In recent weeks, BBC Maestro released a “Making Of” blog post about their own disruptive AI project, one integrating AI, vocal, and visual technologies to recreate the presence of Agatha Christie. With the involvement of a team of more than 100 individuals and with the consent of the Christie family, the educational streaming platform announced the launch of a writing course taught by the famed author herself. 

During the past two years, one working team developed a script for the course, using Christie’s own words taken from letters, published interviews, and other material. A second working team went through an 18-month process of auditioning actors for the on-screen role of Christie herself. Backstage, set and costume designers developed the environmental ambiance and appropriate garb to be used on set. The technology team began exploring the necessary means of delivering the vocal element of the project as well as the morphing software needed to apply the features of Agatha Christie to a living actress’ face.  

Writing advice in this instance is delivered by a matronly Christie (circa 1940s) as she would have appeared on book jackets. At least one of the difficulties that the tech team faced is summarized nicely in a stunning quote included in the “Making Of” blog post linked above:

“…we had almost no video footage of her and only a limited number of less than 10 licensed photos…We had to carefully study every available detail to capture her likeness authentically. We then trained our technology to learn her facial features, expressions, and movements based on these images.” 

A short (less than 2 minutes) YouTube trailer shows a bit of the final output:

The working teams had a bit more available to them in terms of voice recordings. Streaming service Britbox currently features a documentary series entitled “Agatha Christie: Speaking Her Own Words”.  Brief clips of Christie’s voice are taken from dictaphone recordings made when she wrote her autobiography. 

Social media response to that trailer was mixed. One comment likened the superimposing of Christie’s face on the facial structure of on-set actress Vivien Keene to the use of a “digital prosthetic”. Another referred to it as merely “unsettling”. 

Paying subscribers who took the time to watch and review the content offered a spectrum of responses. One reviewer on the platform felt that the contribution of the AI was unnecessary and detracted from the substance offered in the coursework. Another was suspicious as to whether the advice was really from Christie (it was). A third thought that a different course featuring the (living) Ken Follett was of far higher quality. But there were a host of other individuals that stated they loved the experience, recognizing it as a form of homage. 

As you might expect, if you recall this March 2025 Scholarly Kitchen post, I ponied up the $89 dollars to see what the experience might be. What insights to Christie’s thinking might emerge? How fast-paced was the learning experience? I was frankly curious as to whether the on-screen experience of an AI-generated version of Agatha Christie would prove “creepy” in that Uncanny Valley kind of way. 

The TL:DR version is that it wasn’t creepy, but neither were the 11 video lessons particularly noteworthy. Each is short (the longest lesson being 18 minutes); if binge-watched, it would only consume two-and-a-half-hours. For the subscription fee paid, I have 12 months of access to the videos along with a downloadable, 78-page transcript of the spoken instruction. Segmented “course notes” for each video take one to the correct portion of that PDF file. The viewer is given a reliable synthesis of Christie’s views on writing. Two noted Christie scholars, Dr. Mark Aldridge and Dr. J.C.Bernthal, were responsible for generating the material, drawn from her autobiography and other primary sources. 

The cinematography is of a style found in many television documentaries. The camera is not solely fixed on the AI-generated features of the author. The elaborate set enables shots of the woman’s hands, working keys of a typewriter, books in a pile, as well as current and vintage covers of Christie’s titles, available from HarperCollins. (Get that product placement in there!) 

Guidance as to how Christie managed to become a best-selling author is readily and widely available. Will aspiring writers be well-served by watching eleven video segments across 150 minutes? Rather than going through ChapGPT or similar AI tools, there are bibliographies in print that will point you in the right direction. We know the risks of asking an LLM to generate a list of citations. But it is true that tracking down the full text can be time-consuming. If you watch the videos, you get the information without laborious effort. The Christie scholars have already vetted the information. One could view this condensed approach as preferable as well as reliable.  

However, the primary objective in this case was not about how best to deliver this kind of content in an engaging fashion. The project seems more of a practical learning experience for BBC staff, rather than as a response to any external market demand. 

What many commentators seized upon was whether this was an ethical use of AI technology. Should the dead be made to speak? The Christie family gave their consent and cooperated fully in the project. The words used were Christie’s. To what extent was the audience made aware of the extended use of AI? (Would some trusting soul be wrongfully parted from their money?) BBC Maestro made it clear that these were artificially generated images and vocals. While much depends on how one views any creation of a deep fake, this process was both considered and transparent. 

There was a red flag. Among the news articles was one noting the possibility that future BBC Maestro projects could spotlight other best-selling (if dead) authors, specifically J.R.R. Tolkien and Jane Austen. Here is where the term deep fake more legitimately comes into play. Agatha Christie and J.R.R. Tolkien were contemporaries, both born in the 1890s; there are extant voice recordings of Tolkien as well as photographs. Delivering a simulacrum of Tolkien would be feasible. One of Jane Austen invites incredulity, satire, and distrust. 

Press releases touting the use of AI never explain how the AI works, only that AI is integrated to improve the experience. The black box is impervious to inspection. Nor are readers provided with indicators of development costs or associated complexity. Such announcements are written with an assumption of value-add. But they don’t do much to counter the fears springing from blaring guarantees of disruption. 

When cultural heritage is involved – and Christie represents such a heritage – the community needs time to develop a comfort zone. We saw it when concerns were raised about the use of AI in the recent restoration of Notre Dame.  When a corporate entity works to understand artificial intelligence and the practical results of its use, that’s a sound investment of staff time and resources. BBC technicians and production staff undoubtedly gained valuable expertise. In the grand scheme of development work in AI, the Christie course may be a relatively minor blip, but it does help in acclimating an industry labor force to new workflows and capabilities.

In a sense, it is an appropriate homage. Agatha Christie was a woman of good principles and sound common sense. It’s worthwhile recalling the message encountered in a one particular Christie novel, published during the tumultuous 1930s. Adapt to loss, she says in Death on the Nile. Be willing to let go of the way things once were, and accept the possibility of a disrupted world.