A wonderful piece on Rathbone and Flynn sword fights.

Flynn & Rathbone – the perfect duelists

Read almost any study of the Golden Age of movies and sooner or later you will probably come up against a reference to the “classic pairing” of Errol Flynn and Basil Rathbone as swashbuckling duellists. They are the go-to names and imagery for the genre. When you want to illustrate a classic swordfight – you use a still from THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD. In the collective consciousness these two fought each other through countless rounds in countless films. Rathbone and Flynn, Flynn and Rathbone locking swords, throwing giant shadows across our memory as they parry and thrust and leap in an eternal, immortal showdown.

So, in how many movies did they duel each other? Ten? Seven? Five?

No, actually it was two.

I will let you read the rest at the source;

And another good piece here;

Two Holmes' in one movie!

A lot of times when watching older movies I will read the list of co-starring actors and see if any of those listed became famous in other roles. My wife hates that I then tell her these little bits of trivia. (But then again my wife hates the bagpipes.) She is also trying to get my daughter to hate that I do that. My daughter is holding out.

But I digress.

While watching the Rathbone/Bruce film, "Dressed to Kill" (1946) I noticed the name Holmes Herbert. (1882-1956).
An English born actor who never made a film in his home country, but played a supporting role in many American made films with notable English Actors. And as you can see from the list, he was in several films with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce.

The Adventures of Robin Hood, The Charge of the Light Brigade, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes as well as Dressed to Kill. And The Pearl of Death. (And the list goes on with other of the Holmes movies and other Rathbone films. Holmes Herbert IMDb).

A couple of years ago, one of the hosts of the Academy Awards, got in a little trouble for commenting on the fact that at that time it seemed Jude Law was in just about everything that came out that year.
If you look back at some of these old character actors, the same would seem to be the case.

We can not however blame his mother for choosing the name because she loved the works of Doyle. He was born before STUD.

But it just goes to show you can never have too many Holmes'.
Right Brad?

Dressed to Kill (1946)

Several old Sherlock Holmes movies are available free to watch on Amazon Prime at the moment.
Since I don't usually get to watch many movies start to finish at one setting, Amazon Prime works well for my down time.

Last night I started watching this the last Rathbone/Bruce Sherlock Holmes adventure.

I have not finished it yet.

But one thing I did enjoy was the opening exchange of dialog between Rathbone as Holmes and Bruce as Watson.

After the first couple of movies with Rathbone and Bruce as Holmes and Watson,  many feel the series suffered from the move to more modern times that the shows took after the Adventure and Hound.

But at least this opening segment of Dressed to Kill seemed to remain fairly in tune with the Canon and offered a comfortable setting for the two to start their adventure.

Do tell. . . . .

Steven Moffat: ‘Sherlock’ Season 4 Will Have Fans ‘Desperate for Season 5′

There’s still no airdate set for the fourth season of “Sherlock,” but in a new interview withEntertainment Weekly, notoriously tight-lipped co-creator Steven Moffat did offer some vague clues to tease fans.

“There are some answers coming to questions nobody has asked,” he said. “We’re very exultant about a little thing we’ve set up that no one is talking about.”

That statement follows his cryptic remarks from backstage at the 2014 Emmys, when he told reporters: “We have a plan to top (last season), and I do think our plan is devastating. We practically reduced our cast to tears by telling them the plan.”

Diehard fans of the show are sure to be “desperate for series five” after they’re through with four, he said. “We’re certainly going to put them through the mill. It’s going to be more of an emotional upheaval.”

In the interview, Moffat also discussed how this coming season will be different from past seasons, how he feels about Sherlock/Watson fan fiction and the possibility of a “Doctor Who”/”Sherlock” crossover.

Moffat explained that each season of “Sherlock” has a different theme. “The first series was all about the beginning of their friendship. Second about the formative stages, the love and fear and loss and all that. The third was good days, me and my pal and my pal’s wife,” he said.

