The film world lost one of its greats this week.
Kirk Douglas 1916-2019.
Not many of us can say we have never seen a Kirk Douglas movie.
Born poor, he became one of Hollywoods strongest personalities.
There is however a Sherlockian connection very early in his career.
In 1947 he took part in 'Morning becomes Electra'
Which also starred Raymond Massey who played Sherlock Holmes in . . . .
. . . 1937s The Speckled Band.
And who's daughter, Anna, was married to Jermey Brett for a while.
So, there you have it, there you are.
Showing posts with label Jeremy Brett. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jeremy Brett. Show all posts
Thursday, February 6, 2020
Thursday, August 3, 2017
One of my favorites is gone - Seven Degrees of Sherlock Holmes - Robert Hardy
Robert Hardy 1925 - 2017
RAF Vet., Actor, historian, one of my favorites.
I first watched him in All Creatures Great and Small.
Sherlockians know him as Milverton in the Granada series.
He is also known to have read some Holmes stories for audio books.
Known more recently for his time spent in the Harry Potter movies.
He was also a keen historian on the English Long Bow.
He could make any dialogue sound elegant.
RAF Vet., Actor, historian, one of my favorites.
I first watched him in All Creatures Great and Small.
Sherlockians know him as Milverton in the Granada series.
He is also known to have read some Holmes stories for audio books.
Known more recently for his time spent in the Harry Potter movies.
He was also a keen historian on the English Long Bow.
He could make any dialogue sound elegant.
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
Jeremy Brett in St Louis
In 1991 Jeremy Brett made an appearance in St Louis to promote Masterpiece and the new episodes of Sherlock Holmes.
The Harpooners of the Sea Unicorn helped host the event and provide a good display of Sherlock Holmes stuff. For many of us it was a chance to meet Mr. Brett.
Here are some photos we stuck together to show the crowd in attendance.
Jeremy is in the black suit to the right in this photo at the table.
The Harpooners display is on the left in both photos, in front of the Union Jack.
Here is a photo of him with us at the display.
As I have posted before, the young man with Brett correspond with him up until Brett's death.
The Harpooners of the Sea Unicorn helped host the event and provide a good display of Sherlock Holmes stuff. For many of us it was a chance to meet Mr. Brett.
Here are some photos we stuck together to show the crowd in attendance.
Jeremy is in the black suit to the right in this photo at the table.
The Harpooners display is on the left in both photos, in front of the Union Jack.
Here is a photo of him with us at the display.
As I have posted before, the young man with Brett correspond with him up until Brett's death.
Monday, August 15, 2016
Sherlock Holmes in the news - Jeremy Brett
Is celebrated Sherlock Holmes actor too white for a blue plaque? Fears political correctness has robbed star of commemoration
- Jeremy Brett is regarded as the greatest ever Sherlock Holmes
- But he has been snubbed for a blue plaque by English Heritage
- Poet Stephen Spender was similarly snubbed for his own plaque
PUBLISHED: 18:28 EST, 13 August 2016 | UPDATED: 19:39 EST, 13 August 2016
His portrayal of Sherlock Holmes is regarded as the greatest ever, and during a glittering 40-year acting career, Jeremy Brett starred opposite legends including Laurence Olivier and Audrey Hepburn.
But it seems he isn’t quite distinguished enough for English Heritage officials to place a coveted blue plaque outside his former home.
The actor failed to make the shortlist of those being considered for a plaque – at a meeting which called for greater racial diversity of those who are honoured.
The same panel also decided against including the poet Sir Stephen Spender on the shortlist, but instead recommended a little-known trade unionist and women’s rights activist be added.
While there is no evidence either Brett or Spender failed to make the cut on the grounds of ethnicity or gender, it raises the question of whether significant cultural figures are missing out on the honour for reasons of political correctness.
The revelation has angered Brett’s fans, who consider his to have been the definitive portrayal of the detective created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who has his own blue plaque in South-East London.
Old Etonian Brett enjoyed a distinguished career, starring opposite Olivier in The Merchant Of Venice and as Freddy in the 1964 film My Fair Lady with Audrey Hepburn.
The minutes of the meeting, obtained under Freedom of Information laws, do not give any indication as to why Brett was not thought suitable, but merely record a decision was taken not to shortlist him.
Anthony Horowitz, who was commissioned by the estate of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle to write the Sherlock Holmes follow-up novels The House Of Silk and Moriarty, said: ‘Jeremy Brett was by far the greatest Sherlock. For this work alone, with or without a blue plaque, he will never be forgotten.’
