Some Clarification on my Last Post

[rusty_armour]

Just to be clear, I don't object to Guy Ritchie's movie because it's new. Over the years, I've enjoyed a number of Sherlock Holmes pastiches, films and productions -- many of which weren't adaptations of original Holmes stories. My problem is that Ritchie's movie isn't Sherlock Holmes to me. I realize that a lot of people disagree with me and/or plan to see The Travesty anyway. That's fine. I'm certainly not going to try to stop you. However, as this is my LJ, I feel I should be able to exercise some freedom when it comes to my opinions. Still, because many of you are planning to see Ritchie's film, I'll try to make more of an effort to curb my...hostility.

I'm officially boycotting the film, but my tiny one-woman campaign will be addressing those pastiches, films and productions that I admire. I'm hoping it will be more interesting than simply reading posts in which I bash The Travesty. Okay, that was a bit of bashing right there, but I don't think it's something I can give up completely. *g*

Once again, I know that people will disagree with me, but here's a list of the actors I've enjoyed watching most as Sherlock Holmes:

1) Jeremy Brett - I believe he was the first actor I saw playing Sherlock Holmes and he made me want to read the entire canon. Before that, I think I had only read junior editions of the original stories. In my defence, it was junior high, those were the books available in the library, and I was 12 & 1/2 at the time.

2) Robert Stephens - I haven't found anyone who agrees with me (not that I care), but I love, love, love The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes. I think some of the lines are absolutely priceless. And I think Stephens does a fantastic job of capturing the characteristics that makes Holmes Holmes.

3) Basil Rathbone - I know the Rathbone films get a lot of flak, but I still find Rathbone's performance captivating -- even when he's working with some of the flimsier scripts in that particular franchise. However, Twentieth Century Fox's The Hound of the Baskervilles is still my favourite adaptation of the novel. Although it takes some liberties with the original story, it does a wonderful job of capturing the spooky atmosphere of the Moors and has the most frightening hound I've seen to date. I'd also recommend The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (also released by Twentieth Century Fox in 1939) as it still makes some attempts to set the film in the Victorian era. Personally, I think it's worth it for the exchange between Holmes and Moriarty in that hansom cab and that kick ass chase up the Tower of London.

4) Christopher Plummer - Okay, I know he's Canadian, so this choice may seem biased, but I really think he did a brilliant job in Murder By Decree. I also think he may be one of the most emotional Holmes I've seen (e.g. with that scene in the insane asylum with Geneviève Bujold), but he was also able to switch off the emotion and be the colder Holmes we're accustomed to seeing. He also added little touches of humour and irony to some of his lines that seemed like something we'd see from Sherlock Holmes.

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/_inbetween_/]

I love Rathbone and all the flac his Holmes gets should be directed at a) the war office and b) Nigel Bruce, who also only did his job.
But I must say that two other great actors were in a previous travesty, ie. Richard Roxburgh as a "modernised" Holmes, and his stick fighting, drug taking ON THE JOB and homocidal mistakes, all of which replace actual skills and flaws the "real" Holmes had for no reason, look a bit like the blueprint for this?

[rusty-armour.livejournal.com]

Hey, _inbetween_! It's great to come across another Rathbone fan! :-) And wasn't the 2002 version of The Hound of the Baskervilles just awful? I also had a big issue with Holmes taking drugs while working on a case, not to mention some of the other problems with that production. It's a shame because they had a really good cast. Richard E. Grant could have been brilliant as Stapleton if he'd had a decent script, and Ian Hart made a wonderful Watson despite the material he had to work with. Thankfully, Ian Hart returned in Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stockings, so he was able to reprise the role of Watson in a better Sherlock Holmes story. I hope he'll play Watson again some day because I think he's fabulous.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_inbetween_/]

Yes, and worst was the comments by the makers, the self-congratulatory garbage about how this and that was fact when really it was not. It seemed they hated Holmes and felt they had to scratch at him when just following the script where he did lots of adventurous things, broke into houses but only ever shot up when bored, would have had all they wanted.
Ian Hart was the reason I got it and he was great. If Silk Stockings was with Rupert though he seems to be singled out as the silent star of the most awful Holmses? But the seminuked bath scene at the beginning, that was very nice.

[rusty-armour.livejournal.com]

It seemed to be that they were making the classic mistake of trying to make the story more exciting by exaggerating everything. Holmes didn't just take drugs when he was bored, but took them all the time. Stapleton didn't just abuse his wife, but ended up killing her. The hound wasn't just a big dog, but this horrific CGI rendition of a glowing dinosaur-like creature...Yes, Ian Hart is the only good thing about that production.

I was actually okay with Rupert Everett as Holmes in Silk Stockings. He wasn't my favourite Holmes ever, but I've certainly seen worse performances. Unfortunately, I did notice that the film-makers apparently haven't seen any versions of Sherlock Holmes since the Rathbone movies judging by certain remarks they made during the DVD commentary...Oh, and once again, I think Ian Hart stole the film. *g*

[http://users.livejournal.com/_inbetween_/]

That is exactly what puts me off every (US) movie set in the past; 80 days wouldn't have been so bad without it; even Disney's Merlin ... heh, anyway you reminded me of more things I was furious about. I couldn't even enjoy Ian having to save Holmes' life, considering the film said a) Holmes had killed the wife through his ego and b) Watson would never forgive/trust him.

I might actually have seen it when I was a huge fan of Rupert but I can't remember at all. I'll try to (might even have it on my HDs), if just for Ian.

[rusty-armour.livejournal.com]

Actually, I'd forgotten that Watson had to save Holmes's life in the film and that Holmes had killed Watson's wife through his ego, etc. This could be because I've tried to erase most of the 2002 version of The Hound of the Baskervilles from my memory. *g*

I have to confess that I quite like Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking, though I can see why it might not be for everyone. I actually get a kick out of it because of the interaction between Watson's fiancee and Holmes. The fiancee is an American psychologist (I think it was a psychologist) who insists on referring to Holmes as "Sherlock" and isn't at all put out when he openly insults her. Then, when she's actually able to give him some information that will help him with his current case, he's grudgingly forced to respect her and accept her as Watson's future wife.

There are other things I like about the film, but that scene between with Holmes and Watson's fiancee is one of my favourites. If you have it on your HDs, I think it might be worth a second glance. Otherwise, it might be something you can rent. Hell, it might even be on YouTube.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_inbetween_/]

That actually sounds like Conan Doyle could have written it. His Holmes' so called "misogyny" always just seemed to me a lack of skirt chasing, since he admired and tried to help a number of women. And though I dislike the "so much more modern" American Mary Sues, he also wrote a lot of American stories.