Brad's summer reading list - #6 - 3GAR

It just aint' right. 221b with a phone. Say it isn't so.

But it is.

Holmes has embraced the latest technology.

Although reminiscent of REDH the story does include some very fine things to make it an important addition to the Canon.

We can never forget the passage from Watson;
  “You’re not hurt, Watson? For God’s sake, say
that you are not hurt!” 
It was worth a wound—it was worth many wounds—to know the depth of loyalty and love which lay behind that cold mask. The clear, hard eyes were dimmed for a moment, and the firm lips were shaking. For the one and only time I caught a glimpse of a great heart as well as of a great brain.
All my years of humble but single-minded service
culminated in that moment of revelation."

That passage alone would always get this tale in the Sherlock Holmes hall-of-fame.

Further, Holmes and Watson are in Baker St.

Holmes seems to be very amiable.

The deductions are sound.

We learn of an Knighthood that Holmes turned down, once again proclaiming a case we will never read about. (Could it have had something to do with the most recent Boer War?)(Or a comment on Doyle's knighthood that took place around the time of this story?)

And indeed, the Boer War had just ended, the second one that is.



". . . Just ring him up, Watson.”

But that one line is just so out of place in our (my) perception of 221b and how things are (should be) done.

Which brings up, once again, a very good point.
We (I) tend to look at these tales as great stories from the Victorian era. Costume mysteries if you will.
When in actuality they were written as modern mysteries.
With Holmes possibly at the forefront of the use of modern tech. in criminal investigation.
Although the microscope was not new by this time, Holmes may have been one of the first students of crime to incorporate it in the deduction of crime. As was the case with much of the scientific work he did to solve cases. Modern forensics. And although we find it much more romantic for Holmes to send and receive telegraphs, he would probably adapt to the method of communication that got him the quickest results.

Many of our modern generation could hardly imagine having to wait for correspondence to come through the mail now a days. It would seem to slow. But most of my generation still clearly remember when we would have to actually mail a check and a response if we wanted to attend a Sherlockian convention some where.
Most of us would be hard pressed to find enough stamps to do that now.

Holmes was not the Luddite that I am at times, and probably quickly embraced 'modern' tech., especially as it may apply to his work.

However. . . .
We don't want light bulbs in 221b. But they were probably there.
We want Watson to pour water from a pitcher when he needs to shave. But at some time, they probably had plumbing plumbed in. (And we want Holmes to continue to tell Watson how bad a job he did at shaving because of bad lighting.)
And we could never bare the thought of Mrs. Hudson cooking on an electric range or using Tupperware.

Usually it is us who are trying to keep Holmes in 1895 and not Holmes himself.

It is clear that part of the failings in popularity in the Rathbone movies (at least for the modern Holmesian) is that most of the stories were brought up to what was then modern times, WW2. And they have not held up well in comparison. Probably due as much to bad writing as anything. But at least the Holmes in those movies 'dressed' the part (and Baker St. had a phone).
We see in many movies when Holmes is brought to modern times he doesn't hold up well when still wearing his Iverness and deerstalker.

'Sherlock' has so far handled that well, and will probably continue to do so.

But who can blame us for so completely wanting Holmes to stay in 1895. After all, weren't they better times?
We want them in that museum of crime solving.

It must be true, otherwise the great Vincent Starrett would never have written;

Here, though the world explode, these two survive,
And it is always eighteen ninety-five.

How Sherlock Holmes changed the World

Only got to watch a little of it last night on our local PBS station, but what I watched look really good. A well done show that I look forward to watching.

Will the young actor playing Holmes now be considered the latest cinematic incarnation of  the Great Detective?

And this is an interesting way to look at BLUE

How to write like Dr Watson

Tour de Hound - Chapter 7 - Brighter days - Watson very Lucy Liu like? - contradictions

Having depleted most words describing a bleak environment in the last chapter, Sunday morning could hardly start off anyway but brighter.
Where last night all seemed "shadowed and gloom" and everything seemed "hushed and subdued", we now find the morning sun making things glow and seem bronzed. We must have been very tired and chilled to ever think this wonderful old hall could serve up despair.