Details of the February 17 meeting also show a decision was taken not to honour Spender, who died in 1995. In 1965, he was appointed as the US’s equivalent of the Poet Laureate – the first non-American to hold the role. And in 1984, the year after his knighthood, the then US President Ronald Reagan quoted from his poem The Truly Great at a ceremony to mark the 40th anniversary of the D-Day Landings.
The documents also note: ‘The question of greater diversity in nominations was discussed. Given it was the public who made the nominations, there was an opportunity to communicate this more widely by linking promotional activity to Black History month.’ The committee also finalised plans to commemorate women’s rights campaigner Mary Macarthur.
Professor John Sutherland, who wrote the authorised biography of Spender, said: ‘It’s unfair he’s been overlooked. His poems of the 1930s are major works. I don’t recognise half of those recognised with blue plaques.’
English Heritage said: ‘The panel felt that, at present, Stephen Spender’s literary reputation was not strong enough for him to join poets such as John Betjeman, T. S. Eliot and Alfred, Lord Tennyson, all of whom have been commemorated.
‘The blue plaques panel considers about 60 suggestions a year. All nominations are taken seriously, but only a certain number – around 12 – can be put up every year.’
Monday, September 14, 2015
Popeye of the Baskervilles. . .
Had the pleasure this last Friday of attending a meeting with the Chester Baskerville Society in Chester Ill.
The meeting was held at the McClure Museum and was very well attended and was conducted by very gracious hosts.
The discussions for the evening were 3GAR and 3GAB with interesting papers on both.
I am not a big fan of 3GAB but found very much of interest in 3GAR.
Once again we must question Holmes logic in allowing Nathan to go on a wild goose chase while Holmes and Watson set a trap for 'Killer Evans'. Especially when we see the results of such goose chase.
HOUN and a couple of others should have taught him a lesson.
Lots of discussion in 3GAB centers around how Holmes' treated Dixie. I did not find it offensive or out of place when taken in context.
I don't know if I will make all the meetings of the Chester Baskerville Society because it is a rather long drive for me, but I know I will attend whenever I can.
If you remember from an earlier post, it was Mike McClures son who Jeremy Brett became rather fond of while in St Louis. Even called the young boy while a meeting of the CBS was going on. How would you love to have your meeting interrupted by Jeremy Brett.
The meeting was held at the McClure Museum and was very well attended and was conducted by very gracious hosts.
The discussions for the evening were 3GAR and 3GAB with interesting papers on both.
I am not a big fan of 3GAB but found very much of interest in 3GAR.
Once again we must question Holmes logic in allowing Nathan to go on a wild goose chase while Holmes and Watson set a trap for 'Killer Evans'. Especially when we see the results of such goose chase.
HOUN and a couple of others should have taught him a lesson.
Lots of discussion in 3GAB centers around how Holmes' treated Dixie. I did not find it offensive or out of place when taken in context.
I don't know if I will make all the meetings of the Chester Baskerville Society because it is a rather long drive for me, but I know I will attend whenever I can.
If you remember from an earlier post, it was Mike McClures son who Jeremy Brett became rather fond of while in St Louis. Even called the young boy while a meeting of the CBS was going on. How would you love to have your meeting interrupted by Jeremy Brett.
Monday, March 23, 2015
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?
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?
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
And I did not know this about Martin either!
Her (Martins mom)brother was the actor Jeremy Brett, who became famous for playing Sherlock Holmes. He was an absolutely lovely man. Very exciting and glamorous, he'd always make me feel amazing and full of confidence; like I'd picked the right thing to do in life. He was a real force and we all loved him.
I think Martin is actually a cousin of Jeremy's.
Or Jeremy was his mother's cousin.
I am still trying to find out for sure.
Okay, this one from the Express says; "Daphne’s (Martin's mother) cousin was actor Jeremy Brett whose most famous role was Sherlock Holmes. “Jeremy made you feel fantastic,” he said. “He gave me such confidence. I miss him a lot. I’m very close to his son David and his family.”
Now I don't need to do a 'Seven degrees of Sherlock Holmes' for him for two reasons.
I think Martin is actually a cousin of Jeremy's.
Or Jeremy was his mother's cousin.
I am still trying to find out for sure.
Okay, this one from the Express says; "Daphne’s (Martin's mother) cousin was actor Jeremy Brett whose most famous role was Sherlock Holmes. “Jeremy made you feel fantastic,” he said. “He gave me such confidence. I miss him a lot. I’m very close to his son David and his family.”
