Sherlock Holmes in the 21st Century!!!

As a Sherlock Holmes fan and having posted a couple of blogs on the Victorian sleuth I’m almost embarrassed that I missed this one. BBC has launched a new Sherlock Holmes series of mysteries, starring Benedict Cumberbatch as Holmes and Martin John C. Freeman as Watson set in the London of today.

The idea of making a modern day Holmes is nothing new. Basil Rathbone had a career of playing Holmes in what was in the 1940s’ the modern era. Roger Moore even had stint in the 70s’ with a female Watson. There have been a couple of instances of waking Holmes from a deep freeze into the present day.

The first of these new Holmes adventures is called A Study in Pink, an adaptation of A Study in Scarlett, followed by The Blind Banker, which I am not sure, but appears to be a take on The Adventure of the Dancing Men . Holmes is still a Consulting Detective, a occupation he created and is the only one of his kind, as he told Watson. Holmes is very tech savvy, utilizing GPS, text messaging, and other modern mean of information gathering as easily as his Victorian counterpart did with his Baker Street Irregulars. Watson is a returned war veteran looking for lodgings in London, having been wounded in the leg in Afghanistan, a very strong and historic parallel.

The character of Holmes and Watson are as much as they are in Doyle’s original prose. Holmes is distant, sharp, insulting, and flawlessly observant, Watson, a man of action, amazed in Holmes’ ability, with a sharp eye for the ladies. They are well fleshed out men in their own right, yet complete and compliment each other.
The acting is top notch Cumeberbatch makes Holmes his own, yet stays true to the heart of the character, giving him new quirks and nuances so different from Rathbone and Berrett’s interpretations. Freeman is a great Watson, he can’t help but like Holmes and be annoyed by him at the same time. His participation in the war has left him an adrenalin junkie, he, like many warriors and soldiers, needs action--danger, to feel alive. The opening of A Study in Pink has Watson with a therapist discussing his blog. It is not going well as Watson cannot bring himself to write down those inner most thoughts and feelings that the therapist feel will help him heal from his experiences in war. This should be a foreshadowing of Watson becoming Holmes’ Boswell.

Mycroft and Moriarity are both introduced immediately into the story. Mycroft Holmes keeping security tabs on his younger brother and Moriarity being a shadow figure chatting with other villains via computer. Though Moriarity seemed to be a device by Doyle to lead up to Holmes’ demise, the series starts with Moriarity immediately setting himself as Holmes’ arch nemesis. This promises to be the underlying plot for the series.

These adventures of Sherlock Holmes are as cerebral as Doyle’s narrative, yet add the action and flash of Guy Ritchie’s vision from 2009, even the music has strains that hearken to that film’s period soundtrack.

Of course the adaptation suffers from the modern era’s political correctness as well. The two episodes I watched are rife with homosexual reference to the two characters, an “are they or aren’t they?” kind of thing with dating references, sharing rooms and beyond. One of the creators, Steven Moffat, stated that he thought it just shows how acceptable that lifestyle is now in society. Be that as it may, the constant reference gets old, and appears to be used for cheap laughs. Not exactly an enlightened perspective that Moffat suggests. Let it go…..Watson’s four marriages within cannon, and Holmes avowed dislike of women as cunning creatures and his cerebral asexuality are enough to work with. One almost expects such juvenile references from Saturday Night Live.

A second is Holmes’ use of nicotine patches instead of smoking his pipe. “it’s a three patch problem…..” as he says. This is lame (My own personal enjoyment of a good pipe aside) because Holmes basically laments his inability to be able to smoke anywhere in London, yet there are strong references that the character is a drug user, as he was in Doyle’s stories. It would seem to me, as unconventional a man as Holmes would fire up a pipe to aid his thought process should he want to. New social mores be damned!

The overall production and performance are great and have had me wanting to watch the next episode. It also shows the resilience and power of great writing. Despite one hundred and twenty five years passing Holmes and Watson are still relevant and entertaining in a modern venue. As Shakespeare, Shelly, Wells, and others who wrote in their own eras the stories they told are easily and smoothly adapted to the modern age and sensibilities.