I think we would have all slept well if not for the dripping of the tap or crying of a women somewhere in the house.

Barrymore said he heard no crying and that it was probably a drippy gutter or swallows in the chimney.
You could tell be the look of Mrs. Barrymore's face that something had kept her awake also.

So we begin another day.

It would seem in this chapter that Watson has started to make some astute observation that would practically elevate him to a level well above Lestrade.

But when it comes right down to it, given the information he already has, they become pretty obvious.
Yet he is very resolute in his investigation.

His first deduction of the morning, correctly I might add, is that there was definitely a women crying in the night. And Barrymore's lying about this also convinces Watson that he, Barrymore, is hiding something.
Watson satisfies this observation by noting Mrs. Barrymore's face shortly after the interview with the butler.

In an attempt to once again try to prove Barrymore's culpability in the death of Sir Charles he pursues an inquiry into the possibility that the telegram sent to Barrymore was never actually given to him in person.
He follows up on this with the Postmaster of Grimpen.

James, the postmasters son, finally confesses that indeed Barrymore did not receive the letter himself, leaving open the possibility that he, Barrymore, was not at Baskerville Hall at all.

Watson is doing what most detectives have to do and that is follow any and all leads till they prove useful or not in the resolution of a crime.




As the above investigation shows, in this chapter, for every bit of good we find in Baskerville Hall and the surrounding moors, something questionable takes place. For every pleasant image we see, one cloudy appears right after it.

We are not left for long satisfied that the Hall is casting a more pleasing atmosphere, before we are reminded of the mournful weeping we heard in the night.

(Dr. Moritmer's place?)

We aren't long allowed a quiet stroll to the village Post Office before we learn requested chores were not carried out as directed,  leaving us to question our inquiry.

And so it goes throughout this chapter. For each seemly pleasant image we observe or are introduce to, we just as quickly are required to make a complete one eighty to observe an image of suspense, sorrow or question;

Net in hand, Stapleton first appears to be charming and friendly, but Watson soon finds reason to doubt first impressions.

A wonderful introduction and history lesson to the moors, only to be tainted be the death of a moor-land pony.

Beautiful island like refuge for flora and fauna, surround by sucking bog-holes.

A beautiful "proud, finely cut" women comes running up the lane, only to dash poor Watson's heart with an ill-timed warning to Sir Henry. (Twice I might add.)

A short chapter, with many contradictions. One to keep us off balance and not relaxed. We are never allowed to just have a peaceful day in our new surrounding, no break, completely, from the suspense the legend created. More tantalizing clues, but none resolved. I can not think in this chapter an image described that is not two sided.

(Merripit House?)

(And how come I never noticed the "strange, wizened, rusty-coated old manservant" before.
And does he smell of dog food? And will we meet him again?)

What we also see here is a Watson very much trying to meet up to Sherlock's implied expectations and come up with details Holmes can use in this case. While I on the other hand would just find a nice pub and wait for Sir Henry to finish his paper work.

The whole exchange at the post office is cut from the Granada episodes, with there being a post mistress instead.

One more time with the Hound. . . which is your favorite version?

We all have our favorite. Which one is yours.

Following are two reviews of the films..

1939 version

1959 version

It may not be either of these. Is it Brett's. Dudley Moore's?

Seven Degrees of Sherlock Holmes - #18 - was going to be Ewan Mcgregor, but is now Peter Lorre

Why didn't one of you take me to task for missing this on Tuesday!

So here goes.

