Holmes?
Posted on 12/31/2009 10:29:32 AM PST by TexCon
Sherlock Holmes hails as the most portrayed movie character of all time with 75 actors providing their unique spin to Doyle’s legendary character in over 200 films.
Having grown up reading some of the Holmesian “canon”, I always found Basil Rathbone’s, who always portrayed a great antagonist too, portrayal very “true” to the literary characterization of the great detective – as much as I longed for some sardonic wit. I have a friend across the pond who swears Jeremy Brett’s rendition of this classic figure in the 80s and 90s for British television was the most true- to-form.
Yet, due to the canon being so developed and intricate with its various givings and treatments of and back-stories to Holmes, greater difficulty arises in passing judgment over a proper and commendable portrayal of the detective. Many devoted fans even believe there exists a notable difference in Doyle’s version of Holmes after his three year hiatus in the 1890s to focus on historical novels. When challenged on this point, Doyle once wrote in his defense that though Holmes survived the fatal danger of Reichenbach Falls (while fighting Professor Moriarty), he never recovered as the same detective from the pre-Hiatus years.
(Excerpt) Read more at thoughtsfromatexan.com ...
It’s a shame that the Jeremy Brett series didn’t start five or six years earlier. After the first couple of seasons, Brett’s deteriorating health gradually became apparent to the point of distraction.
I thought Downey’s Holmes was a bit too slovenly, with his “House” five-day beard, tattered clothes, and incredibly filthy apartment. In fact, the film made London look like a horribly filthy place, which perhaps it was in those days.
Holmes?
As for the filthy apartment ... in the written stories, Holmes was pretty much a slob. London was never described overall as being awful and filthy, but I read a bio of Conan Dolyle, who was origially from Edinburgh, Scotland. Doyle was very happy to leave that city because it was absolutely horrid, filthy, and grim.
Regarding Holmes’s apartment, yes, Doyle described it as untidy, but in the Downey film it looked disgustingly DIRTY. And where Rathbone’s Holmes was well-dressed, and Brett’s Holmes was downright dapper, almost a fop, Downey’s was rather sloppy. But I actually liked the Downey film better than I thought I would because they didn’t contemporize Holmes as much as I thought they would, apart from the aforementioned sartorial issues. I thought they’d have Holmes jumping in and out of bed with women and possibly men, and Freudianizing the whole thing. Yes, they introduced a mild sexual element, but it was at least consistent with Holmes’s expressed admiration for Irene Adler in the original stories.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but I've seen the Rathbone and Brett series, and read all the Doyle stories.
The Rathbone movies dumbed down the character of John Watson. The Brett series restored some of the original intent.
In the short stories, Dr. Watson is a war hero from Afghanistan. He's wounded in battle, recuperates in a British hospital, and then starts a medical practice in London when he meets Sherlock Holmes. Watson is introduced to Holmes via an acquaintance. They become roommates.
What is special of the Holmes series is the method of storytelling. All but four of the stories are written in the first-person of Dr. Watson. This makes the character of Holmes even more vivid as seen through Watson's eyes, but also makes Watson a strong character in his own right.
-PJ
WhenI first saw the old Basil Rathbone Holmes movies, I was angry the way they portrayed Watson as a buffoon, even though Nigel Bruce did very well with that characterization. The portayals of Watson by Burke and Hardwicke were much truer to the original stories. In fact, in the Brett series the dialogue was sometimes rearranged so as to give the Watson character a more substantial role, or at least more speaking parts, than he had in the original stories.
Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson go on a camping trip. After a good dinner and a bottle of wine, they retire for the night, and go to sleep.
Some hours later, Holmes wakes up and nudges his faithful friend. “Watson, look up at the sky and tell me what you see.”
“I see millions and millions of stars, Holmes,” replies Watson.
“And what do you deduce from that?”
Watson ponders for a minute.
“Well, astronomically, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, I observe that Saturn is in Leo. Horologically, I deduce that the time is approximately a quarter past three. Meteorologically, I suspect that we will have a beautiful day tomorrow. Theologically, I can see that God is all powerful, and that we are a small and insignificant part of the universe. What does it tell you, Holmes?”
Holmes is silent for a moment. “Watson, you idiot!” he says. “Someone has stolen our tent!”
You recall that I am a Homes nut! Funny, I was just talking to my mom last night about how I've read the Holmes stories dozens, perhaps even hundreds, of times over the past four decades. He was such a skilled writer, with constant lessons that can be learned in reading his work!
I think he would have liked your joke! Thanks for the good laugh!
That’s my preferred variant of what is a finalist for “funniest joke in the world”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World’s_funniest_joke
Giggle...
He chews Coca leaves and drinks just about anything.
Why are you telling me this?
Jeremy Brett.
Best.
Holmes.
Ever.
That’s for sure. I’m a pipe smoker and collector. Those of us in the pipe smoking/collecting community have a special affection for Sherlock.
"Watson, the games afoot!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.