He starred in many films with SDofSH alumni, such as, Peter O'Toole, Michael Caine and Jude Law, among others.
RIP
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Seven Degrees of Sherlock Holmes #50 - Hattie McDaniel
Oscar winning actress Hattie McDaniel (1895-1952)
starred in the 1946 film, "Never Say Goodbye"
which starred Errol Flynn (1909-1959)
who we know starred in films with both Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce
So, there you have it, there you are.
Monday, April 28, 2014
Sherlock Holmes, the social animal???
As is made quiet clear in both modern adaptions of the Great Detective, Sherlock Holmes is not known for being an outwardly social person. Going so far as to say that unless it has something to do with a case or research, Holmes tends to avoid people all together unless absolutely necessary.
Canonically much the same can be said of Sherlock Holmes. Rarely, if ever, are we shown occasions where Sherlock Holmes partakes in excursions purely for enjoyment, and never with the soul purpose of associations with other people, except Watson.
We do see on occasion Holmes enjoying a solo trip to listen to some of his favorite music. And it can be said that Watson does indeed accompany him on some of his musical outings.
If it can be said Holmes develops a hobby, he also, later, has his bees.
However, both of these, along with his violin playing, are all rather solitary pursuits. All requiring only the minimum interaction with his fellow human beings.
This illustration shows Holmes seated amongst the crowd listening to music. But even here, as portrayed by Sidney Paget, the seat next to Holmes is empty.
This illustration is often labelled, "All afternoon he sat in the stalls."
We also know he had a couple of other pursuits suited more for individual achievement, baristu and fencing. Both require people to train with, but no other interaction.
Fencing, baristu, and bee-keeping would probably be more categorized as recreational than social anyway.
My question here is; Other than the ones listed above (which I don't consider social) are there any occasions in the Canonical Holmes of Holmes actually doing something purely for social reasons? Are we ever made aware of any social event Holmes attends that is not part of an investigation or his work?
Canonically much the same can be said of Sherlock Holmes. Rarely, if ever, are we shown occasions where Sherlock Holmes partakes in excursions purely for enjoyment, and never with the soul purpose of associations with other people, except Watson.
We do see on occasion Holmes enjoying a solo trip to listen to some of his favorite music. And it can be said that Watson does indeed accompany him on some of his musical outings.
If it can be said Holmes develops a hobby, he also, later, has his bees.
However, both of these, along with his violin playing, are all rather solitary pursuits. All requiring only the minimum interaction with his fellow human beings.
This illustration shows Holmes seated amongst the crowd listening to music. But even here, as portrayed by Sidney Paget, the seat next to Holmes is empty.
This illustration is often labelled, "All afternoon he sat in the stalls."
We also know he had a couple of other pursuits suited more for individual achievement, baristu and fencing. Both require people to train with, but no other interaction.
Fencing, baristu, and bee-keeping would probably be more categorized as recreational than social anyway.
My question here is; Other than the ones listed above (which I don't consider social) are there any occasions in the Canonical Holmes of Holmes actually doing something purely for social reasons? Are we ever made aware of any social event Holmes attends that is not part of an investigation or his work?
Friday, April 25, 2014
"Close to Holmes", by Alistair Duncan, a book review
I don't profess to be the most scholarly of Sherlockians, most often staying in my comfort zone of the lighter side of the Holmesian discussion.
But I regularly follow Alistair's insightful blog and thought I should check out some of his books.
I am glad I did.
The book was a wonderfully easy read, providing one with just the right amount of information to be informative with out being burdensome.
I can easily see myself getting a copy of this book for my next visit to England ( I read the e-book format) and keeping it in my pocket as we visit Sherlockian sites
And again without being overburdening, Alistair provides the Sherlockian connections to each location, along with further history of the landmarks.
This book is short and sweet and an easy companion when on the trail of Sherlock Holmes.
Well, instead of buying a hard copy of here, I will wait till my next visit and get a signed copy from him.
Elementary S2, Ep 21 #41 - The Man with the Twisted Lip - a review
Mycrofts back, and Watson has him. . . if she wants. And Ms. Hudson is back.
Last nights story opens with Holmes at one of his AA meetings.
While Watson is waiting to join Holmes for the trip home, Watson gets involved with the disappearance of another AA members sister.
When they get home after talking to Tess about her sister, Mycroft is waiting with dinner ready.
We soon learn that Mycroft wants to be more than friends with Watson, again. We also learn Mycroft, again, once again, is up to something.
The hunt for the missing sister soon involves Holmes and Watson in a triple murder mystery and high tech gadgets.
The opening, one relative seeking information about the disappearance of another, is a nod to TWIS, as is the fact that the case was introduced to Holmes from Watson.
As was also the case with TWIS, the case had references to Holmes drug use.
What I found interesting about the opening scene is the dialog from Holmes to his meetings companions about him having no peers. Basically him saying the reason he has no real friends is that there is no one with his mental capabilities that he can actually form a friendship with. All others would be, to steal a phrase from "Sherlock", boring.