Season four is “going to be … I suppose you’d say … consequences. It’s consequences. Chickens come to roost. It’s dark in some ways — obviously, it’s great fun and a Sherlock Holmes romp and all that — but there’s a sense of … things … coming back to bite you.”

The showrunner addressed the fan fantasy of a crossover episode for the two series he oversees: “Sherlock” and “Doctor Who.” Moffat said he’s more open to the idea of the merger than the rest of his colleagues. “If people want to, we should give it to them,” he said. “But I got persuaded by Mark, Benedict, [executive producer Sue Vertue] and Martin saying, ‘Look, it will never be as good as they think it’s going to be,’ and then I say, ‘Yes, but we’ll just bang it out and make it as good.’ ‘Yeah, but you can’t give everybody everything they want all the time.’ I’m in the camp of giving them everything they want. But I think they’re sane and right and I’m just a tart.”

As for the abundance of fan fiction that places Benedict Cumberbatch’s Sherlock and Martin Freeman’s Watson in, um, not-so-elementary situations, Moffat won’t disparage it. “It’s creative and exciting,” he said. “I refuse to mock it — because I’m a man who writes Sherlock Holmes fan fiction for a living!”

Before season four of “Sherlock” bows, the dynamic duo will be transported to Victorian London for a special episode. BBC and PBS’ “Masterpiece” have yet to release an airdate for the special, and season four is likely to air in early 2016.

source

Addictive. . .

I don't very often get the opportunity to sit down and catch up on Sherlockian video or audio programs that I hear about and would love to catch.

Last night however was an exception.
With a little time between loads of laundry I was finally able to watch the web series 'Baker Street', starring and Hannah Drew and Karen Slater. They are part of the creative team also.

I had first heard about the show on IHOSE and put it on my Sherlockian bucket list.

The show developed a lot over it's three episodes, growing a little with each one. The performances definitely hold your attention and the stories are good enough to carry the show. Camera work got better and more creative as the episodes went along.
I actually think it would be less fun if it had better production values. It works well just the way it is.

Maybe because the gender of both lead characters has been flipped, the fact the both Holmes and Watson are women does not seem to be a problem and works well in the modern setting.
I hope they can make more episodes.

Another fan of the lessor known works.

"Brigadier Gerard, from the short stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.  Gerard is the bravest, most dashing, most romantic, chivalrous, valiant soldier of the Napoleonic Wars, and he's always eager to let you know it, because he's the most honest, too.

Doyle is, of course, best remembered for creating Sherlock Holmes, but some of his other characters - Professor Challenger, Sir Nigel, etc - are just as compelling, and self-aggrandizing raconteur is very high up on the list, because jeez louise, the stories are REALLY funny.  Also good action/adventure, but really funny.

He seesaws between the 2nd and 3rd Hussars and doesn't make Brigadier until he's back in the 2nd, I think, but I have him in a 3rd uniform here at BG rank because it's a uniform better suited to his pomposity.  Poetic license and all."

See the artists page here.

We have seen his work before in Sherlock paper figure set.

What did they do for you?

Lets face it, ever since his very first appearance in Beeton's Christmas Annual, outside influences have been effecting our image of Sherlock Holmes.
Obviously for early readers of the Canon, the first illustrations first shaped how Holmes was perceived.
And the first time two readers of the Annual or the Strand got together to discuss aspects of the stories, discussion and 'higher Criticism' started to affect our thoughts and images of Sherlock Holmes.
It can probably be said that out of all the fictional characters out there, none have had more written about things that were not written about in the books.
So many of our discussions about the Canon are about filling in between Doyle's wonderful lines.
And if we are in anyway involved, whether in printed form or face to face, in discussions, we can't help but be influenced by that input. Some more so than others.
Many we totally disagree with, while others give us pause for thought and reflection, and, in the end, fill in some of the details of Holmes' character and personality.

I first became familiar with the printed Holmes in 1977 while spending September in an old fishing/hunting camp in the back woods of Maine. I was alone for a month with the nearest town a two mile lake crossing and a twenty one mile road drive away. There was no electricity, and looking back on it now fondly, I had to read what ever books I acquired in town by gas light.

