Christie and Seven Dials: 2026 version and 1920s clothes

The Seven Dials Mystery by Agatha Christie

published  1929

 

 


This was one of the first Christies I read, and is still one of my favourites. I blogged on it back in 2016

Dress Down Sunday: 1929 book & ‘… a very transparent negligee…’

I’m coming it back to it after watching the new adaptation of it on Netflix: 3 x 1 hour episodes and highly enjoyable.

I have also recently looked at the Seven Dials area in John Dickson Carr and dragged Christie in:

The Fascination of Seven Dials: for Carr and Christie

The new series is not always faithful to the book, but the settings and costumes are lovely and Martin Freeman as Superintendent Battle is excellent. In the book Bundle’s mother is dead: in this series her father is dead and her mother is played by Helena Bonham Carter.

Bundle – Lady Eileen – is in almost every scene, so it stands or falls by the actor, and Mia McKenna-Bruce is wonderful. She is tiny, and looks very young, but did a great job.

My only complaint is a serious one: she spends too much time not wearing a hat and gloves, where in real life she would have always had these items when out of her home. In one scene she has just come from an inquest, and may have been a witness, and it is completely unthinkable that she would have attended a formal legal proceeding without a hat.

In the book – just proving my point – Bundle is at one point knocked out but says she thinks her hat saved her.



The rest of  her clothes were lovely though.

And now back to the book.

In a post on Agatha Christie short stories, I mention one which featured a butler called Tredwell. I said “This was obviously a name that struck Christie as particularly appropriate for the job, as the butler in The Secret of Chimneys and The Seven Dials Mystery is also called Tredwell. And there is yet another butler of the same name in the play Black Coffee. (In case something is poking at your memory – this happened to me - the butler in Hercule Poirot’s Christmas is Tressilian, which is also the name of the posh aristo in Towards Zero, Lady Tressilian)”

One of the best features of the book is Bundle’s relationship with her father  - their dialogue over various meals is hilarious and it is also charming and heart-warming.

In the earlier post I drew attention to a number of ‘non-anachronisms’ in the book – those phrases that a modern writer could never get away with in a book set in the 1920s. And there is also a wonderful list of the secret societies supposedly operating in London - so I would modestly say, worth a look.

Bundle is forever changing her clothes – flimsy underwear & a black lace evening dress, while the mysterious countess is in black velvet:

 

black dresses from Vogue

The our heroine changes into breeches for adventuring. At one point she borrows her maid’s clothes, and luckily I found another a propos Punch cartoon (it was chicken farming last week):



But as ever Christie doesn’t really give you much description of the clothes.

Seven Dials is very much a ‘flapper adventure’ and thriller rather than a carefully plotted mystery, and there isn’t much in the way of clues and detection. There is one unusual aspect of it that cannot be discussed without serious spoilers, and it is cleverly done.

And - this book will, I think, always work its magic on me, and I will read it again every few years

The top photo of a woman in classic 1920s clothes (including her HAT) is from the Smithsonian, and shows – I could give you a  hundred guesses – the wife of one of the key participants in the Tennessee Scopes monkey trial, the famous evolution court case. She is called (another 100 guesses)  Ova Corvin ("Precious") Rappleyea.

The hat picture is from Sam Hood Australian National Maritime Museum 


**** EVERY CRIME BOOK BY AGATHA CHRISTIE HAS BEEN FEATURED ON THE BLOG AT LEAST ONCE. YOU CAN FIND A LIST OF ALL HER WORKS WITH LINKS TO THE POSTS HERE

Agatha

Comments

  1. I'm very glad you enjoyed the adaptation, Moira. Sometimes those things work very well, and sometimes...they don't. Your comments about hats and gloves are really interesting. It's those rituals we have (like always wearing a hat outdoors) that are woven into our culture, and I wonder why the hat ritual didn't make its way into the film. At any rate, Seven Dials... is a good 'un and I'm glad you enjoyed the new version.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. thanks Margot - I can't help noticing, but on the other hand, I'll forgive them a lot if I can enjoy!