Now I don't need to do a 'Seven degrees of Sherlock Holmes' for him for two reasons.
Monday, November 17, 2014
A nice tribute to Brett. . .
Sherlock Holmes was played according to Doyle by Jeremy Brett
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- It was 30 years ago that I first met Sherlock Holmes.
He didn't look like Benedict Cumberbatch, the star of those marvelously modern"Sherlock" mysteries that air on PBS. And he didn't look like Jonny Lee Miller, the star of another contemporary Holmes take, CBS' "Elementary," which began its third season Thursday night on WOIO Channel 19.
He also didn't look like Basil Rathbone, the star of the addictive 1930s and '40s Sherlock Holmes films that regularly showed up on television when I was in school and first discovering the original stories penned by Arthur Conan Doyle. What kind of school? Why, elementary, my dear Watson.
The Sherlock Holmes I met in 1984 looked as if he had just stepped out of one of those Sidney Paget drawings that illustrated many of Doyle's stories when they ran in the British magazine The Strand. He looked like Jeremy Brett, who was starting his 10-year run as the great detective in a British television series that stressed fidelity to the celebrated source material.
No great mystery why Brett has been much on my mind of late. MPI Home Video has released a majestic Blu-ray box set, "Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Granada Television Series."
The 1984-94 Granada series featured 36 episodes and five films. This is the mother lode for anyone who so appreciated Brett playing Holmes according to Doyle: 12 discs and more than 38 hours of sheer Sherlockian joy (suggested retail price is $229.98).
Which brings us back to the summer night I met Sherlock Holmes. PBS was importing the Granada series for its "Mystery!" series in 1984, and, in those days, the "Masterpiece Theatre" and "Mystery!" press conferences were served up with a dinner in the grand ballroom of the Beverly Hills Hotel on Sunset Boulevard.
The "Mystery!" host, Vincent Price, was wandering around, and I was hoping to be placed at his table for dinner. I was looking around for Price when I realized a PBS publicist was standing in front of me. She had a favor to ask.
"Look, we have these two fellows from England, Jeremy Brett and David Burke, who are playing Holmes and Watson in these new mysteries," she said. "They're sitting by themselves. Would you mind sitting at their table?"
Remember, Brett's brilliant interpretation of Holmes was still a mystery to most Americans. And Brett was hardly a household name. Maybe -- maybe -- you would have recognized him as Freddy Eynsford-Hill in the 1964 film version of "My Fair Lady."
But it was an intriguing invitation. Somewhere behind that publicist's request was the thrilling cry uttered by the super sleuth (quoting Shakespeare) in "The Adventure of the Abbey Grange": "The game is afoot."
Only one other critic accepted the invitation. And that's how I lucked into one of the first Holmes interviews with Brett on American soil.
"The irony is that I've never been a big detective reader," Brett told me. "It's never been a big part of my life. I much prefer history. Everything I've learned has been from reading Doyle."
Gracious, glib and charming, Brett spoke of the immense pressure of getting it right for Sherlock devotees and for those encountering Holmes for the first time -- for children and adults. He had an actor's appreciation for a guiding principle articulated by Holmes.
"The little things are infinitely the most important," Holmes says in "A Case of Identity." "Never trust to general impressions, my boy, but concentrate yourself upon details."
Brett's portrayal soon was acclaimed coast to coast, and more adaptations followed. Edward Hardwicke replaced Burke as Watson, and the hope was that the entire Sherlock canon of 56 short stories and four novels would be translated for television.
"God willing, I'll get the canon done," Brett said in the early 1990s. "I mean, I'll probably finish them, getting the walker out. We're going to finish the canon, and that idea is very exciting."
Alas, it was not to be. When Brett died of heart failure, at age 59, in September 1995, 42 of the 60 stories had been adapted (the 36 one-hour episodes and five films, with one film using elements from two stories).
The New York Times said at the time of his death: "More than any other actor since Basil Rathbone, Mr. Brett was regarded as the quintessential Holmes: breathtakingly analytical, given to outrageous disguises and the blackest moods and relentless in his enthusiasm for solving the most intricate crimes."
If you want overwhelming proof of that, it can be found in this handsome box set, which includes such extras as commentaries by director John Madden and an interview with Hardwicke, who also was Brett's Watson for the 1988 London stage production of writer Jeremy Paul's "The Secret of Sherlock Holmes."