The Hound of the Baskervilles and Peter Cushing

I am visiting the hallowed ground of Sherlock Holmes once again thanks to my good friend Mangus. Not only did he hit me with the weekly question: "What you going to blog about?" But he also let me know that the A&E network had released the BBC series of Sherlock Holmes that starred Peter Cushing as Holmes. Most people now probably remember Cushing as Grand Moff Tarkin from the original Star Wars: A New Hope… when it was just Star Wars. He also portrayed such notable characters as Abraham Van Helsing and Victor Frankenstein in the wonderfully atmospheric Hammer films.


I had seen Cushing portray Holmes in the Hammer version of "The Hound" with Christopher Lee as Sir Henry Baskerville. Well, thanks to Mangus I got to enjoy him again in the BBC version.

The basic plot of The Hound of the Baskervilles is that Sir Henry Baskerville has inherited his family estates after the death of his uncle. His uncle apparently died from fright because the spectral hound that has cursed the family line for two hundred years or more was chasing him. Holmes is brought in, not necessarily to solve the crime, but rather to protect Sir Henry from the curse and perhaps persuade him to not take up the family residence. Holmes of course does not believe in any supernatural agent and sends Watson to guard Sir Henry. The investigation is pursued and the ending is a climax of gun fire and the villain doing himself in.

This is one of my favorite Holmes stories, mostly because it is the first one I read as a boy (read 10 or 12 years old), coupled with the super natural elements it left an impression that started my love of the character and the Victorian mystery. My only complaint, like all the Holmes "novels" is that Holmes is off stage most of the time. The movies are no different. But it is still a great Holmes story with its intrigues and subtle clues.

I found myself pleasantly surprised when I watched Peter Cushing's portrayal of Holmes. He was lively, energetic, and, above all, convincing. He was wonderful actor. I had forgotten how much so.

Holmes was personable, warm, and entertaining. His gestures were those of a stage performer making his point; as much as Holmes is want to do as his experience upon the boards left him with the desire to create a sense of showmanship with his own performances. The character WAS Sherlock Holmes, an engaging and charismatic individual, not just a reasoning machine. His affection for Watson was heart felt and warm, as true friends would share and perfectly in line with the dialogue Sir Arthur Conan Doyle himself wrote. What also struck me was how Peter Cushing looked like Sherlock Holmes as he was illustrated in the Strand magazine and how he was envisioned in so many other incarnations. His hawkish, sharp features and harsh profile is Holmes. He was even tall enough for the role, being almost six foot himself. (When standing next to Darth Vader, aka David Prowes he looked short).

After watching Cushing's performance in this dramatization I look forward to the rest. My regret is that of the BBC series, apparently only five of these classics survived.

Outside Cushing's performance the BBC production was interesting in its own right. Nigel Stock played Dr. John Watson, which broke away from the Nigel Bruce portrayal of Watson as the bumbling side-kick…. a portrayal I always detested. This Watson is as Doyle intended, he is a man of action, ready to bring a villain to immediate justice.

The production had definite 1960s feel to it, as programs like The Avengers and Dark Shadows did. So there is a little television nostalgia thrown into the mix for me.

If you are a Sherlock fan and you have not seen Peter Cushing as the Master Detective you would do worse then to look for the DVD collection of his work.

Sherlock Holmes 2009!

The new movie starring Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law opened Christmas Day and I was only able to get to see it today. Now I will be giving a run down on the film, but I will do my best to leave out spoilers. But, dear reader, you have been warned!

Sherlock Holmes of course is the creation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. The character of Holmes originally appeared in The Strand Magazine, then novelizations of those serials and short stories. Later he would appear on the stage, screen, radio, and cartoons. Countless pastiche have been written about Holmes, and it is said that the character holds the record for appearing in the most films.