Even though that was really my first meeting with Holmes, I still had images from the Rathbone movies to give the characters faces. Rathbone was of me fathers era, but his face had been in many adds and Sunday matinees of my youth.

I don't recall if by 1977 I had actually seen any his Holmes films, probably had in part, but I knew who he was and that he played Sherlock Holmes. For many years he was the face of Holmes for me and he still makes up part of it.
But he never actually made me think anymore about Holmes. His mannerisms never made me reflect on whether or not the Canonical Holmes would have been like that in anyway other than his image.
I must confess that at this point in my Canonical career I was unfamiliar with anything called 'higher criticism'.

In about 1988 I was introduced to Sherlockian discussion with the forming of a local scion society.
It was at these meetings I learned there was more to these stories than what was just between the two hard covers. There was actually filler material Doyle never wrote about, and probably never cared about, but that we find addictive.
And along the way, much of that filler material has shaped our perception of Holmes.
Even the material we choose to discard sometimes makes us examine the perception.

And that leads me to my point of this post.

In any way have the last three most talked about Holmes portrayals, Brett, Cumberbatch, Miller, affected in any way your images of the Canonical Holmes, or at least made you examine something a little differently?

Let's start with Brett.

Over the years Brett has become my favorite film portrayal of Holmes (especially his early years). It didn't start out that way. It took me a little while for that affection to grow. At first I thought the portrayal was a little to melodramatic and staged (which has been argued by others).
But eventually when taking the episodes in review with the Canon I really started liking his performance.
Eventually, through Brett, I came to appreciate the humor in Holmes.
Every once in a while the twinkle in his eye would show a little bit of the man in Holmes that was seldom glimpsed.
It will always be a shame that he never got to do all the stories.

While I still think Benedict Cumberbatch's 'Sherlock' is still the best thing to happen to the world of Sherlock Holmes in a very long time, his portrayal is the one I wrestle with the most.
While I find many aspects of his performance 'spot on' to an image I have of Holmes, many of the quirks the writers write in to his Holmes I find irritating. Irritating in a good way in that it makes me examine even more the foundations I have under my Holmes.
Unfortunately some of the irritating quirks have become the foundation that much of the 'fan' fanfare is based on.
But even that makes us examine our views, so is therefore a good thing.
While the latest generation of Sherlockians, old and young, are probably quite pleased with the time and setting of 'Sherlock', it could be argued that there are not many of the older generation Sherlockians who do not wish Mr. Cumberbatch would do Victorian era Holmes.
(Keep our fingers crossed for Christmas.)

Benedict's portrayal of Holmes was easy to embrace in the beginning, but probably provides less sustenance as it goes along.
So, while I love 'Sherlock', and the show has brought up much good discussion, I have found the show has done little to change or adjust my image of the Canonical Holmes. I think it even lacks the depth to make us even compare it very deeply to the Canonical Sherlock.
We can however imagine Benedict's 'Sherlock' in a deerstalker and Iverness cape.

It can probably be said without much argument
that 'Elementary' is the most criticized and controversial of the new main stream interpretations of Sherlock Holmes. And not without good cause.
But I think it can also be argued that it offers the most in Canonical discussion since Brett for the real (you can decide what is real) Sherlockian.
Although much of what is portrayed in 'Elementary' we find if not disgusting at least offensive to our image of Holmes, it has been brave enough to force us to examine aspects of Holmes life that we often don't want to think about, or that we have neatly put away some where safe (for me that would be the constant reference to his drug habit). The show dares us to think about the dark side of Sherlock's personality. And sometimes we don't like what it makes use think about. I have respect for the show in that it makes me want to think about the Canon. Miller's Holmes has added some depth to my Sherlock.
While much of Miller's portrayal makes me examine the Canonical Holmes, he will never be the image of Sherlock Holmes for me. I can't imagine him in a deerstalker or Iverness cape.

It would be fun, and educational, and maybe impossible to have a class of students. all with little knowledge of Holmes and have them all read a few of the same stories and without conversation between themselves, then write down their images of Holmes. Everyone I imagine would be slightly or greatly different.