      Delete
  2. I'm sure the absence of hats and gloves was in the service of "relatability" which seems to be what costume designers are most concerned with. (It's probably obvious that I don't think much of that! If a character is written and performed well, you should be able to "relate' to her no matter what she's wearing.) I think someone noted on the other post that wearing hat and gloves would come across as "stuffy" to modern viewers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who knows what is going through the designers' heads! But surely no more 'stuffy' than wearing the right skirt length, and wearing stockings...

      Delete
    2. Well I read it somewhere, maybe not here! IMO if people consider it stuffy they should remember that it's from a stuffier time, or at least a time when there were more different rules about dress. You'll have that with period pieces....And maybe I was a little hard on costume designers, who have to adjust their work to fit other people's dictates. But relatability keeps coming up in interviews with these costumers.

      Delete
    3. Yes the designers have to tread a narrow line and they'll never keep all of us happy!

      Delete
    4. I went back to the book to look at the ending when it was being discussed....I suppose they didn't use Bundle's remark about her hat having saved her when she was hit on the head?!

      Delete
    5. Hope that wasn't a spoiler, getting knocked on the head is an occupational hazard for thriller heroines.

      Delete
    6. They didn't quote it but *I* did in the post above! I felt vindicated.
      Fair play, not a spoiler!

      Delete
  3. That certainly is a Tennessee name of a certain vintage! I once had a gentleman friend from Appalachia who had a great-aunt Vanilla and a great-uncle Dorsal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Splendid stuff! I like that her nickname Precious had to be included.

      Delete
    2. Vanilla also pops up as a character name in Benjamin Disraeli's novel Sybil. I'm afraid its the only thing I remember about the book, being amazed that someone was called Vanilla. It's kinda similar to the female character called Indiana in Fanny Burney's Camilla, just a name that startles, although at least Indiana has a bit more logic. Pure Miss Silver, both those monikers.

      Delete
    3. Oh yes, Lady Vanilla. The only thing that I remember is that she chats away to two men on a train, then asks to swap seats with one of them. Only then does she realize that they are chained together as one is a prisoner.
      And yes - I thought Camilla and Indiana sounded like a pair of 1980s Sloane Rangers.
      And definitely primed for a Wentworth novel.

      Delete
    4. George Sand wrote a novel called Indiana, 1832.

      Delete
    5. And Jane Austen had an aunt named Philadelphia

      Delete
    6. I remember coming across the Sand and wondering if I should read it but I never did...
      Names a topic I have visited in the past and will no doubt come back to - always fascinating. Why do some place names become first names and others don't? India is also a strangely popular name in some circles in the UK.
      And Philadelphia has the meaning brotherly love so might have expected it to be a boy's name!

      Delete
  4. Was Ova Corvin ("Precious") Rappleyea's husband an evolutionist or a creationist?
    - Roger

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Evolutionist though it is thought that his motives were mixed - he was supposedly the architect of the whole thing: the trial was very performative. The people behind the prosecution confusingly believed in evolution and were trying to create a test case.
      George Rappleyea had a fascinating life, well worth looking up, busybodying round doing all kinds of things and serving jail time at one point. A showman.
      Many years ago I loved the film Inherit the Wind - it would be interested to see that again.
      there is no character with Rappleyea's name - all the names were changed - but presumably someone represented him.
      I know I was surprised on finding out about the case that it wasn't a straight battle with the forces of truth being persecuted. And of course creationism is still a big deal in the USA.
      In the photo, Precious is outside a house where the defence witnesses (ie pro-evolution) stayed during the trial. She was a nurse, who met her husband when he came to her hospital with a snake bite. (In other circs you would think he might have been snake-handling, but unlikely in a pro-evolutionist)

      Delete
    2. I read on Wiki that the authors of Inherit the Wind said they wrote it as a plea for intellectual freedom in opposition to McCarthyism. I haven't seen the film in ages, but I'd guess that the trial wasn't presented as a manipulated performance, although the writers didn't claim it was historically accurate. In fact it's been described as a parable, which is kind of ironic given the best-known use of parables....