I think this is a Canonical reference to the few times Holmes is surprised by others thinking there are better detectives (or smarter people?) than himself. I can think of Insp. Baynes in WIST.
It could also be a nod to Holmes' unsociable life style.
Also within those first few minutes we find a Holmes that also thinks some cases are beneath his talents, another Canonical nod.
Some other interesting aspects of this episode.
I don't think there are many Sherlockians who do not wish Mycrofts character had been a little more fleshed out in the Canon, or that he had more things to do. Canonically we are told how bright he is and how important he is, but rarely do we see much of that.
This episode, and a couple others, has handled this fairly well. Mycroft is still a mystery to us, and we, as of yet, do not know what he is involved in, but we know it is going to be something (Is it for Queen and Country or is it something more nefarious?). Is he using Joan? Or is his affection real. Is he trying to get Holmes involved in some investigation? When we think of the Canonical Mycroft most of us probably just see him standing in the Diogenes Club, when actually we are told he is involved in much more than that. This series is giving him some what more energy and personality.
The story is becoming pretty interesting with some nice twists, and it will also be interesting to see where it ends up. The topic, drones in the hands of civilians and the use of drones in the military, is quiet topical at the moment.
Something else this episode is doing well is examining the relationship between Holmes and Watson, and why they need each other. Is Holmes now co-dependent on Watson, or is it that they are really friends?
Canonically it doesn't seem that Watson has as much need for Holmes as Holmes has for Watson. We see Watson move out a couple of times. This episode suggests that Watson would not have as much trouble 'moving out' as Holmes would. I think within the next couple of episodes we are going to get to examine that relationship.
It is also doing a real good job of developing the realization for Holmes of the importance and position of Watson in his life.
Although interesting this time, again, the case is not as important as the personalities.
With all the peripheral goings on, and Myrofts involvement, and the use of high tech military applications, we may be headed towards a modern adaption of BRUC. Those two men in the Diogenes Club are going to be involved soon.
Some of the deductions were handled well; The hidden track on the recordings, foot prints near the bodies. The gun splatter pattern.
The short comings of the episode are the same as the last few weeks, but not as many.
Ms. Hudson's involvement was unnecessary, unless she will be given more to do in the upcoming weeks.
And, if the murderers are willing to use a bug bite to kill the doctor, why not use a bug to kill the whistle-blower?
But it's strengths were, well, a little stronger.
The story is pretty good, so far.
Mycroft, as he is Canonically, is being very mysterious.
I enjoyed this episode and look forward to it's resolution.
For that reason I give it;
Last nights story opens with Holmes at one of his AA meetings.
While Watson is waiting to join Holmes for the trip home, Watson gets involved with the disappearance of another AA members sister.
When they get home after talking to Tess about her sister, Mycroft is waiting with dinner ready.
We soon learn that Mycroft wants to be more than friends with Watson, again. We also learn Mycroft, again, once again, is up to something.
The hunt for the missing sister soon involves Holmes and Watson in a triple murder mystery and high tech gadgets.
The opening, one relative seeking information about the disappearance of another, is a nod to TWIS, as is the fact that the case was introduced to Holmes from Watson.
As was also the case with TWIS, the case had references to Holmes drug use.
What I found interesting about the opening scene is the dialog from Holmes to his meetings companions about him having no peers. Basically him saying the reason he has no real friends is that there is no one with his mental capabilities that he can actually form a friendship with. All others would be, to steal a phrase from "Sherlock", boring.
I think this is a Canonical reference to the few times Holmes is surprised by others thinking there are better detectives (or smarter people?) than himself. I can think of Insp. Baynes in WIST.
It could also be a nod to Holmes' unsociable life style.
Also within those first few minutes we find a Holmes that also thinks some cases are beneath his talents, another Canonical nod.
Some other interesting aspects of this episode.
I don't think there are many Sherlockians who do not wish Mycrofts character had been a little more fleshed out in the Canon, or that he had more things to do. Canonically we are told how bright he is and how important he is, but rarely do we see much of that.
This episode, and a couple others, has handled this fairly well. Mycroft is still a mystery to us, and we, as of yet, do not know what he is involved in, but we know it is going to be something (Is it for Queen and Country or is it something more nefarious?). Is he using Joan? Or is his affection real. Is he trying to get Holmes involved in some investigation? When we think of the Canonical Mycroft most of us probably just see him standing in the Diogenes Club, when actually we are told he is involved in much more than that. This series is giving him some what more energy and personality.
The story is becoming pretty interesting with some nice twists, and it will also be interesting to see where it ends up. The topic, drones in the hands of civilians and the use of drones in the military, is quiet topical at the moment.
Something else this episode is doing well is examining the relationship between Holmes and Watson, and why they need each other. Is Holmes now co-dependent on Watson, or is it that they are really friends?
Canonically it doesn't seem that Watson has as much need for Holmes as Holmes has for Watson. We see Watson move out a couple of times. This episode suggests that Watson would not have as much trouble 'moving out' as Holmes would. I think within the next couple of episodes we are going to get to examine that relationship.
It is also doing a real good job of developing the realization for Holmes of the importance and position of Watson in his life.