My wife and I saw that production, but it was not my last close encounter with the man who would be Holmes. That occurred in Cleveland.
Brett came to town in late 1991 to give a talk and tape promotional spots for WVIZ Channel 25. I was contributing stories to two magazines specializing in the mystery genre, so my friend Tom Feran, The Plain Dealer's TV critic at the time, and I were given two splendid hours to talk Holmes with Brett at a downtown Cleveland hotel.
It wasn't quite 221B Baker Street, but it was the next best thing. So there we sat, playing Holmes and Watson (we'll argue later about which is which), searching for clues to the enduring popularity of Sherlock in general and Brett's Sherlock in particular.
"I didn't want to do it at first," Brett told us. "My response was, 'Oh, everybody has done that. What could I possibly add that hasn't been done before?' "
We soon found out. And it didn't take Sherlock Holmes to deduce the answer.
"The only thing we've really done, and I cannot understand why it has not been done before, is to do the stories as Doyle wrote them," the typically modest Brett said. "It seems simple enough, but no one has done that. Dame Jean Conan Doyle, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's daughter, is a great friend of mine. She's quite a lady, quite a force.
"And Dame Jean once said that I was the Sherlock Holmes of her childhood. That's when I felt that I had truly passed the audition. We've talked about how her father was overtaken by his own creation. But all the credit goes back to where it belongs -- to Doyle."
For Brett, Conan Doyle's writing was the rule book. And he kept the rule book close at hand.
"Granada took the most enormous gamble," he said. "They said, 'We want to go back to what Doyle meant with Holmes and Watson. We don't want Watson played as a buffoon, but as Doyle intended -- the best-est friend a man has ever had.' Whenever anyone wanted to take things away from the original, I'd be standing there with my copy of the book, saying, 'Don't you think Doyle is better?' "
Brett, of course, was in great demand as a speaker at meetings of the Baker Street Irregulars, the international organization of Holmes enthusiasts.
"I fully understand that their enthusiasm has nothing to do with me," he said. "They're fans of Sherlock Holmes. I'm just a presentment of Sherlock Holmes. It's not me they've come to see. They've come to see this actor who has the audacity to portray this character they adore. And it's much more than a character to them, of course."
Holmes, who made his first appearance in print in 1887, came to be much more than a character to him, too.
"When I started, I once said that I wouldn't cross the street to meet Sherlock Holmes," Brett said. "Then, a while later, I amended that to, 'He wouldn't cross the street to meet me.' Slowly, though, Holmes has become my buddy. I don't see him as depressing at all, but as a streak of light."
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Another 'Elementary' consideration . . . . Do we like our Watson more deductively capable?
Once again, so far this season, 'Elementary' is not giving us very much Sherlockian to talk about or even consider. And that is not really likely to change very much. But be that as it may, let's get as much as we can out of it and 'Play the Game.'
"Elementary' still hasn't determined yet if Watson is going to be Holmes' equal and partner or biographer and sounding board. I don't see the latter happening, do you?
Our question for today is; Would we like our Watson to be deductively as capable as Holmes? His equal in crime solving?
Would the relationship have worked that way Canonically?
Is that part of the bigger problem with 'Elementary'?
The most popular modern (in time period made or time period in which it is suggested it takes place) adaptations of Holmes have all given us strong Watson's, in their own way, without Watson being Holmes' deductive rival. I am of course talking about Brett's Holmes, RDJ's and 'Sherlock'.
Although not a fan of RDJ's portrayal of Holmes, I do however like very much Jude Law's take on Watson.
I also find Martin Freeman's take on Watson more appealing actually than I do Benedict Comberbatch's Holmes. Of all the modern takes (in time period when the stories take place), his so far is the best Watson.
And who can really argue about both the fine actors who played Watson next to Brett's Holmes, David Burke, and Edward Hardwicke.
But, as I think will prove out, a Watson who is close to Holmes equal in detection skills will not be acceptable Canonical lore. How many super heroes out there have 'partners'? How many police procedural's have lead detective's on equal footing with another officer?
Part of, and a very big part, of the allure of Holmes and Watson, and other duo teams, is the difference in skills and personalities.
One of my favorite new shows this year so far is 'Forever'. A very Holmes like lead character supported by, in their own way, very capable 'side kicks'. Side-kicks that have different, but just as relevant skills. Often times an individual who can ground them to the conventions of society.