      Delete
    3. The "forces of truth" were often eugenicists or outright racists. William Jennings Bryan, the Great Commoner, who'd been a candidate in the 1896 presidential campaign on a progressive bi-metallist platform (https://allpoetry.com/poem/14328822-Bryan--Bryan--Bryan--Bryan-by-Vachel-Lindsay), was persuaded to act as a witness for the prosecution in the trial.

      - Roger

      Delete
    4. The film is extremely nuanced and surprising, I would say - it goes in directions you might not expect. And it definitely wants people's differing views to be respected.
      Every time I come across William Jennings Bryan I have to find out all over again what a bi-metallist platform was, and it always surprises me!
      The court case was seen as destroying Bryan's rep, and one of the points of the film is 'At least he believed in something'.
      It's odd that it's just not an issue anywhere else, but this is still being fought in the US education system, 100 years later. Of Pandas and People...
      There are more photos from the trial in the Smithsonian collection, like the one above: I find them fascinating.
      And of course I LOVE that we have moved on from a light Christie thriller to evolution only because of the source of my photo of 1920s fashion!

      Delete
  5. I watched Seven Dials this week and thought it was very good but a few hats and gloves would have been appreciated. I was offended by three places where characters said "I" when it should have been "me" - the first time was Sir Oswald, so I thought maybe he is supposed to be uneducated but then two more did it. Doesn't anyone proofread these scripts? I was so irritated I checked to see who had adapted it and was sorry to see it was Chris Chibnall, who wrote Broadchurch as well as a first mystery last year which I thought was excellent (maybe he has a good editor).

    Bundle (who I agree was excellent) and Helena BC both have very round faces so they could have been related but they lost a lot of humor by killing off Lord Caterham (also, I like that actor, although I didn't recognize him until I looked at the credits). And Battle looked exactly right! Making Gerry Wade attractive was a good change and gave Bundle good reason to believe it wasn't suicide (although the poor girl has had enough heartbreak).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know what you mean but have given up worrying about those grammar things. I did notice one of them.
      I had no idea till now that Chris Chibnall had written a murder mystery (usually I am at least aware of such things) and will now read it as you recommend it. It sounds right up my street.
      Yes - someone online was saying that they couldn't see Martin Freeman as Battle - and it is true I would have been imagining some big bear of a man. But MF did a great job of showing quiet power, I was more than satisfied with him.

      Delete
    2. I don't think Freeman would pass any height requirements for policemen! (I assume those did exist at that time?) But I agree about the quiet power. He was my favorite Watson, brave and loyal but not bumbling or dense. That "me/I" error is so common that I'm almost surprised when someone gets it right (both on- and off-screen)! "Myself" gets misused a lot too. Grammar isn't taught very well, if at all!

      Delete
    3. Off on a grammar tangent here--I've noticed on many mystery blogs that the blogger refers to a single culprit in the plural, using "they" and "their" in descriptions. That usage is fairly common in speech as well as writing. (It was even done by Jane Austen.) But in these blogs it seems to be most often done when the culprit is female. It must be a bit of a quandary for the bloggers. They don't want to give away the clue of gender, but also don't want to refer to a female as masculine. The clumsy "he or she" and "his or her" could be giveaways too. What to do, what to do?

      Delete
    4. That's an interesting point - that they/them implies a female. That has never struck me but maybe I am just not very observant!
      I went over to they/their a long time ago - I can remember arguing with someone publishing something I had written, saying it wasn't correct, and my saying in the particular context it was colloquial and much better than doing the 'he or she'. I have to say that for years I had strict views about grammar but I have gone over to the dark side now! Grammar and ways of speech change all the time, always have and always will.
      In SOME cases, arguing that things are 'wrong' is like saying that modern women need to wear a hat becaue 1920s women did and it's a rule....
      I STILL cannot help noticing usages that I would not like for myself. But - there is something else: if you start getting critical publicly about others' grammar and spelling, you will for sure get caught up in mistakes yourself! They won't necessarily even be your fault, but it's not a good look...
      Obviously there is more of a case to be made if people are trying to show authentic speech from history.... but even then....

