Sherlock Holmes

[belinda]

The first episodes of the Jeremy Brett series are the best. David Burke plays Watson very well. It's a shame he left as the other one doesn't quite capture the same feeling.

[Graham]

The Granada series had its faults, no-one can deny that, but for me it did all Sherlockians one tremendous favour - it did not portray Watson as a bumbling half-witted semi-geriatric. Which is how he was portrayed by Nigel Bruce in the Rathbone films. Doyle created Watson as a person more or less the same age as Holmes, but rather more worldly-wise given his army service in Afghanistan and his liking for attractive ladies. He was also reasonably well-educated and resourceful as, like Holmes, he had virtually no family and had had to make his own way in the world. And despite carrying the jezail bullet, he was fit, too, witness Charles Augustus Milverton and his rapid departure from Appledore Towers.

I agree with Oldsen, though, regarding Colin Jeavons' portrayal of Lestrade. Doyle's sketch of the official detective was of a wiry little man, tough and energetic, and Jeavons' Lestrade was just too much of a caricature of your fictional bumbling detective. (Yet Doyle did describe Lestrade as bottling-out when he caught sight of the Hound...well, I would have, as well!)

For me, as for many, Jeremy Brett was Holmes, but I agree that he probably made one or two episodes too many - his odd change of hair-style for a start.

Here's a good 'un: anyone have any idea of Lestrade's christian name?

Cheers,

Graham

[Robert]

Thanks Steven and Rob. Yes, 'The Scarlet Claw' was good. Strangest one was the one involving a book of matches which apparently never got used up.

[Rob Clack]

Hi Mycroft

I don't remember Rathbone ever wearing a deerstalker. Perhaps he did for the one or two films they made that were set in Victorian times, but surely not for the contemporary WW2 films?

Rathbone wore the deerstalker for the first two 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' and 'The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes' which as you know, both were set in the Victorian period. In the first of the WW2 films 'The Voice of Terror' he goes to put on the deerstalker when Watson stops him and says 'Now, now Holmes, you promised'

'The Scarlet Claw' is probably my favourite Holmes film.

Rob

[Oldsen]

I thought the movie was a lot of fun. Of course, it is not the original, it is a modification, a huge alteration from the original Holmes. But, accepting that (and even though I clearly prefer the original concept), I didn't feel offended by it. I took it for what it was: nonsensical entertainment. I laughed with many Holmes-Downey/Watson-Law dialogues, and the atmosphere, although clearly unrealistic, was nice. And I thought the main leads did a good job, and I felt the girl who played Irene Adler was very attractive (even if her character was not Irene Adler as described by Doyle: who cares?).

Of course, Brett was one of the best Holmes ever on the screen, and one that respected the original (for me, better) concept. But I have some reservations about the Granada Series; which I described in another forum:

The Pros

1) The main attraction: Jeremy Brett. Undoubtedly a great performance, full of unique details: through his eyes, his gestures, his nervousness, his being esporadically histrionic, you feel Holmes' mind at work. You also feel him as a human being with weaknesses, not as a super-hero.

2) The production design seems to represent the time where the action is placed accurately. Baker Street looks lovely.

3) Faithfulness to the Canon.

4) 35mm film gives a beautiful image.

5) Nice location work.

The Cons (especially the first two)

1) In general, a frequently annoying naivety which makes it hard for me to concentrate on each chapter's story. Especially when it comes to the humour and/or people's reaction to Holmes' deductions. Some examples that come to my mind:

- Watson is always very surprised and when Holmes explains his reasoning to him always says: "So simple" and Holmes feels irritated. Simply this does not seem funny to me, and what's worse it is not believable as a dialogue between two INTELLIGENT persons who KNOW EACH OTHER FOR A LONG TIME.

- Lestrade is way too silly. I understand it pretends to be comical, but he's so exaggerated when he pompously shows his authority (as in the second stain), that I don't believe the character and therefore, I don't find him funny. What's more, Holmes does not seem so intelligent besides him, as he is so obviously stupid.

- The Gioconda's subplot in The Final Problem. It is a very poor plot considering it's the work of Moriarty. And Holmes' "amazing" deductions created by the writers are too silly: TO EVERYONE'S SURPRISE (!) he guesses the Mona Lisa has been stolen because it is not where it used to be.

- Holmes' disguises are always very evident. In other Holmes films he could fool the spectator. Here, everytime he is in disguise seems very obvious to me from the very start (i.e. The Final Problem, The Empty House).

2) Doyle's dialogue is sometimes TOO MUCH respected. It was literary dialogue, meant to be read, not performed. And even if a skillful actor could make it sound natural, the performers here usually play it in a very old-fashioned, solemn, unbelievable way. I don't expect Holmes and Watson stories to be played naturalistically, but these series' supporting cast sometimes goes too much in the other direction.

3) The production design probably was very meticulously researched but, on the other hand, lacked a certain degree of personality. It feels a little "generic" to me, compared to the (perhaps less historically acurate) visual style of works like The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, A Study in Terror or the Rathbone films.