It could probably be argued that Robert Downey Jr. should be added to this discussion, but, for me, his films, although fun, would not stand up to this discussion unless we were talking about portrayals of John Watson.






I must admit here that what ever conclusions I have come up with from any of these portrayals have been helped along in some cases by discussions with learned (and some not so) Sherlockians.

Have any of these modern portrayals had any effect on your interpretations of Holmes, good or bad?  Are there others that have?

What does it say about you?

What The Sherlock Archetype Teaches Us About Ourselves

Archetypes are useful but risky storytelling tools. Used poorly, they oversimplify, silence nuance, and induce cliches, but used well, they can leverage existing social and cultural forces to powerful effect, potentially critiquing those very same forces. Furthermore, enduring archetypes reveal aspects of culture both good and bad. What we like tells us a lot about who we are. Since his invention by Edgar Allen Poe in three short stories featuring C. Auguste Dupin, the "brilliant detective who is also a total jerk" archetype has become a fixture in our culture, most popularly and powerfully through the interpretations of Sherlock Holmes, a fixture that reveals some of the bad and some of the good in our society.

First, the bad. The "high functioning sociopath" oozes white male privilege. What would happen if an African-American detective walked into a crime scene and talked to the police officers the way Holmes does? There are a few answers to this question (though, "He'd get arrested" and "He'd get shot" are probably the most likely) but he certainly wouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt, or be allowed to flaunt regulations, and he certainly wouldn't be deferred to. How long would an African-American detective broadcasting arrogance and casual disregard keep his job in Louisiana? Certainly not as long as Rust Cohle. The Sherlockian character can only exist, in part, because of the inherent deference our culture still gives to white men, no matter how they behave. White men, in general, can get away with being jerks, so, obviously, white men who are also geniuses who solve crimes, would get an even greater pass for bad behavior.

And then there's the "male" part of the privilege. An assumption of "emotional-ness" still smothers female characters (and authors) with enough influence that I doubt anyone would read a book or "We love it when Sherlock is cruel. Or at least we are entertained by his cruelty, his arrogance, his casual disregard for society, for authority, for, really, anything that doesn't come from his own brain."watch a show featuring a woman acting like Holmes. The closest I've seen to a female version of this archetype is Temperance Brennan from Kathy Reich's "Bones" series, but even though she has the genius for detail, the brilliance of deduction, and the logically dictated disconnect from the emotions of society, she at least tries to be decent human being. She participates in the game of decency. She doesn't use her logic and brilliance maliciously. She isn't intentionally cruel.

And yet, we love it when Sherlock is cruel. Or at least we are entertained by his cruelty, his arrogance, his casual disregard for society, for authority, for, really, anything that doesn't come from his own brain. There is something about the "genius who is an asshole" that is persistently entertaining.

A part of is is our relationship to confidence, another part in how we interact with "geniuses" or "great men," but the most interesting, to me, anyway, aspect of the appeal of the character is much more visceral and much more mundane. We've all been in line behind someone at the coffee shop who just can't make up his mind, and we've all wanted to tell said person exactly how useless they must be as a human being. We've all had bosses and managers with the professional intelligence of a slime mold, whose incomprehensible decisions and directives make our working days hellish and wanted to tell them the exact receptacle into which their latest productivity policy should be shoved. The jerk taking up three seats on the subway, or stopped in the absolute middle of the sidewalk looking up at the buildings, or has their cell phone on speaker phone in a public place for some goddamn reason. Through the Sherlock Holmes character, we vicariously say all the cruel, malicious, arrogant, and dismissive things we long to say to frustrating strangers, bosses, and friends.

The thing is, you're still pretty likely to get away with saying the things Holmes does. Most of the "Through the Sherlock Holmes character, we vicariously say all the cruel, malicious, arrogant, and dismissive things we long to say to frustrating strangers, bosses, and friends"time, if you call the guy ahead of you in line a jerk or an idiot, nothing tangibly and immediately bad is going to happen to you. That guy is most likely not going to punch you in the face even though he might want to. You're probably not going to get arrested or shot.

