Sherlock Holmes

[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).

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[The Grave Maurice]

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

G. That's all we know.

[belinda]

I think it's George

[The Grave Maurice]

Perhaps. But I have a photo of what is believed to be his family's plot in Pere Lachaise Cemetery in Paris. (Unfortunately the picture appears to be too large to upload to this site.) Anyway, maybe it's Georges.

[Mycroft]

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.

Hi Steve,
I have watched Cushing's films , but although entertaining, I've never found him convincing and I am always waiting for the vampire,Frankenstein or a mummy to appear(especially if Lee is also in it), he is Hammer Horror films to me. I haven't heard the audio recordings you mention, but would, on your recommendation, be keen to have a listen. Do you have a link for them or do you have to buy them? To be honest though, my complete box set of Brett's Holmes is all I'll ever need, his portrayal to me is perfection, that will never be matched.Out of interest , did you know that Jeremy Brett went for the role of James Bond? Don't think it would of worked myself, but maybe.

[The Grave Maurice]

I must be the only SH fan around here who absolutely can't stand Brett. I found his performances mannered and affected, and his facial tics nearly drove me to distraction. The last performance of his that I liked was in My Fair Lady. On the other hand, I thought that both of the Grenada Watsons were excellent.

[Captain Hook]

John Wood & al.

Hi all,

John Wood played an excellent Holmes on stage in the 1970s. I think they brought the production from the National Theatre in London to Broadway.

Another Sherlock Holmes I saw on stage in New York was called "The Crucifer of Blood". I remember nothing about it except that it started at the Red Fort in Delhi and was obviusly a bit of a rip-off of "The Sign of Four".

I'd have to do some research on this to be sure, but I seem to remember both Charlton Heston and Roger Moore trying out the role on American TV productions. I have no deerstalker recollection.

Cheers
Hook

[belinda]

Tom Baker played Holmes in a 1984 version of The Hound Of The Baskervilles.
It's actually very good and I would rate him as my second favourite Holmes.

[Celesta]

Doyle never described Holmes as wearing a deerstalker. The illustrator, Sidney Paget, is the man responsible for that image of the great detective. From memory, I think it was in "Silver Blaze" though I may be wrong on this. Holmes only ever wore his "ear flapped travelling cap" when venturing out into the country. He would never have worn it in town. Likewise the Inverness cape.

Regards,

Steve.

True, Steven. Sydney Paget first put a deerstalker on Holmes in The Boscombe Valley Mystery (1891), then The Adventure of Silver Blaze (1893) and later in The Return of Sherlock Holmes. There's even a picture of Paget wearing a deerstalker. Also, Frank Wiles did a portrait of Holmes for The Valley of Fear, and he depicts Holmes with a checkered cap with ear flaps, and walking staff.

[Mycroft]

Tom Baker played Holmes in a 1984 version of The Hound Of The Baskervilles.
It's actually very good and I would rate him as my second favourite Holmes.

I'm sorry Belinda, you must be wrong, Tom Baker is Dr. Who!

[Supe]

Grave One,

I must be the only SH fan around here who absolutely can't stand Brett.

I wouldn't go that far, but I'm nowhere as enamored of Brett's performances as are most. Partly for the reasons you gave, but even more because even when the series started Brett and Burke were rather old for the role.

Okay, a Holmes birthday party was never mentioned in the Canon, but the consensus of the many learned Holmesians who have established chronologies is that both Sherlock and Watson were in their very early 30s when the partnership began, something that is never reflected in the many stage, film and TV presentations.

I think that what was particularly captivating in the early Granada shows was the absolute fidelity to the original stories. Alas, as the series wound on this became less and less so until, because of Brett's unfortunate illness, the shows became absolute travesties of the written word.

Don.