Odd that we don’t have a thread on Holmes (be it books or cinema / televisualisermachine), given the frequently-drawn and occasionally erudite comparisons between Bond and Sherlock Holmes.
I think it’s likely (if a massive conjecture - appropriate for this character) that folks here might have an interest in Sherlock Holmes as well?
Kicking off with (but by no means limiting this to) the Basil Rathbone 20th Century Fox/Universal series of the late 1930s and 1940s, if only because Mrs Jim kindly presented me with the box set (£3 from a charity shop) and I hadn’t seen many of these for so, so many years. Perhaps it’s nostalgia but I was captivated, even to an extent by the ones that are plainly awful.
I think it is a general scheme by Mrs Jim to keep me out of the way whilst she steals the Crown Jewels, although that might just be these films influencing me something rotten.
The indelible impression is that Basil Rathbone couldn’t give a bad performance even if some of the rest of the enterprise is a bit…well, terrible. In the weaker ones he tends to resort to louder barking of the lines, but such a commanding dog.
For what it is worth - it is worth £3 and I haven’t known of a better £3 spent since [redacted for taste and decency, illegality and moral turpitude] - a quick ranking
The Scarlet Claw - wonderful; unexpectedly rather beautifully filmed. Absolutely leagues ahead of the rest and it may just be immediate re-enthusiasm but this might be a Top Ten all time film for me. Very stupid in places but even in the very stupid places, I am overcome with glee.
The Hound of the Baskervilles - probably the only decent adaptation of this, although as ever it falls apart at the end a bit. That The Scarlet Claw is basically a remake and so much better has not gone unnoticed.
The Woman in Green - unusually sombre and with a really odd secondary villain who is probably/definitely a paedophile. Unsettling. Very dark, that. Henry Daniell would have made a great Bond villain in some respects; he’s so aloof it’s not surprising he falls from a great height.
Spider Woman - albeit Watson is particularly cretinous in this one, an interesting adaptation of some elements of the Doyle stories. Creepy, and the ending is great fun albeit the comeuppance is slightly milky. Possibly the most interesting cast; the talent varies, to be polite.
The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes - the plot is rubbish and lots of stuff never gets resolved but the lead performance is galactic and the villain is elegantly written. The chap with the bolos is terrifying. Watson marginally less of an imbecile in the Fox pair. Moriarty falls to his death (again).
The Voice of Terror - don’t you know there’s a war on? Shatteringly unsubtle and whatever the hell it is they’ve done with Rathbone’s hair is massively distracting. Some deft use of echt Doyle but it’s so OTT it’s perversely magnificent. Supporting cast very, very dodgy, though. Hilarious.
The Secret Weapon - bit ropey but fascinatingly jingoistic. Quite where that Lionel Atwill got his eyes from I really don’t want to know and the “bleeding” of Holmes is staggeringly unpleasant. Moriarty falls to his death (again again). Probably racist.
Sherlock Holmes Faces Death - odd mixture of all sorts of Doyle stuff and the villain is an utter nonentity with a feeble motive. Some very odd performances going on here and the red herrings are basically left to swim off without being explained. This is where things are just going to get worse. Brill.
The House of Fear - some of the early stages, especially with the melodramatic narration, are most engaging but it all goes haywire and - crucially - a bit dull later on. The mystery is colossally obvious and there’s not much here bar Rathbone being imperious and staggeringly rude; fab.
The Pearl of Death - s’alright and save for Rondo! Hatton! it’s basically routine. The villain, despite being talked up throughout, is a non-event. Holmes marginally more stupid than Watson in this one, which provides some interest but could have been about 20 minutes long really.
Sherlock Holmes in Washington - so wildly cheap it’s brilliant; appears to have been filmed for about ten quid. Expressly demonstrates no knowledge of British idiom, location or architecture, and accordingly fascinating. Plot’s rubbish and probably homophobic in some way.
Dressed to Kill - weirdly dull and one can quite clearly see it was all out of steam at this point. Some deft moments, although the regular inability of any of the female leads to muster a convincing English accent - even when they are English - is quite charming.