      Delete
    5. I know what you mean about grammar criticism coming back to bite you! The hidden schoolmarm in me can't help noticing, though. I remember some books by US journalist Edwin Newman--one of them had the subtitle "Will America be the Death of English?" They were about unintentionally-funny and wildly-inappropriate errors in language--not strictly about grammar, but there was a sense that precision in language was important, and that grammar served precision. Newman was very droll and the books were fun to read, but thinking about them now, I feel they'd be dated in some regards.

      Delete
    6. I know, I am slightly torn, and there are mistakes that reduce clarity.
      I hate it when people use disinterested for uninterested - it seems to me that it's helpful to have both words with different meanings, but I think it's a lost cause.
      'She was sat there waiting' rather than 'sitting' used to make me cringe, but is now so widespread I don't think most people know any different.
      Spellcheck should resolve this but apparently doesn't: I always like to see if people can spell minuscule and supersede - they were common traps in journalism in the past. I would correct them if that was my job, and secretly note when people got them wrong...

      Delete
    7. You can find plenty of examples of singular "they" in golden age detective stories, when talking about unknown culprits, perhaps not even consciously from the authors.

      Delete
    8. Now I'm going to consciously start noting them! (And, of course, splitting infinitives...)

      Delete
    9. I’ve made it my policy for some years to deliberately split infinitives whenever it feels more natural to do it than to avoid it. The “rule” against doing so supposedly goes back only as far as the early 19th century, when some grammarians decided that because it’s impossible to split an infinitive in Latin (in which language an infinitive is a single word) the same rule should apply in English. I can’t say it had ever occurred to me that singular ‘they’ implied ‘she’!

      I don’t like to rely on Spellcheck/Grammarcheck – I’ve had great battles in the past with a grammar-checking program which, inter alia, refused to accept the passive voice under any circumstances.

      Sovay

      Delete
    10. "When I split an infinitive, God damn it, I split it so it will stay split."

      - Roger

      Delete
    11. Sovay: spell and style checkers I find mostly very unhelpful, they are not smart enough. Just occasionally it helps with a word I have forgotten how to spell...
      Both: the split infinitive theory has been comprehensively debunked.

      Delete
    12. I guess my theory has a lot of holes in it! But referring to a culprit by any gender would also be a clue, so they/their is still useful in that regard.

      Delete
    13. I don't use spell checks as a rule, but when I'm typing my phone or tablet will change a word it doesn't recognize into something else entirely. Annoying but sometimes funny!

      Delete
    14. Dangling participles are sometimes good for a laugh....

      Delete
    15. I must plead guilty to a weakness for comma splices. I once saw a funny piece in which an English professor is marking up the 23rd psalm for errors. He accuses the writer of being promiscuous with commas! That's me too.

      Delete
    16. I think you make a good point about they/them, I think there are circs in which you would think 'why is the author putting it that way? Oh...' Even though it is now very widespread. It depends if you make it sound natural or not.
      Arent we all mystified by the things auto-correct thinks we are trying to say? The most unlikely phrases.
      I'm more inclined to do fewer commas, by other's standards.

      Delete
  6. The absence of hats is what turns me off most Western films and TV shows. Ladies (and anyone who wished to be taken for a lady) wore hats religiously under the Western sun.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes - it does seem obvious - you'd think even the actors would demand them....

      Delete
    2. I have the impression, maybe wrong, that wearing hair down and loose in public was a sign of ill-repute (except for little girls of course). If true, it would be very funny that an adaptation of Mansfield Park should have Fanny running about with her hair down (and she wasn't a little girl at the time either).

      Delete
    3. Yes that did make Fanny look odd.

      Delete
    4. Surely hats were obligatory in Westerns, for the men, at least - white or black, depending on whether the characters were good or bad!