Although interesting this time, again, the case is not as important as the personalities.
With all the peripheral goings on, and Myrofts involvement, and the use of high tech military applications, we may be headed towards a modern adaption of BRUC. Those two men in the Diogenes Club are going to be involved soon.
The short comings of the episode are the same as the last few weeks, but not as many.
Ms. Hudson's involvement was unnecessary, unless she will be given more to do in the upcoming weeks.
And, if the murderers are willing to use a bug bite to kill the doctor, why not use a bug to kill the whistle-blower?
But it's strengths were, well, a little stronger.
The story is pretty good, so far.
Mycroft, as he is Canonically, is being very mysterious.
I enjoyed this episode and look forward to it's resolution.
For that reason I give it;
out of a possible five.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
What is your most prized Sherlockian possession?
What is your most prized Sherlockian possession?
What would be the last thing you would get rid of?
If your wife insisted that you clean out your attic library to make room for her mother, what would be the one thing that you would keep (that's assuming she will let you keep any).
As we tend to get older, some of us find the need to thin out things we have collected over the years.
Do we need every single plush toy that has any reference in costume or character to the Great Detective?
Maybe you are needing a little more money to get daughter through her fifteenth year of collage.
So we thin out our collection of Sherlockian match book covers.
Sometimes we realize that our collections are less important to us now than they once were.
Or maybe we realize we don't need fifty three copies of The Speckled Band.
But most of us would chose to hold on to at least a thing or two.
Would it be your first edition "Hound"?
Or maybe the first Sherlock Holmes book you ever got, the one you picked up in Bangor so you would have something to read while working in the backwoods of Maine.
Would it be the Deerstalker hat you got while in Edinburgh?
Maybe the coffee cup you got at Simpson's-on-the-Strand.
Are your kids moving back in with you and they need their rooms back, so most of your stuff has to go?
Would you keep some of the Victorian accouterments that decorate your mantel?
I have a nice Bulls-eye lantern that I am proud of.
If your wife asks you, "Is it going to be your damn ( fill in the blank ) or me?" If you don't chose her, what would be your "fill in the blank"?
Much of my collection revolves almost as much around Victorian Britain as it does around Holmes, so I am not sure what I would chose.
I still have the first Holmes book I ever got. And I do have the Deerstalker I picked up in Yorkshire.
I love the coffee cup from Simpson's.
OH! What about that magazine cover which featured Black Peter?
What would you chose, what would you keep? What sits in the most prized place on your shelf?
"Honey, give me a second. I'm not ignoring your question."
What would be the last thing you would get rid of?
If your wife insisted that you clean out your attic library to make room for her mother, what would be the one thing that you would keep (that's assuming she will let you keep any).
Do we need every single plush toy that has any reference in costume or character to the Great Detective?
Maybe you are needing a little more money to get daughter through her fifteenth year of collage.
So we thin out our collection of Sherlockian match book covers.
Sometimes we realize that our collections are less important to us now than they once were.
Or maybe we realize we don't need fifty three copies of The Speckled Band.
But most of us would chose to hold on to at least a thing or two.
Would it be your first edition "Hound"?
Or maybe the first Sherlock Holmes book you ever got, the one you picked up in Bangor so you would have something to read while working in the backwoods of Maine.
Would it be the Deerstalker hat you got while in Edinburgh?
Maybe the coffee cup you got at Simpson's-on-the-Strand.
Are your kids moving back in with you and they need their rooms back, so most of your stuff has to go?
Would you keep some of the Victorian accouterments that decorate your mantel?
I have a nice Bulls-eye lantern that I am proud of.
If your wife asks you, "Is it going to be your damn ( fill in the blank ) or me?" If you don't chose her, what would be your "fill in the blank"?
Much of my collection revolves almost as much around Victorian Britain as it does around Holmes, so I am not sure what I would chose.
I still have the first Holmes book I ever got. And I do have the Deerstalker I picked up in Yorkshire.
I love the coffee cup from Simpson's.
OH! What about that magazine cover which featured Black Peter?
What would you chose, what would you keep? What sits in the most prized place on your shelf?
"Honey, give me a second. I'm not ignoring your question."
Seven Degrees of Sherlock Holmes - #49 - Jackie Coogan
Child actor and future 'Adams Family' member, Jackie Coogan (1914-1984)
.jpg)
had an un-credited part in 1953 'The Actress'
which featured the wonderful Jean Simmons (1929-2010)
who took part in 1946's 'Great Expectations'
which also starred Sir Alec Guiness (1914-2000)
who starred in 1977's small film 'Star Wars'
in which Sherlock Holmes actor Peter Cushing (1913-1994) took part
So, there you have it, there you are.
Monday, April 21, 2014
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Seven Degrees of Sherlock Holmes - The Fantastic (Four) Jessica Alba - #48
Jessica Alba (1981)
was hardly invisible in 2005's Fantastic Four
which also starred Ion Gruffudd (1973)
who starred in 2006's Amazing Grace
which also featured Mr. 'Sherlock' himself, Benedict Cumberbatch
So, there you have it, there you are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)