Doyle himself did not like the detective, feeling that his historical fiction should have garnered the lion’s share of praise and royalties. Even his attempt to kill off Holmes was met with black arm bands as Londoners mourned the fictional hero. The all mighty need for cash kept Doyle writing the pipe smoking sleuth.

Sherlock Holmes, the world's first consulting detective, not to be confused with a private detective; a cerebral hero, so great was his deductive reasoning he could solve crimes and mysteries from his sitting room at 221B Baker St. His adventures great and small were chronicled by his Boswell, Dr. John Watson, formerly a captain in Her Majesty’s army in the Afghanistan wars.

In the canon of Doyle’s work Holmes and Watson protected the honor of royalty, brought murderers to justice, and even let some go. They worked as agents of the Empire, averting war, or keeping military secrets out of enemy hands, even facing ghostly hounds upon dark moors.

Sherlock Holmes, the new Guy Richie film, brings these two characters to a new audience, with Downey standing beside a long and distinguished line of men to have played Holmes. Charlton Heston, Christopher Lee, Roger Moore, Jeremy Brett, and the immortal Basil Rathbone are only a small sampling of well known actors to wear the deer stalker.

The new film takes a fresh look at Holmes and Watson, as each incarnation adds something to the detective. The movie takes place in the late 1880’s based on the character’s ages, and Watson leaving the Baker Street flat to start his marriage. Such events are noted in cannon, as Watson appears to have been married two or three times, having only lived with Holmes early in their friendship.

Events in the film lead Holmes and Watson across a lavishly produced London with its coal smoke and industrial age grime, hansoms clattering along the cobbles. It is a beautiful movie, the period coming to vivid life. The story itself revolves around ritual murder, resurrection, black magic, and an allusion to the Masons.

I found the story engaging, from the mystery to the interpersonal relationships between Holmes, Watson, Irene Adler, and Mary, Watson’s fiancée. Fast paced and action oriented, this is a Guy Richie film! The action stays within the Victorian realm to me. Holmes martial prowess was noted by Watson in Doyle’s stories, as well as Watson’s own fighting ability. This movie shows the action that Doyle did not think were important elements in his stories. Downey’s Holmes is a methodical fighter tearing his enemy down with well timed blows that are thought out like chess moves. Watson is also a brawler that any military company would like to have in a hand to hand confrontation.

Downey’s Holmes is eccentric and quirky but not distracting or overly comical, many idiosyncrasies falling in line with Doyle’s own work. Jude Law’s Watson is long suffering, but like any true friend he is there through thick and thin, drawn by his own love of the chase and mystery as well as his friendship with Holmes. The story, as action oriented as it is, does not slight Holmes’ investigative ability or his deductive reasoning. The mystery is one Doyle himself might have conceived. (A side note, Jude Law actually had a part in an episode of the Grenada made for TV Sherlock Holmes series starring Jeremy Brett.)

The only element that I could nit pick, and I think it would be a heated debate among Holmes fans, is Irene Adler’s place in the film. Irene Adler, played by Rachel McAdams only appeared in one Holmes story: A Scandal in Bohemia. In the film she is the femme fatale, Cat Woman to Holmes’ Batman. I would have to re-read this particular story, but this was not how Adler struck me. She is Holmes’ love interest in the film. In the Doyle story Adler beats Holmes at his own game, earning the detective’s respect. As Watson was to say she was always the Woman. I never took this that Holmes had a romantic inclination toward Adler , but rather one of professional admiration. But McAdams plays an interesting character, and the chemistry between Adler and Holmes is great, so I am willing to let that one slide without too much effort.

This is a great film that is overshadowed by the technological wonder that is Avatar. Having not seen that film yet I could not comment further. I will say a Holmes fan will find plenty of Easter Eggs in the film to make them giddy. Despite reviewers comments this was a great film, not Shakespeare, but I was not looking for that. I got what I wanted, a great escape with one of my all time favorite heroes, Mr. Sherlock Holmes.