With Sherlock returning to American TV tonight, I thought now would be a good time to spout off about my opinions of the most recent portrayals of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's greatest creation, and to ask you for yours.To cut right to the chase, I am not happy with the recent trend of portraying my favorite fictional detective as a complete asshole.
The movie with Robert Downey Jr. in the title role is the worst offender. I must admit that I have yet to watch the entire film. There came a point about a third of the way through where I'd had enough and stopped the DVD. Thus, having not seen the end of the flick, I don't know whether at some point the real Sherlock Holmes ever makes an appearance. I can tell you that the boozing, brawling bastard played by Downey was most certainly not him.
I find the portrayal of Holmes as an ass, or a "dick," as Watson calls him in "The Reichenbach Falls," in the BBC's Sherlock to be more forgivable. There are a couple of reasons for that. The first and most important is Benedict Cumberbatch's performance as the title character. He comes closest of all the latter day Holmeses to capturing the true essence of the character, and his Holmes comes across as likable despite his more unsavory qualities. I'd like to see Cumberbatch take on the character in a more traditional Victorian turn of the 20th century setting.
The modern setting is the other reason I can tolerate Holmes being more of a jerk on Sherlock than he ever was in Doyle's stories. The world and society are a lot different today than they were when Holmes was created. Society is a bit less refined, ore coarse, today than it was back then. Thus, I can how someone with Holmes' gifts coming off age in the early 21st century rather than the middle of the 19th could be far more lacking in social graces than the character was shown to be back in the original texts. Meanwhile, Johnny Lee Miller in CBS' Elementary does a fine job of portraying a copy of a copy of Holmes. Overall, I find the show closer in tone to Law & Order: Criminal Intent than to the Sherlock Holmes stories of Arthur Conan Doyle. Likewise, the character of Sherlock Holmes as presented on Elementary seems to be less derived from Doyle's characterization than it does from CI's Detective Robert Goren as brought to life by Vincent D'Onofrio, who has referred to Goren in interviews as "a modern-day Sherlock Holmes." Still, I much prefer Miller's watered down interpretation to Downey's total misinterpretation.
To my mind, the finest filmed interpretation of Sherlock Holmes remains that of the great Jeremy Brett, who portrayed the master detective in a series of adaptations of Doyle's original stories on British television back in the 1980's. A happy side effect of the recent resurgence of interest in the character is that my local public television station is re-airing these classic adventures.
So, those are my opinions. As I said above, I am interested in yours. That's why I'm running a poll asking the question: Who is your favorite new Sherlock Holmes? The poll will be up for one week, and at the end of that time, I'll be back with my opinions about the results. I also welcome, as always, your comments and look forward to reading them.
Jeremy Brett
ReplyDeleteY'know, Brian, I've always thought that the reason you and I always fought like cats and dogs back when we worked together had a lot to do with the fact that we're so much alike in many ways, so its no surprise to me that you share my affection for Jeremy Brett's take on Sherlock Holmes.
DeleteBoth Downey's and Cumberbatch's rapid patter delivery of Holmes' dialog tend to grate on me, but I'm in full agreement that Cumberbatch is the far more compelling actor for the role. Downey also tends to mutter almost all of his lines in addition to ramping up their delivery speed, which makes following the story virtually impossible for me until Watson chimes in.
ReplyDeleteCumberbatch, hands down. I love how Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss make the classic tales & tropes of S&H and make them their own.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree that it's Cumberpatch, although to be fair, I've never seen the Jonny Lee Miller version. I understand what you're saying about Downey, but don't completely agree; I think there's room for the more 'action-adventure ADD' type interpretation of Holmes. What's amazing to me is that, for whatever you want to say about any of the versions, the viewing public appears to be supporting all three simultaneously, which is pretty amazing. That Arthur Conan Doyle, he knew what he was doing. Although the real deal is probably still Basil Rathbone.
ReplyDeleteI have no qualms with an action/adventure take on Holmes. There are plenty of example of that in Doyle's stories. The one that springs to mind is the boat chase on the Thames in "The Sign of Four" The ADD thing, however, I'm not so sure about. I can see how the film makers tried to, in Max's words, "(t)ake the classic tales & tropes of S&H and make them their own", but I think they may have succeeded a little too well. They went a little too far, creating a character that is almost entirely their own and its hard for me, at least, to see Arthur Conan Doyle's creation in what they ended up with.
DeleteI like Rathbone's portrayal as well, though those movies tended to make Watson look like a buffoon. Still, I stand by my assertion that Jeremy Brett's interpretation of Holmes is the all time best.
A lot of people who've commented here or on Facebook say they've not seen Johnny Lee Miller's Holmes. Obviously, though, someone is watching "Elementary", as it was popular enough to earn a second season.
Sorry, didn't mean to use the word "amazing" twice in one sentence. That's pretty bad bad
ReplyDeleteAnd I just used the word "always" twice in the same sentence in my reply to Brian Tipton. That's okay, if you don't Grammar Police my posts, I won't say anything about your, shall we say "stylistic quirks."
Delete"Always" and "Never" are two words you should always avoid and never use.
DeletePeter Cushing played a wonderful Holmes in Hammer's production of "The Hound of the Baskervilles". It's a shame he never played the character again (to my knowledge).
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, what is Jonathon Riddle doing up at 2:04 AM responding to blog posts? Get back to work on the graphic novel, you Nob! Second, yes, the problem with the Rathbone Holmes movies was Nigel Bruce. Although I have a certain affection for seeing Rathbone and Bruce together, the take those movies had on Watson was a bit too goofy. As for the ADD/ADHD stuff apparent in both the Cumberpatch and Downey versions…what I like about it is the portrait of Holmes as a guy who is fundamentally different from the rest of us, who sees the world in a very specific way. Rathbone, Brett, Cushing, etc. played Holmes as simply a very smart guy who is very confident about telling people what he thinks and why he thinks it. That a post millennial take on Holmes indicates he has a real mental difference mainly works for me, although you may be right that the Downey films take it a bit too far. This discussion about the new Sherlock Holmes versions makes me think of the movie "Greystoke," the 1990's take on Tarzan with Christophe Lambert, directed by Hugh Hudson, who made 'Chariots of Fire.' It was somewhat controversial among 'Tarzan' fans when it was released (and did not become the franchise starter they wanted it to be) perhaps because 'Greystoke' is much closer to Truffaut's "Wild Child" than it is to any "Tarzan" movie I've ever seen. It also takes some major departures from the Burroughs books, which feature a pretty confident Ape-Man striding into the civilized world as if he owns it. I like the Burroughs books an awful lot, I grew up with them (my ape mother grunted them to me!) but I also liked seeing this different version of the story, of how a guy who's been socialized with Apes might actually fit, or not fit, into human society. And anyway, what stylistic quirks do I have?
ReplyDelete