Sherlock Holmes films

I had originally thought to simply review the recent Sherlock Holmes film but since I have some items of a similar flavour in my collection I thought I might try to develop some sense of the transmission of Holmes to celluloid. I'm mostly prompted by a late night TV session a few weeks ago where I caught the second half of the 1959 version of The Hound of the Baskervilles starring Peter Cushing as the brilliant detective (and though I may be the only one who either noticed or cared I feel obliged to note that the same actor also portrayed Grand Moff Tarkin in Star Wars Episode IV).

Some years back, no doubt after an impulse buy from the DVD bins at Sam's Club my dad presented me with a mammoth Sherlock Holmes film collection. This set included a number of the old, old Holmes films as well as episodes from the well-known television series staring Basil Rathbone, whom has come to define the classic Holmes image (Calabash pipe, deerslayer cap, Inverness cloak, magnifying glass, etc.). I can't say that I've watched them all, not only for a lack of time but in some the sound and video quality is so poor simply as a function of the age of the film that they are practically unwatchable. But some of these films, even as early as a century ago, began a trend in altering literature for film which has become an extreme point of contention among modern moviegoers.

I can say with some authority (see last week's blog) that Conan Doyle developed a very specific style and temperament for his most interesting character. Holmes is eccentric, brooding, but confident and almost unfailingly genius. Who else can keep his tobacco in a Persian slipper on the couch yet intricately outwit the most dastardly of Professor Moriarty's plans? In many of these old film versions, whether because of time restrictions for character development, the adamant stylings of directors or actors, or simply a limited familiarity with what was then a new performance medium (the oldest of the films in this set was made in 1931), Holmes usually is only capable of exhibiting the confidence and a very brief moment of genius (usually in the final denoument). Don't get me wrong, these old black and white relics are still very fun to watch, but in terms of presenting Holmes for what he really could be, they fall short (but really only in the eyes of someone who knows the detective's potential). But this brings me to the rub of the recent film.

Since discovering that Robert Downey Jr. would be playing Holmes I had been quite excited and was not at all dismayed with the more action-esque dressing the character would be receiving at the hands of Guy Ritchie (I'm a big fan of Lock Stock and Snatch. Layer Cake not so much). But it was the trailers that prepared me for the reality that the Holmes I would be seeing would not be Doyle's Holmes exactly. I personally have found this strategy quite useful in enjoying a film and I have been ever surprised when Harry Potter fans or (barf) Twilight fans express disappointment that the film wasn't exactly like the book. In this case Holmes had the advantage of being a very dynamic character not necessarily tied to a specific plot. This both made the story new (which is refreshing for one familiar with Doyle's formula) and allowed me to be rewarded every time something book-accurate did happen to pop up; thus the quote I began with last week. In my opinion never before has an actor been more committed to exploring all of Holmes character traits nor has a filmmaker been so well funded to allow it. True it may lead to some repeated Hollywood gags and action crowd-pleasers but for me they are easily forgiven.
----
Sherlock Holmes Case Files: 10 Movies (plus selected episodes)