Terror by Night - at least it’s short. The train appears to change at least five times and at one point passes through Alpine landscape whilst notionally somewhere outside Rugby. The most unlikely of villain set-ups, although anyone called Skelton Knaggs should have had a better career. Also contains the most appalling and baffling attempt at an “English” accent yet. Obviously awful, but watchable and about 10 minutes long.
Pursuit to Algiers - crap and they know it. Jawdroppingly amateur on every level. Watchable if only for the abundant and rampaging slackness going on. Sensationally woeful, but compellingly so.
Great idea to fill this unnatural void in CBn’s fabric, @Jim, long overdue!
Off the top of my head I can’t contribute a lot to the assessment of the Rathbone series as I haven’t watched them all and it’s far too long since I’ve seen those I caught by chance on the telly.
Seems as if this loose string of adaptations of varying tone and quality by Fox/Universal ran into many of the same difficulties and excesses the Bond series would. Starting with relatively faithful adaptations of stronger source material, then rehashing the elements again and yet again before descending into ever cheaper by-the-numbers tosh. And the fact Rathbone and Bruce remained in their roles only underlines how fundamentally the entire production value depends on, mostly, Rathbone’s star quality. Have to pick up the series sometime soon.
Funnily, I came to Sherlock Holmes myself through Bond. The summer break of 1978 saw me raiding book stores on a weekly basis, trawling the revolving cases for Fleming titles I didn’t already have. As so often, in vain - but I picked up a copy of Holmes stories collected out of sequence (some Casebook/Last Bow and Adventures stories if memory serves). And I discovered a quite fascinating canon that had seen numerous adaptations, spoofs and ‘continuations’.
While I would not become as much of a Sherlockian as the Bond fan I am, I nonetheless kept an eye on the different adaptations and had a blast with the Brett series, the Hammer HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES and the first few Sherlock episodes. Though over the years I grew to prefer the characters of Elementary over those of their BBC counterparts. With pastiches I also rather tend to the traditional bizarre-but-not-supernatural school. Holmes battling Cthulhu monsters or zombies may be entertaining - but it’s fundamentally not Holmes (though Gaiman’s Study in Emerald is pretty clever and the Warlock Holmes spoofs at least seem funny).
Anyway, will be reporting back once I’ve given the Rathbone series a try.
I grew up on Saturday afternoon airings of Rathbone’s Holmes films, Weismuller Tarzans and Buster Crabbe Flash Gordons, so this stuff is near and dear. Thanks for starting the thread.
I recently saw “Scarlet Claw” again and I agree it’s pretty terrific, especially coming so late in the game when the Universal series had mostly slid itself firmly into the ditch.
Last Fall, I enjoyed Robert J. Harris’ “A Study in Crimson,” a Holmes novel that takes the…well, novel approach of setting the action in WW2-era England, making it very much “Universal/Rathbone Holmes” as opposed to straight-up Doyle Holmes. You can definitely hear Rathbone’s voice throughout. Interestingly, Watson is much less the nincompoop here so he comes off more as an amalgam of Doyle and Bruce’s versions, but I suppose that’s to be expected if Watson’s going to be intelligent enough to “write” the adventure. I could never decide who to mentally “cast” in the role as I was reading. Also interesting is the fact that this Holmes is given a backstory that includes service in British intelligence in WW1, meaning there’s no pretense he’s a supernaturally long-lived holdover from the Victorian era (it was never quite clear in the films) but rather a Holmes born much later (one supposes the same day as Basil). In that sense, it reminded me a bit of Deaver’s “Carte Blanche.” It’s a fun read if you should come across it.
I’m a few episodes into the third season of Elementary and I’m baffled how much more interesting and entertaining it turns out to be than the fairly overrated Sherlock - and I liked Sherlock for the first two seasons; mostly-ish.
While Elementary is much more about quantity/murder-of-the-week and only develops the frame at a glacial pace over its 25 episodes per season, it’s a very well made quality show that doesn’t betray its central cast for fairly cheap cardboard caricature. Holmes, Watson, their NYPD team, even Mycroft and many murderers and victims, they all come across as human beings. Flawed often enough, but never just that, never only there for the depiction of quirk.