It does however seem our theatrical adaptations of Holmes need more social grounding than the Canonical Holmes.
Every one of the three most recent adaptations suggest Holmes in one form or another needs a social handler. RDJ's certainly did, as does 'Sherlock's'. 'Elementary's' most definetly does, he just hasn't realized it yet.
We find the companionship less needy in the Canon than we do on the modern big screen.
Brett's Holmes does not seem to need that social crutch.
But what makes this pairing most interesting Canonically and theatrically (where it works) is that both man are very different, and each has 'skills' that benefit the relationship and not make it competitive.
It will be interesting to see how 'Elementary' handles it.
"Elementary' still hasn't determined yet if Watson is going to be Holmes' equal and partner or biographer and sounding board. I don't see the latter happening, do you?
Our question for today is; Would we like our Watson to be deductively as capable as Holmes? His equal in crime solving?
Would the relationship have worked that way Canonically?
Is that part of the bigger problem with 'Elementary'?
The most popular modern (in time period made or time period in which it is suggested it takes place) adaptations of Holmes have all given us strong Watson's, in their own way, without Watson being Holmes' deductive rival. I am of course talking about Brett's Holmes, RDJ's and 'Sherlock'.
Although not a fan of RDJ's portrayal of Holmes, I do however like very much Jude Law's take on Watson.
I also find Martin Freeman's take on Watson more appealing actually than I do Benedict Comberbatch's Holmes. Of all the modern takes (in time period when the stories take place), his so far is the best Watson.
And who can really argue about both the fine actors who played Watson next to Brett's Holmes, David Burke, and Edward Hardwicke.
But, as I think will prove out, a Watson who is close to Holmes equal in detection skills will not be acceptable Canonical lore. How many super heroes out there have 'partners'? How many police procedural's have lead detective's on equal footing with another officer?
Part of, and a very big part, of the allure of Holmes and Watson, and other duo teams, is the difference in skills and personalities.
One of my favorite new shows this year so far is 'Forever'. A very Holmes like lead character supported by, in their own way, very capable 'side kicks'. Side-kicks that have different, but just as relevant skills. Often times an individual who can ground them to the conventions of society.
It does however seem our theatrical adaptations of Holmes need more social grounding than the Canonical Holmes.
Every one of the three most recent adaptations suggest Holmes in one form or another needs a social handler. RDJ's certainly did, as does 'Sherlock's'. 'Elementary's' most definetly does, he just hasn't realized it yet.
We find the companionship less needy in the Canon than we do on the modern big screen.
Brett's Holmes does not seem to need that social crutch.
But what makes this pairing most interesting Canonically and theatrically (where it works) is that both man are very different, and each has 'skills' that benefit the relationship and not make it competitive.
It will be interesting to see how 'Elementary' handles it.
Monday, September 15, 2014
Gillette to Brett IV - a fun weekend and a big success!
Had the pleasure of being able to attend this years Gillette to Brett in Bloomington Ind.
I was able to leave early Friday and made it to Bloomington in time to make all the events.
Friday evening, of course, always starts at the universities Lilly Library where we are invited to view a wonderful exhibition of rare treasures and rare books.
I was told by one of the attending Sherlockains that he was actually able to touch the Beeton's Christmas Annual this year.
There are rare manuscripts and movie scripts along with other very interesting items.
Here is a signed script for the Hound of the Baskerville's
Along side of many other motion picture treats.
Also on display, and very interesting to me, is a letter from Daniel Boone.
His last home is not all that far from my house.
Doyle's manuscript of 'The Red Circle'.
After a short break, long enough to get dinner or hit the hotel gym, we all met once again at the UI Cinema. . . .
. . . for a screening of 1939's Hound of the Baskervilles
It was a lot of fun watching it with a big group of Sherlockian's on a large screen.
Saturday morning, after signing in, gave us plenty of time to visit the sales room where we found, other than things to purchase, on display many items from several Holmes films.
Here Brett's frock coat from the series.
On the left is Ben Kingsley's coat from Without a Clue and Bruce's waist coat on the right.
Labels explaining the items.
Many autographs and other items on display.
Rathbone's hat.
I got the chance to meet a fellow blogger and author that I follow on line, Dan Andriacco.
Some of the other items on display.

We had many fine speakers Saturday.
We started with Bonnie MacBird who is very involved in film productive and gave a good talk on the script writing for Sherlock and some wonderful insights into why some of the scenes were written the way they were.