      -Roger

      Delete
  7. Yes, Martin Freeman is not my idea of Battle physically speaking, but he is such a good actor that he pulled it off all the same. I too thought he was excellent as Watson. Won't talk about the end, except just to say that I was unconvinced. Treason was a capital crime then so the story would have ended with several people being hanged and a much darker ending altogether. Chrissie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He is such a good actor - because he is quite distinctive-looking, you would always recognize him, but he can create a total character. Excellent choice for Battle.
      I think they just did skim off at the ending and decide to pursue other aspects of the future...
      Did you think they were planning to make another series? with even less connection with Agatha

      Delete
  8. Did the book or serial end with a trial for treason?
    Treason is a very rare charge in England. William Joyce (Lord Haw Haw) was the last person tried, and - I think - Roger Casement before that.
    The basis, the 1351 Treason Act, was written in mediaeval Norman legal French with no punctuation. It's said Casement was hanged because of where the judges thought a comma would have been if there'd been a comma. Joyce wasn't a British subject but illegally obtained a British passport. As a result it was decided that he had put himself under the king's protection and owed reciprocal loyalty and could be hanged, rather than serving a short sentence for illegally getting a passport, followed by deportation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rebecca West's Meaning of Treason is a fascinating look at the morals and ethics of treason taking in Haw Haw and others. I don't on the whole like her fiction, but she was very good at analyzing a situation and this book and her Balkan travel memoir are great favourites.
      I understood that with Roger Casement it was also true that the establishment spread the word (in the right quarters) about his homosexual actitivities so that no-one would try to save him or get public opinion in his favour etc.
      I just looked up Erskine Childers, but of course although he was regarded as a traitor by the British (particularly Winston Churchill) it was one of the Irish sides in the Civil War who executed him

      Delete
    2. Okay, I can't resist jumping in here about Lord Haw Haw and treason, because his name came up at lunch today (as happens...)
      I was with a group of old friends enjoying a middle-of-winter get-together in very, very snowy Toronto, and the conversation turned to how the father of one of us had found himself in London at the end of the war, somehow part of the defence team for William Joyce. Yes, he was hanged.
      It sometimes amazes me how close six--or four or three--degrees of separation can be.

      Delete
    3. That is quite the connection! Any good snippets from the convo?
      My (generalized) takeout is that the man was unconsciable, but the legal justification for hanging him was not convincing.
      Of all unlikely places - Agatha Christie in her first mystery, just post-WW1 has Poirot defend an alleged German spy:
      "He is, on the contrary, a patriot. Think what he stands to lose. | admire the man myself.”

      Delete
    4. Re: Anon’s query about a trial for treason - the book ended with an assertion that one of the two culprits would certainly be hanged, but as they had committed two murders and attempted two more, a conviction for treason probably wouldn’t be necessary to achieve that result.

      Would all the shenanigans about industrial processes in the book count as treason though? Or were the culprits simply looking to steal the plans and sell to the highest bidder? In which case one could say they were guilty of industrial espionage and theft but not necessarily of treason, since the highest bidder needn’t necessarily be an enemy of Great Britain. My recollection of the book is that they were motivated by greed rather than politics.

      Sovay

      Delete
    5. I think the 1351 Treason Act - the bits that haven't been repealed, like murdering your husband or seducing the wife of the heir to the throne (I think George IV wanted to use that one) - refers to personal loyalty to the monarch, so industrial espionage isn't treason, except rhetorically.
      Someone said that it had probably never been repealed in toto, only amended, because if ever there was an instance of "Find me the man and I will find you the law", that was the law they found.

      - Roger

      Delete
    6. I don't think the writers of the Netflix series had worked it out completely. But then not sure AC did either... it was just a passing plot for her.
      In the Princess Diana days there was a lot of talk of the treason aspect - the man who had an affair with her was theoretically in danger. But I don't think anyone took it seriously.
      I guess there are Constitutional experts who know all these things....?

      Delete
    7. Talk about your double standards! The king could have mistresses galore, but his queen's lovers were traitors? I suppose it had something to do with the queen getting pregnant by the wrong man, but still.

      Delete
    8. Yes it's the pregnancy thing. I think the whole system is ridiculous, but it's not actually illogical!

      Delete
  9. Somewhat related, it's harder to dislike Camilla now that I know she's reading some of the same books I am!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't have strong feelings about her (apart from my generalised anti-Royal views) but I must say she seems far and away the best member of the Royal family, a very solid person who always seems to strike the right note.

      Delete

Post a Comment