Baker Street Irregulars discussion

14 views
Holmes & Watson in Current Media > Is This The Best Place for Holmes?

Comments Showing 1-13 of 13 (13 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Demetrius (last edited Jan 25, 2020 02:42PM) (new)

Demetrius Sherman | 23 comments While I began to love Elementary, I think the best place for Holmes and watson is the 1930's-40's. where this Brit outsmarts Hitler and his "superior race." Where Holmes uses his intellect to help America and allies defeat and humiliate Hitler.
Is this time period the time where Sherlock Holmes should be?


message 2: by Bruce (new)

Bruce Holmes should be in the Victorian-Georgian era as Doyle wrote him. Not the wWII era or later, especially. There were some good Holmes films made in and set in the 1900’s-1940’s, but WWII and later had too many monumental changes. He also isn’t supposed to a spy or involved in espionage. He’s supposed to solve smaller problems.


message 3: by Bruce (new)

Bruce Also, Holmes is primarily a literary character, not a film character.


message 4: by Claudia (new)

Claudia | 2 comments I'm sorry, but 'Holmes uses his intellect to help America and allies defeat and humiliate Hitler' is my least favourite set-up and the main reason why I dislike Basil Rathborne's Holmes so much. Give me a good victorian-based story, and I will be happy.


message 5: by J. (new)

J. Rubino (jrubino) | 152 comments There is a famous essay by Edgar W. Smith, "What Is It We Love in Sherlock Holmes?" In the first part, he writes: "We love the times in which he lived, of course, the half-remembered, half-forgotten times of snug Victorian illusion..."
I think Holmes belongs in that latter Victorian, early Edwardian era, where there were still vestiges of chivalry and where a limited technology required Holmes to rely on energy and wits. Some how, it's just not Holmes, if he's sitting in front of a screen checking for clues in someone's Twitter feed.


message 6: by Demetrius (last edited Jan 28, 2020 10:14AM) (new)

Demetrius Sherman | 23 comments Bruce wrote: "Also, Holmes is primarily a literary character, not a film character."

Hello Bruce.
I've always loved Victorian Holmes for the reasons others do, but thought Rathbone was good. But didn't Conan Doyle give a playwright permission for Holmes to be married in a play ? Would it move Holmes out of the literary character and indicate changes to Holmes were okay with Doyle you think?


message 7: by Bruce (new)

Bruce He probably wouldn’t mind too much as there were films made in his lifetime set in the 20’s, but the better films are set in the correct period. I’d rather see them do the whole stories he wrote filmed and set in the correct period, not modified. The wwii films were mostly lousy, and updated films and tv made since then have been worse.


message 8: by Bruce (new)

Bruce It’s also the flavor. Much as there’s an atmosphere to Dracula, The Picture of Dorian Gray, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, and other literature, there’s a unique look to it, whether in the imagination or on screen. It’s a character all it’s own, and is wrecked by a modern setting.


message 9: by Barbara (new)

Barbara | 131 comments Demetrius wrote: "Bruce wrote: "Also, Holmes is primarily a literary character, not a film character."

Hello Bruce.
I've always loved Victorian Holmes for the reasons others do, but thought Rathbone was good. But d..."


Yeah - I think it was the playwright and actor William Gilette - Doyle said something like "marry him or murder him or do what you want with him.

I think the first Basil Rathbone movie was The Hound of the Baskervilles and it was a period piece and pretty decent job. The ones set in the 40s always seemed off to me.


message 10: by Bruce (new)

Bruce I loved the Gillette movie. It stuck to the spirit of the stories, and Doyle even approved of it and enjoyed it. Also, at the end of the film and the last few lines of the written play, it’s not definite that Holmes and Alice marry. It could be seen as taking place between Valley of Fear and The Final Problem. There were even anachronisms between the stories The Valley of Fear and The Final Problem. Watson hears about Moriarty for the first time in The Final Problem - which was written first and set later - and then again in The Valley of Fear - which was written later, but set first.

Gillette is in my top 5 favorite Holmes portrayals.


message 11: by Demetrius (new)

Demetrius Sherman | 23 comments Barbara wrote: "Demetrius wrote: "Bruce wrote: "Also, Holmes is primarily a literary character, not a film character."

Hello Bruce.
I've always loved Victorian Holmes for the reasons others do, but thought Rathbo..."

I believe the first Rathbone movies were in Victorian times but for some reason switched to modern times. If so, I don't know why.


message 12: by Bruce (new)

Bruce Because WWII had started, it switched to a different studio, so they decided to turn Holmes into war propaganda. Another reason why a Holmes WWII movie wouldn’t work today. A WWII propaganda Holmes movie wouldn’t make much sense today.


message 13: by Demetrius (last edited Jan 29, 2020 02:30PM) (new)

Demetrius Sherman | 23 comments I agree propaganda isn't good, but pipe smoking, cocaine injecting, flawed but genius Holmes winning against racists claiming to be supermen without flaws says something.


back to top