Even as we wish to be Sherlock Holmes in isolated moments in our lives, we appreciate the social conventions that ensure he is an aberration. We fundamentally value the emotional connection to other people, even bosses and strangers, that is facilitated by keeping some of that rage inside. Yes, every now and then (maybe every day, depending on your commute) we wish for the ability to tell someone how awful we think they are, but we are also grateful for a society in which we can reasonably expect to get through most days without someone telling us they think we're awful. Through the Sherlockian archetype we can have our cake and eat it too, experiencing the freedom of social disregard while living in a world of social regard.

Archetypes are oversimplifications, images and myths devoid of the nuances of reality, but they still speak to fundamental aspects of our culture and their successful use in a work of art depends entirely on how the artist uses their oversimplifications. For all his flaws, and for all the flaws he reveals in our culture, ultimately, Sherlock Holmes and all the jerk detectives in his lineage, demonstrate just how much we appreciate the illogical and utterly meaningless social conventions that get us from the start of our day to the end of it with a relative minimum of emotional and social anguish. He allows us to vicariously enjoy his callous freedom, while appreciating the conventions that almost guarantee we never have to deal with someone like that in real life.

Josh Cook is the author of An Exaggerated Murder (Melville House).

Source

Okay, wait for it. . .

Posted March 19 2015 — 4:54 PM EDT

First BBC’s Sherlock, then CBS’ Elementary and now Fox is getting into the Sherlock Holmes game too—sort of. 

The network is near a deal to order a new series called Houdini & Doyle, a supernatural procedural (think The X-Files or Sleepy Hollow) that teams characters based on two historical figures—Harry Houdini (the master escape artist) and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (the creator of the master detective).   

Here’s the official description from Deadline, which broke the news: “Two of the great characters of the 20th century — Houdini, master magician, escape artist and paranormal debunker, and Doyle, creator of the world’s greatest detective and a paranormal aficionado — grudgingly join forces to investigate crimes with a supernatural slant. Although they’re both rich, famous and brilliant, they’re the original odd couple, with Houdini believing in nothing, Doyle in everything.” 

Apparently, Houdini and Doyle were friends in real life so that part, at least, isn’t a stretch. The project is going straight to series and is fromThe Librarian creator David Titcher, House creator David Shore and writer-producer David Hoselton.

source

Is a Sherlockian or a Holmesian?

Evidently, Flower Mound resident is an expert on Sherlock Holmes

By DAVID FLICK dflick@dallasnews.com

Staff Writer

Published: 12 March 2015 10:55 PM

Updated: 13 March 2015 08:25 AM

No one can say definitively why the stories of Sherlock Holmes have been popular for well over a century. But Don Hobbs has a clue.

“Deep down, everybody would like to be as smart as Sherlock Holmes, that’s what it is,” said Hobbs, 63, a Flower Mound resident who is one the world’s leading Sherlockians, as they’re known.

Hobbs has 12,000 Holmes-related publications in a spare room of his house, with samples of all but two — Kazakh and Sindhi — of the 108 languages into which the detective stories have been translated. His job with a radiology software company allows him to travel the world to speak to fellow Holmes aficionados, including an upcoming speech in Japan.

And he was recently inducted into the Baker Street Irregulars, an invitation-only society of 300 Holmes experts worldwide. The organization is named after the band of street urchins who sometimes did surveillance for Holmes.

Hobbs displayed his familiarity with Holmes and the detective’s creator, Arthur Conan Doyle, as he strolled recently through the Sherlock Holmes exhibition at the Perot Museum of Nature and Science.

“There are only 36 or 37 of these in the world,” he said, tapping the protective glass over an 1886 copy of Beeton’s Christmas Annual, which featured “A Study in Scarlet,” Doyle’s first Sherlock Holmes story. “He got paid 25 pounds for it. Not bad.”