Compare to this Sherlock. I’ve rewatched a couple of episodes to jog my memory, but my impression is Sherlock’s protagonists are grotesquely drawn caricatures down to the extras. It’s satire in which everybody exists mainly to let the witty dialogue of the main cast shine. This can be greatly entertaining for a time. But is it more than watching an insufferable, sociopathic brat dressing down the not-real-humans around him because he’s bored?
In spite of some clever ‘reimagining’ of the originals, I never get the feeling this is more than a couple of creatives having a field day. Elementary may take the more workmanlike approach - but Elementary’s Sherlock I can see as a real struggling human with a particular mindset that sets him in his own league. Not above, merely apart.
Sherlock’s Holmes in contrast is surrounded by sheep and untermenschen and not above letting his environment know about his superiority. There’s little human depth present, not even in the scenes where he’s supposed to show some form of being touched by events. Elementary to me seems closer to the Doyle canon than the entire Sherlock. At least so far.
Season 4 - John Noble’s shadow hanging over it gave a threat even when he wasnt there
Season 5 - The ongoing plot seemed like every gereneric cop show
Season 6 and 7 - I put them together as both times thet CLEARLY thought it was the end and it gave them an adrednaline and having fun with no consequences.
Small note: most TV series always do their best when they know their ending. Elementary had the benefit of getting it twice.
Mind you, I don’t think it’s bad , Sherlock is evidently still entertaining and made with passion. But as a whole it’s more parody than a tale concerned with its characters. At first a parody of Doyle, later of itself.
Elementary on the other hand turns in a ton of episodes over a long run of seven seasons and necessarily there’s plenty of filler and repetition; not all of it is always innovative. They too try to put in some Sherlockian fan-service, reimagining Doyle’s originals and these elements are often not quite as nifty as Moffat and Gatiss styled theirs.
But on the whole I think Sherlock has a higher standing with fans than is justified. Had Elementary not been put up directly against Sherlock and branded as a cheap knockoff money grab by the usual suspects from the US this show might well have made cult status.
Again, i dont agree on that on Sherlock. It was made by people who have made comedy when not doing Doctor Who. Its exactly what it claimed to be and i loved it and made me fall in love with the books.
I do however agree that Elementary is, despite some small shifts, far closer to the source material than Sherlock is.
I mostltly like that both series had (?, both don’t know if they can get revived) full endings that aleays says they’ll always be there
It’s funny, when Elementary was first on, I skipped it because (1) it was made and set in America, (2) Watson was reimagined as a woman (nothing against the ladies, it just seemed like arbitrary stunt casting…it also didn’t help that I’d never liked Lucy Liu in anything else) and (3) there was already a “Sherlock Holmes in the 21st Century” show on the air, so why bother?
Now the wife and I are streaming Elementary and I prefer it pretty much 100%. For one thing, it feels like the focus is on actual mysteries which didn’t always seem to be the case with Sherlock, which veered off into bizarre and nonsensical conspiracy plots and mind games. Plus with seasons consisting of 20+ episodes, there’s less pressure for every one of them to be genius like there was with Sherlock’s mere 3-4 eps (with long breaks between seasons)…which towards the end were anything BUT genius, IMO (the last ep in particular was unspeakably awful).
I was super into Sherlock first time around, but honestly I don’t know that I’ve ever had a show fall so far in my estimation, and ironically the turning point was The Reichenbach Fall. I’m actually a little afraid to keep going with Elementary out of fear that it’ll disappoint me as much in the long run. And I really like Lucy as Joan Watson, wonder of wonders.
All that said, I don’t consider Elementary any more “definitive” than Sherlock. Both are alternate universe takes on Holmes, 100% non-canon. If Elementary has a weak point, it’s that by updating to modern times and framing it as a male/female crimefighting partnership, the show starts to look an awful lot like dozens of others: Bones, Castle, X-Files, The Mentalist, etc. My wife and daughter are currently into High Potential which inverts the dynamic a bit but still owes a major debt to the Holmes template, so it’s everywhere. My point being, I guess, that if you transplant Holmes and Watson from Victorian times to the modern day, things immediately start getting more genericized and watered down for my taste. At least House took a funhouse mirror approach to adapting the concept. In my eyes Jeremy Brett will always be the only real TV Holmes, but as “genius helps the cops solve the murder of the week” shows go, Elementary is a fun watch. If they want to call the character Sherlock Holmes, that’s fine.