4) This has been said before, and it's probably nitpicking, but sometimes (around 1988) Brett did not look like Holmes at all. I understand this happens because of his illness, and I feel sorry for the man, but they should have stopped the production until he had recovered. In The Hound of the Baskervilles he looks awful.

Finally, the Granada series became weirder and weirder, getting away from Doyle to a very confusing concept (The Eligible Bachelor, The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes), which felt awfully empty and was aggravated by Brett's sickness symptoms on screen.

By the way, I love The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes. It is an alteration, but not crazy and arbitrary, like the Ritchie film: on the contrary, it takes the original to a new direction, with loving care and constructive purpose. To me, it is the best Sherlock Holmes movie ever, even when it has many faults (deerstalker in the streets of London, and things like that).

[Steven Russell]

Rathbone

Try a Google image search for Basil Rathbone. You will see him in a dreerstalker in about half of the images.

[Robert]

Hi Mycroft

I don't remember Rathbone ever wearing a deerstalker. Perhaps he did for the one or two films they made that were set in Victorian times, but surely not for the contemporary WW2 films?

[kensei]

Well, I confess to not being as well versed in the history of Holmes on the screen as some of the rest of you. I saw the 1959 Peter Cushing version of "The Hound of the Baskervilles" at a recent sci-fi/fantasy con (which was good and featured Christopher Lee), and I vaguely remember seeing 1970's "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes" with Robert Stephens as Holmes, which involved the Loch Ness Monster and from what I now read on Wikipedia to refresh my memory sounds absolutely godawful (Holmes doing drugs, pretending to be gay, etc.) although it also featured Christopher Lee who is always a class act. I've read HOTB, which I absolutely loved, and also "Sherlock Holmes Vs. Dracula- The Adventure of the Sanguinary Count" by Loren D. Estleman, a really skillful blending of Bram Stoker's tale with Holmes injected into it.

But let's not beat up on Downey's effort too much, ok? I thought it was very enjoyable. I especially liked the sequences in which Holmes was fighting and was able to project the fight half a dozen moves forward in time in his mind in able to win. These days in the movies, in which there seems to be very few original ideas left, it's just kind of what we have to accept. Sometimes I go with it and sometimes I don't. The 2004 Clive Owen-Keira Knightley version of "King Arthur" I thought was a huge disappointment. But now we have Russel Crowe's "Robin Hood" coming this summer. Let's all cross our fingers!

[belinda]

Personally, I am physically unable to watch any tv or film called Sherlock Holmes, that does not have Jeremy Brett in it.

I feel the same way

[Jonathan H]

I saw the Downey Jr 'Sherlock' and thought it was a God-awful abomination.

Of course, if you are a purist then nothing can ever equal Jeremy Brett on the small screen in the '80's. As for features nothing will ever come close to the Basil Rathbone 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' (1939).

I am not a purist and am happy to see interesting adaptations of the original, such as Nicholas Meyer's 'The 7% Solution' from the mid-70's where Holmes and Sigmund Freud team up to solve a case, and the detective's addiction. Even the flat-footed Michael Caine vehicle, 'Without a Clue', had its moments.

Tim Burton's recent merging of 'Alice' and 'Oz' is, I think, superb.

But this ...

A disgraceful excuse of a movie -- already a frenetic computer game -- and so ashamed of its literary origins that it never lets the excellent Downey Jr have a proper go at the role. It's just one tedious CGI explosion/chase/fight after another.

Yet another depressing example of the infantalizing of popular culture.

[Steven Russell]

Dear Mycroft,
I agree completely with you that Jeremy Brett is the best Holmes ever to hit the screen. But I feel you are doing yourself a disservice by refusing to watch Peter Cushing or Basil Rathbone. Please do try the BBC audio recordings with Clive Merrison as Holmes and Michael Williams as Watson. They are every bit as good as Brett and Hardwicke, and that's GOOD.

Regards,

Steve.

[Mycroft]

Dear all,

I've just watched what must be one of the weirdest (and worst) SH movies ever. Simply called "Sherlock Holmes" and made in 2009, it aired last night on the Syfy channel which should, I suppose, have put me on my guard. I sat stupefied through the whole thing. Anyone else watch this bizarre effort?

Regards,

Steve.

Personally, I am physically unable to watch any tv or film called Sherlock Holmes, that does not have Jeremy Brett in it.

[Steven Russell]

Dear all,

I've just watched what must be one of the weirdest (and worst) SH movies ever. Simply called "Sherlock Holmes" and made in 2009, it aired last night on the Syfy channel which should, I suppose, have put me on my guard. I sat stupefied through the whole thing. Anyone else watch this bizarre effort?

Regards,

Steve.

[Steven Russell]

No problem, Maurice.

Regards,

Steve.

[The Grave Maurice]

I'm sorry, Steve, I didn't mean to step on your excellent answer. My daughter came home in the middle of my reply, and I didn't notice your response.