He recalled that the idea for one of Doyle’s best-known stories grew out of carriage rides with a friend through the Devon countryside, where they discussed the legend of a large hound that terrorized the desolate Dartmoor. Driving the coach was a 17-year-old boy named Harry Baskerville.

“I’ve been to his gravesite,” Hobbs said, of the inspiration for Doyle’s The Hound of the Baskervilles.

When Hobbs toured the Perot exhibition before it opened last month, the museum staff was understandably nervous.

“We didn’t know if he might be critical, but he wasn’t,” said Krista Villarreal Moore, museum spokeswoman. “He said, ‘I’m like a kid in a candy store.’”

Hobbs’ immersion in Holmes began 30 years ago. He had recently sold his collection of Stephen King’s works, some of which he had bought for 50 cents and sold for $200. He went to Half Price Books and used $250 of a $10,000 profit to buy every Holmes book on the shelves.

“I started with the vacuum cleaner philosophy. I bought everything related to Sherlock Holmes I could find,” he said. “When you have the collector gene, you just want more and more.”

He considers himself more of a collector than a fan.

“I think Doyle was a solid writer; I don’t think he was the greatest writer. He probably was not even the best mystery writer,” Hobbs said.

Doyle’s accomplishment was to create a universally intriguing character in Holmes. And a surprisingly believable one, he said.

Moore agrees.

“We’ve had visitors tell us that they didn’t realize that Sherlock Holmes wasn’t a real person,” she said.

Hobbs said Doyle eventually became uneasy with the popularity of the stories.

“He considered himself a serious writer and was surprised when Sherlock Holmes took on a life of his own,” Hobbs said. “He tried to kill him off in one story, but the demand was so great, he had to bring him back again.”

Part of the detective’s enduring appeal has been his adaptability. Movies during World War II showed him hunting Nazis; those in the 1970s played up his addiction to cocaine. More recent renditions depict him as an action hero.

He has been played by a variety of celebrated actors, from William Gillette on Broadway in the 19th century to Benedict Cumberbatch in the current PBS Masterpiece Theater series. The most famous performances were Basil Rathbone’s in the mid-20th century.

The Perot’s program notes for the exhibition praise Rathbone’s “sharp, elegant performance,” but the series of 14 movies is not Hobbs’ favorite.

“The first two were pretty good, if you can get over the fact that Watson comes off as a buffoon. After that, RKO Pictures took it over and the movies were just over-the-top,” he said.

Not that Holmes fans are afraid of going over the top.

Hobbs attended an annual birthday party in Moriarty, N.M., for Holmes’ nemesis, Professor Moriarty, where the detective’s fans dishonored the villain’s memory by burning a pile of manure imported from all 50 states.

“One of the attractions for me is that I found early on that Sherlockians are among the most interesting people,” he said.

He makes an effort to meet fellow experts whenever he travels, sometimes to the exasperation of his wife, who is — at best — ambivalent about devoting a room in their house to Holmes books.

“My wife is a total non-Sherlockian,” he said. “She once said to me, ‘The world doesn’t revolve around Sherlock Holmes, you know.’ I told her, ‘Yes, it does.’”

SOURCE

Elementary - Home sweet home

What the brownstone reveals about ‘Elementary’s’ Sherlock Holmes

Story here.

Make of it what you will. . .

Arthur Conan Doyle was the victim of a police conspiracy

Here.

What do you want to be called?

Sherlockian/Holmesian Brad has done his part, in a recent post, of rekindling the debates of "Are you a Sherlockian or a Holmesian" and "what should fans be called."
The source of this discussional rebirth can be found here.
The argument put forth in the blog he referred to actually has nothing to do with what any of us should be called, but rather which show, Elementary or Sherlock, the author preferred and his reasons for his choice.

Although I agreed with many of his points, I did contest his use of Sherlockians as the name used to describe fans of Sherlock.
If he had put forth the name before it was already being used I think it would have stuck.
But it has already been taken.