Monk is another of those iterations and so far my only complaint against Elementary’s characterisation is how it leans Sherlock’s dressing style subtly in that direction. I’d probably have gone with something else than the buttoned up shirts to give Holmes a distinctive look. But even that works within the frame of the premise and I’ve come to appreciate how it doesn’t strive to make Holmes a model.
That said, no it’s not canonical. But as you point out, it’s a mystery show that puts the mystery in the centre.
Watched The Seven Per-Cent Solution the other day; such curious shifts in tone. Perhaps that’s deliberate. Was prior to the announcement of the death of Mr Duvall (RIP) but - and this is not intended as churlish - he’s absolutely terrible in this. I have no idea what accent he’s meant to be affecting. Fortunately, he was so very much better in other things.
I disturbed everyone here with my absolute love for „Elementary“ when my wife and I stumbled on it and binge watched every season.
I agree with @Dustin: we loved „Sherlock“ but the longer it went on the less we were impressed because it all seemed to be so artificial and constructed just to let Cumberbatch talk fast and witty while at no time we were invested in any of the characters.
„Elementary“ contrasted that with a Sherlock and a Watson who seemed like real people, in a world which could exist, and that transcended every moment, even when the actual casework - as it happens in every investigative show - became routine.
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Although I do think that’s a bit of a stretch in this case. I fear I go the traditional Brett, Rathbone, then all the others as one.
I agree with @Dustin: we loved „Sherlock“ but the longer it went on the less we were impressed because it all seemed to be so artificial and constructed just to let Cumberbatch talk fast and witty while at no time we were invested in any of the characters.
It just became the writers smugly showing off and getting wholly out of control. Whilst he amused in The League of Gentlemen, I fear any time I see Mr Gatiss’ name attached to anything else, I do a little shexy shideways shimmy and avoid it completely. It’s possibly a wholly unjustifiable prejudice, and there are probably worse examples in other series and franchises, but professional fans demonstrating their fandom is a chill factor.
As for best Holmes, I am still very partial to Peter Cushing’s Holmes in Hammer’s THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES - but I watched this as a kid before I read any of the stories. It was shown here as part of a Hammer horror retrospective and I somehow mixed Holmes with Cushing’s various van Helsing roles. So it’s probably not the best benchmark. Brett’s Holmes seems to be still a landmark after Rathbone. I still haven’t watched both in their entirety, so I reserve that judgement for later.
But Jonny Lee Miller seems the best contemporary re-imagination I can believe in so far.
I get the impression that the “buttoned up with no tie” look and the suits devoid of style are meant to telegraph “this guy is neurodivergent.” Whether it’s Monk’s OCD or Holmes being “on the spectrum,” the suits suggest it’s a person who knows he’s supposed to “dress professionally” for work but hasn’t the first clue how to make it work. The elements are technically there, but without any sense of fashion or sympathy with what the average person considers pleasing to the eye.
My only problem with Miller is his low, mumbling delivery, which is hard for me to follow, especially at speed. But that’s probably just me getting old. I am just vain enough to resent having to turn on closed captioning.
It’s always Basil’s voice I hear when I read Doyle, but then his films were my entry point at a very young age. Brett nailed for me Holmes’ single-mindedness and utter lack of concern for social niceties. There’s always a sense of the wheels spinning very quickly in that mind, and I love the occasional flashes of smile (smirk?) that he switches off, lightning fast, lest the stoic facade be shattered.
Late in his run, I gather his health issues accounted for his somewhat bloated look, which put a bit of damper on the fun, but for a long time there he looked pretty much exactly as I’d pictured Holmes.
I’d also like to give a nod to Ian McKellen in “Mr Holmes,” a fairly unconventional entry but very entertaining, at least to me.
It will always be Jeremy Brett for me. I don’t know how seriously he was considered for James Bond for OHMSS (I believe he said he turned it down). It would have been very interesting to see how he would have approached Bond had he taken the part.