I was going to do Ewan McGregor - (1971) who is a great actor and has done a couple of my favorite documentaries . .

but the connection went to quick with him being in 'Trainspotting' 1996

with Jonny Lee Miller (1972)

who currently stars as Sherlock Holmes in 'Elementary' 2012 - 

So it was back to the drawing board, and I picked a favorite character actor from my dad's era,

Peter Lorre (1904-1964)

who played a Chinese detective (a Hungarian born actor playing a Chinese detective, would that go well now a days?) nine times in Mr. Moto films, and in 1937 made 'Think Fast, Mr Moto'

which also featured Virginia Field (1917-1992) 

who also starred in 1949's 'A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court"

which also featured Sir Cedric Hardwicke (1893-1964)

who explored, in 1939, the world of 'Stanley and Livingston'

which starred Sir Henry Baskerville himself, Richard Greene (1918-1985)

(center in this picture)

from the 1939 film 'Hound of the Baskerville's)

Peter Lorre was going to work earlier with Rathbone in 'Son of Frankenstein', but the part fell through.

Update!

Peter Lorre's second wife, Kaaren Verne (1918-1967),

 was in 1943's 'Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon'

 with Rathbone, which shortens the connection by a lot.

So there you have it, there you are.

Have a great Labor Day weekend!

Stolen from 'the Consulting Detective' blog spot - worth discussing.

Will it Always be 1895?

Here, though the world explode, these two survive/And it is always eighteen ninety-five. -Vincent Starret                                           

The famed Sherlockian scholar, writer and apparently amateur poet was responsible for writing the above two lines, which form the ending of his poem about Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. The phrase above has become well-known in Sherlockian circles, but the question is: does it still ring true today? As Sherlock Holmes is becoming more and more popular, is it truly necessary that he remain a part of Victorian society? There are two television series which have updated Holmes into the present day, and there were many films made during the 1930's and '40's which abandoned a Victorian setting. Let's take a closer look.

In the 1930's, when Sherlock Holmes was making his first great impact on the world of film, all of his adventures were updated into the present day. Actors such as Clive Brook, Arthur Wontner, Reginald Owen and others all played a detective who was well-versed in the modern world. A 1931 film version of "The Speckled Band" starring Raymond Massey actually featured Holmes living in a luxurious skyscraper, employing dozens of secretaries and recording important conversations on a Dictaphone. Aside from this movie were it seems as though the update was intentional, most of these movies were set in a contemporary setting purely for the means of saving money. It was not until 20th Century Fox released "The Hound of the Baskervilles" and "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" starring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce did the characters return to the Victorian milieu.

Peter Cushing in 1959's "The Hound of the Baskervilles"

However, once Fox dropped the series and it moved to Universal, the powers that be there also updated the stories into the modern world and the first three films made at the studio concerned Holmes employed by the government to fight Nazi agents in various capacities. This idea was retained throughout the series and Holmes and Watson are perfectly comfortable using telephones and radios, and at one point Basil Rathbone's Holmes is glimpsed driving a car! When the series ended at Universal in 1946, Holmes became a staple of television, and surprisingly the detectives returned to the Victorian word for their romps on the small screen. However, it wasn't until 1959 when Hammer Studios released "The Hound of the Baskervilles" did Sherlock Holmes of the movies return to the Victorian Era. Throughout the '60's, '70's and '80's, Sherlock Holmes remained a character operating in the 19th century, but as the new millennium dawned, Sherlock Holmes would find himself in a more contemporary or even futuristic setting.

So, the rhetorical question which I pose is this: does Sherlock Holmes need to remain a character of the Victorian Era, or can he work just as well out of it? With "Sherlock" and "Elementary" gaining popularity today, it appears as though the latter seems more likely. In my opinion, Sherlock Holmes really is a product of the Victorian Era, and whenever he's placed in that milieu, it seems the best. That's not to say that Sherlock Holmes cannot be updated into the modern world. It's certainly been done enough and the more modern versions of these updated stories do do the update nice enough. But, I put the question to you as well - does Sherlock Holmes need to remain a character of a bygone age? At the rate things are going, it won't always be 1895.

I did not know 'Playing the Game' had made Wikipedia. . . .!

THE GAME

Hadn't seen these before.. . . .

That may just mean I am out of touch or somethin'.

