部80年代的片，大约想复制阿加莎笔下的战后，因而装束服饰方面，不无考究。可是导演偏偏不愿设身处地为主人公盘算，而阿加莎的手笔，则很注重这些细节的合理与否。
我另外觉得不够妥当的地方，大概是故事本身的一些情节，就如同我曾经说的：when a reader repeatedly saw the same personages and similar traps, he(she)was very likely to ask why and formed his(her) own opinion on who could be who and jumped to the last page impatiently to prove the theory.就是说，情节还欠自然，值得商榷。
比如，幕后黑手，布朗先生的身份是一直到最后一秒才揭露的，那一段也写得很精彩。可是在杜彭斯，她竟然没有怀疑过詹姆斯爵士。而事实上，至少有两处，她应该怀疑这个人，第一次，莉达猝死，在场除了她杜彭斯，就只有詹姆斯爵士和朱里斯。以她对朱里斯的了解，这个时候，她至少应该想到另一个人可能就是真凶，可是她却只浮想一些非自然的力，无端神话了布朗。第二次，她落入陷阱，她应该知道，这个局不可能是朱里斯布的，而知道她住在里兹因而能给她拍假电报的人，除了汤米和她的雇主卡特先生，就只有詹姆斯爵士，为什么她一点不疑心，攒到最后那么震荡的一个震惊？
同样地，汤米也有好几处更早质疑詹姆斯爵士身份的可能，而不该一直踌躇，直待到那个把Tuppence错为Twopence的签名破绽。反而，又是朱里斯，一直就旗帜鲜明地不满詹姆斯爵士，也因为他的冒动，粉碎了敌方已然成形的阴谋。
之前，好话说得很多。看了片子和书对照，倒是汩汩地旁生枝节。自然，这并不妨碍我对阿加莎，对汤米和杜彭斯的喜爱，喜爱本身，本应当有破有立。权作一份综合的观感罢。
有关键情节透露