But what do you prefer to be called? Our do you prefer not having to put a name on your 'hobby' at all.
I usually refer to my self as a Sherlockian when talking to people who may know what that means or at least likely to be able to figure it out.
When talking to folks who may require an explanation if I use Sherlockian, I usually just say I am a big 'follower' of Sherlock Holmes, what ever that means and I guess in many ways that to would require an explanation of its own.
I have probably even used the term 'fan' at times in more casual settings. (Please forgive me.)

So, what do you think of yourself as? And does it change depending on who you talk to depending on whether or not an explanation would be required.

Would you rather be called a 'fan' than be called 'Irregular'?

Which makes you bristle and which makes you hold your head high.

Elementary S3E17 - 'T-Bone and the Iceman' - almost got across Thor Bridge

I think the thing that is bothering me the most about Elementary at the moment is that the plots are not keeping up to the back story of the characters. (Like another reviewer said, we don't watch Elementary for the plots.)

What I mean is; The plots or stories are becoming to repetitive in plot and criminal type, while it is doing a great job making back stories for Holmes and Watson.
(James comments made me rethink some of that back story stuff.)

Holmes is asked to help investigate the death of a young women found after a hit and run, and I guess another hit. Her body appears to be mummified. Which in it self seems to be the start of a good story.
Holmes deduces that her body appeared the way it did from exposure to a refrigerant.
The case then becomes who stole the refrigerant and why did they kill her.

It turns out the plot involved a cancer victim taking revenge against an estranged cousin who would not help him in his time of need.

My question about the plot is this; The cancer victim already got away with killing his cousin, why did he feel he needed to get rid of the body after it had already been accepted into the freezer program.
Now I was a little distracted near the end of this episode, so I may have missed that point and will try to watch the end again tonight to catch it.

James comments in my last episode post made me really think about how this show is attempting to fill in back story for both Holmes and Watson. While I don't always like the approach it takes, it is making a good case for itself.

We know Watson was, for what ever reason, estranged from any living relatives in his family.
Elementary explored that somewhat in this episode.

In this episode Holmes also commented on keeping at a  distance his kin, and Canonically we never see a close relationship between Holmes and what ever remaining family he has.

It will also be interesting to see Watson's dealings with her mother over the next season.

Another thing Elementary makes us do is to examine societies acceptance of Holmes' behavior as he is perceived by others in his own time. Would the image we all create of Holmes in our minds be out of place in Victorian times, or thought of as socially strange. Millers Holmes is often portrayed like that.

Looking at it through slightly more open eyes, I give this episode;

Comments by Lucy Liu on what may be coming for her Watson.

"Elementary

While Liu's own door is opening as an artist, the life of her character Joan Watson is currently unraveling. Still reeling from the death of her boyfriend Andrew (Homeland's Raza Jaffrey), Watson will encounter family drama on Thursday's episode of the CBS procedural. 

Having moved back into the brownstone with her partner in crimesolving Sherlock Holmes (Jonny Lee Miller), Watson is about to embark on an "unhealthy" stretch: "What makes Joan special is that she's not Sherlock. That she starts to become more and more like him is not going to be a good balance for both of them." 

Liu says, "Watson finding her balance again is going to be a journey for her until the finale – and probably in the next season, too." 

That said, even though Liu admits her character "has to pull herself together a little bit ... the not pulling herself together is going to be interesting, too." "

Source

An interesting site on Holmes (and others) on medicine and drugs and other stuff.

Here

Elementary - S3E16 - "For all you know." - and not much to say.

I almost didn't review this episode. From a Canonical or Sherlockian point of view there isn't much to review. Oh, sure we can really dig and 'play the game' (no capital letters this episode) and come up with some good discussion points, but for me this is one of the least Canonical of all the episodes.

The acting by all parties was up the the higher standards of most of the episodes. And the plot and crime were not without interest.
But without a doubt, the episode could have put any other names to the characters and in would not have made much difference.

Holmes is accused of murdering a young women several years before we meet him, when his drug habit was almost totally to the point of consuming him. He has no memory of the time and believes himself capable of perhaps having done it. Watson is convinced otherwise.
Now this story line could have been interesting if it had been handle in a more Sherlockian kind of way. But instead the plot fell along the lines of the oft repeated scenario of a crocked politician. We have seen that plot devise way to many times already.