The Drawing Room

Seven Degrees of Sherlock Holmes - #13 - Denzel Washington

Denzel Washington - 1954 -

had a very minor (probably not to him!) role in 1974's 'Death Wish'

which also starred Hope Lange -1933-2003 -

who appeared in a film called 'In Love and War' - 1958

which also featured a young Robert Wagner - 1930 -

who was in (and yes, we have used this one once before) 1954's 'Prince Valiant'

with lead actor James Mason (who we have also used once before) 1909-1984

who played Watson in 1979's 'Murder by Decree'

There you have it, there you are.

Feeling overwhelmed . . . .

Or perhaps it would be better phrased as 'clueless' in my case.

I must admit, for the most part, I can't keep up with all the blogs, tumbles, tweets and +'s out there regarding Sherlock Holmes.
It has, for me, become very hard and mind 'bloggeling', with the time I have to devote to it, for me to pick what is relevant, appropriate and up-to-date in the electronic world of Sherlock Holmes. I have yet to listen to a pod-cast (and may need to find someone younger to teach me how to do that.)

Of late, this small blog has seemed just a drop in a rather large Sherlockian ocean.
Most of what is out there now is devoted to the new often used realm of 'fandom' and the world of the wonderful TV show 'Sherlock' and it's star. Which is fine. It is a great show.
A lot of time and effort seems to be spent trying to one-up other sources on the latest news and sightings (I think I have fallen into that one a couple of times). It would be interesting, if possible, to find out if the Strand was so anticipated when a new Holmes story was about to come out.

My goal with this blog has always been to just have fun with Holmes information. Occasionally offering some deeper comments, but mostly just trying to have fun. (I have even tried to stop responding as much to BK's blog, 'cause it just took the fun out of it for me. He does however still post, occasionally, a thoughtful post.)
I hope I have done that, and will keep that as my goal.

The wonderful picture above is provided by The Office Books blog.

Art?

There is so much good 'Sherlock Holmes' art out there right now, and I love exploring it for new stuff.
I do consider myself fairly open minded when viewing most of it, but it always makes me wonder why ( I really do have my own opinion on why) 'artists', especially talented ones, feel the need to make Holmes and Watson lovers? Why is it so important to make them gay? Now I don't care whether Holmes and Watson would or would not have been gay, it is really a none issue (plus, I have them firmly non-gay in my mind), or should be a none issue. But for me, it really detracts from wanting to see other work by the same 'artist'. They have so much rich Sherlockian material to work with, surely they could come up with better ideas.

Just my thoughts.

CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE.

This is an example, in my opinion, of a good one.

And this one is kinda fun. . . .

Seven Degrees of Sherlock Holmes #12 - Heath Ledger, one day late.

I thought this one would be fairly easy, but not as easy as it turned out.

So here goes.

Someone who was fast becoming one of my favorites and someone we lost way to early
Heath Ledger - 1979-2008

was in a small film called '10 Things I Hate about You.' - 1999

which stared the under-used Julia Stiles - 1981

who participated in 1997's 'The Devil's Own' - 

which featured Margaret Colin - 1958

who played Jane Watson in 1987's 'The Return of Sherlock Holmes' 

We can also link him to the new show 'Elementary' with his connection in 'The Four Feathers' (one of my all time favorite movies) which places him two steps away from 'Gregson' in 'Elementary' by way of Wes Bentley.

There you have it, there you are.

Seven Degrees of Sherlock Holmes - #11 - Fay Wray

Well, I was going to do Bill Cosby - 1937

But he was in a film with Raquel Welch - 1940 -

(Told you I'd find a way to use her picture again.)

Who we already made a Sherlockian connection to with Charlton Heston.

So, it was back to the drawing board.

So here goes. . . .

Fay Wray, the wonderful, talented, Fay Wray - 1907-2004 -

was in the 1929 film version of 'The Four Feathers' - 

which also featured Richard Arlen - 1899-1976

who performed in the 1956 film 'The Mountain'

Which starred a young Robert Wagner - 1930

who starred in 1954's 'Prince Valiant' - (loved his hair cut in that movie, by the way)

which also starred James Mason - 1909-1984

Who played Watson in 1979's 'Murder by Decree'

So, there you have it. . . . .