She was followed by Kristina Manente of the Baker Street Babes who talked about the fan base for the TV show Sherlock.
I came away realizing there is a big difference between Playing the Game for Sherlock, and Playing the Game for Sherlock Holmes, and that it seems unlikely the two shall meet.
Next was David Stuart Davies who gave a great talk on the humor in Sherlock Holmes, especially in film.
Also giving another wonderful talk was Bert Coules, talking once again about radio Holmes and the BBC series that he worked with. This time we had some behind the scene footage of how the show was put together.
After viewing 1984's A Scandal in Bohemia from Granada Television we had a terrific interview session with the director of that episode, Paul Annett.
Paul talked about how the show came together and his time working with Brett. Lots of behind the scenes insight.
He talked about what it was like to work with Jeremy and other's on the show.
If you look at the scene in this photo on the screen, you will see that it is where Irene throws the photo of the King overboard.
The scene was filmed in the middle of England without any water near by on a staged 'ship' not much bigger than 10' x 10'.
Here I am with Paul.
The evening ended with a viewing of 1939's The Adventure's of Sherlock Holmes (which I was unable to make.)
It was a very relaxing, fun Sherlockian weekend with old friends and new.
I was able to leave early Friday and made it to Bloomington in time to make all the events.
Friday evening, of course, always starts at the universities Lilly Library where we are invited to view a wonderful exhibition of rare treasures and rare books.
I was told by one of the attending Sherlockains that he was actually able to touch the Beeton's Christmas Annual this year.
There are rare manuscripts and movie scripts along with other very interesting items.
Here is a signed script for the Hound of the Baskerville's
Along side of many other motion picture treats.
Also on display, and very interesting to me, is a letter from Daniel Boone.
His last home is not all that far from my house.
Doyle's manuscript of 'The Red Circle'.
After a short break, long enough to get dinner or hit the hotel gym, we all met once again at the UI Cinema. . . .
. . . for a screening of 1939's Hound of the Baskervilles
It was a lot of fun watching it with a big group of Sherlockian's on a large screen.
Saturday morning, after signing in, gave us plenty of time to visit the sales room where we found, other than things to purchase, on display many items from several Holmes films.
Here Brett's frock coat from the series.
On the left is Ben Kingsley's coat from Without a Clue and Bruce's waist coat on the right.
Labels explaining the items.
Many autographs and other items on display.
Rathbone's hat.
I got the chance to meet a fellow blogger and author that I follow on line, Dan Andriacco.
Some of the other items on display.

We had many fine speakers Saturday.
We started with Bonnie MacBird who is very involved in film productive and gave a good talk on the script writing for Sherlock and some wonderful insights into why some of the scenes were written the way they were.
She was followed by Kristina Manente of the Baker Street Babes who talked about the fan base for the TV show Sherlock.
I came away realizing there is a big difference between Playing the Game for Sherlock, and Playing the Game for Sherlock Holmes, and that it seems unlikely the two shall meet.
Next was David Stuart Davies who gave a great talk on the humor in Sherlock Holmes, especially in film.
Also giving another wonderful talk was Bert Coules, talking once again about radio Holmes and the BBC series that he worked with. This time we had some behind the scene footage of how the show was put together.
After viewing 1984's A Scandal in Bohemia from Granada Television we had a terrific interview session with the director of that episode, Paul Annett.
Paul talked about how the show came together and his time working with Brett. Lots of behind the scenes insight.
He talked about what it was like to work with Jeremy and other's on the show.
If you look at the scene in this photo on the screen, you will see that it is where Irene throws the photo of the King overboard.
The scene was filmed in the middle of England without any water near by on a staged 'ship' not much bigger than 10' x 10'.
Here I am with Paul.
The evening ended with a viewing of 1939's The Adventure's of Sherlock Holmes (which I was unable to make.)
It was a very relaxing, fun Sherlockian weekend with old friends and new.
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Seven degrees of Sherlock Holmes - #47 - Leonardo DiCaprio
As much great work that he has done, it didn't prove too hard to make a connection for him.
Leonardo DiCaprio (1974)
Leonardo DiCaprio (1974)
starred in a little film called "Titanic" in 1997
which also featured the great character actor Jonathon Hyde (1948)
who played Culverton Smith to Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Holmes in "The Dying Detective", 1994
Jonathon Hyde also participated in the 2004 film, "Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking".
So, there you have it, there you are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)












.jpg)


.jpg)

.jpg)