I have never liked the consistent reference to the drug habits of Mr. Holmes that sometimes pops up way to often in this series, especially to how addictive Holmes was. To much of his personality in Elementary is determined by that, and it has become tiresome, at least for me.

So on that note, I can only give this episode, for it's lack of really much to do with Sherlock Holmes, even more so than usual;

We just have to quit cutting this show Sherlockian slack.

He even made Yahoo.

Ian McKellen Suits Up As Sherlock in the New Drama ‘Mr. Holmes’

Between Robert Downey Jr.’s action-hero detective and Benedict Cumberbatch’s modern-day sleuth, there’s no shortage of Sherlock Holmes stories out there. Still, how can you say no to Ian McKellen in a top hat and beekeepers’ outfit?

Behold the first trailer for Mr. Holmes, the new drama from Dreamgirls director Bill Condon that features McKellen as the 93-year-old legendary detective working on one last mystery. Holmes, in this adaptation of the 2005 novel A Simple Trick of the Mind, is an unwilling celebrity, thanks to the exaggerated stories of his exploits authored by his partner Dr. John Watson. He’s also a reluctant retiree thanks to a case he bungled 30 years prior. The screw-up still sticks in his craw however, and since he does his best to keep his failing memory intact, he returns to that last, haunting case. 

Laura Linney co-stars in the film as Holmes’ cook and housekeeper, while Milo Parker plays her young son and Holmes’ protégé.

The film got good reviews after its premiere at the Berlin Film Festival, with Variety calling McKellen “predictably superb” and Condon’s direction “elegant.” No release date has been set.

source

Elementary S3E15 - 'When your number's up" - But who's counting. . . . a review.

We know who the bad guy is right away. Holmes and Watson don't.
But, we don't know the motive.

Holmes and Watson investigate a series of murders involving victim compensation.

Murderess Dana Powell (played by the very talented Alicia Witt) thinks she deserves more than what she is going to get from the death of her husband on an airline flight crash.
She sets out killing other relatives of the victims to increase her amount of compensation making her case for what each one is worth.
Holmes and Watson and the NYPD first think it is a plot to discredit first the compensation attorney then the airline.
The plot was interesting in it's various twists and made for a good story. Alicia Witt played a convincing bad guy in a very sociopath way.
Although the plot did not offer much in the way of Sherlockianisms, Miller's Holmes was well played in a very subtle and controlled way that always seems to benefit the show.
Canonically all I came up with was the use of (but no mention of) the 'irregulars'.

Much of the story still focused on Watson's getting over the death of Andrew and here decision to return to Baker St.

Canonically a couple of discussions can be found in that story line.
In the Canon, not much is made of Watson's return to Baker St. after the loss of Mary. Matter of fact it is barely covered at all. How did Watson deal with his grief and loss? Was Holmes there at all for him? Was his loss of his wife really the reason he returned to Baker St.?

Another discussion point may be; What did Watson bring or have in Baker St.
In this episode of Elementary we find Holmes insisting on Watson keeping some of her belongings and still maintaining her own space once she returns to Bakers St. Canonically we know Watson had very little when he first met Holmes, but over the years we learn very little about what was his in Baker St. A couple of photos and maybe a writing desk. Once there anything else?
Did he maintain the severe habits learned in the military and kept very little? Or were there things never mentioned.

What I also picked up from this episode pertains to Doyle as much as it does Watson.
Canonically Watson never gives up his practice. In 'Elementary' Watson does.
Historically, although not completely, Doyle gave up most of his medical habits and at times played the detective. Is Joan Watson more like Doyle or more like Watson?

I enjoyed this episode, mostly again for the restrained performance by Miller. The plot was good with a strong supporting cast.

Because it made me think, I can fairly give it;

Does the saga continue????

Second book of 'lost' Sherlock story found, signed by 'Arthur Conan Doyle'.

You decide

Back from a short hiatus. . .

and will catch up on postings here shortly.