When I was younger, I often watched the Sherlock Holmes television series starring Jeremy Brett as Holmes. Various family members would get together to watch Mystery! on PBS, and while we got to see many excellent series on public television, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes and Agatha Christie’s Poirot were two of my favorites.
One of the things I really enjoy about these programs, along with Agatha Christie’s Miss Marple, the Lord Peter Wimsey series starring Ian Carmichael, Cadfael, and James Herriot’s All Creatures Great And Small, is that they seemed very authentic. Earlier and later interpretations could approximate authenticity, but these shows made me feel like I was watching the real thing.
Produced from 1984 to 1994 by Granada Television, the Sherlock Holmes series featured Brett playing what was, in my opinion and those of many others, the definitive Holmes. I’ve seen many Holmes portrayals, including the iconic Basil Rathbone movies from the ’30s and ’40s, and most of them have their merits, but even today, whenever I sit down to enjoy a re-reading of one of the stories from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s canon, Mr. Brett’s face and voice fill my brain. I’ll say it slightly differently: Jeremy Brett plays Sherlock Holmes in my head whenever I read Sherlock Holmes.
When preparing for the role, Brett became the role. As such, he studied descriptions of Holmes’ mannerisms, vocal characteristics, eye movements, posture, etc. When I watched him as Holmes, I felt like I was really seeing Holmes. Then when I read the books, I imagined him doing those things that Holmes would do. And in addition to Brett himself, the film style, camera work, props and settings all seem to realistically depict the times.
The reason I write is because this new Sherlock Holmes movie looks like it has “disappointment” (mine) written all over it. Robert Downey Jr. looks like a New York City cab driver. Based on the trailers I’ve seen, the film seems very bloated, with Hollywood-style action, over-the-top explosions, and significant liberties taken with the Holmes character. Watching the trailer almost feels like watching a modern-day James Bond trailer, which is not something I would expect from a film about Holmes. I understand that the canon does include moments of action, explosions, murder, etc. However, while I won’t rule out watching the movie at some point, I’m afraid my expectations are already lowered.
Perhaps I don’t have an open mind about it? That’s what I struggle with regarding this event: perhaps it will be “good,” and by not watching it I will miss something. So I haven’t made up my mind, but I’m already underwhelmed, and I can’t help that.
I’ll always have The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, and the books; this movie can’t take that away. I’m just not sure what to think about this movie.
Blackadder – a favorite clip: C is for Contrafibularity
June 22, 2010
Blackadder: a whole collection of awesome
I’ve been re-watching Blackadder: The Ultimate Edition (box set, 1983-’89) over the past couple of months. There were four separate series, each of which was set in a different historical period and starred Rowan Atkinson as Edmund Blackadder. While they’re all excellent, Blackadder the Third (1987) is my favorite.
In it, Edmund plays the servant to Hugh Laurie’s George, the Prince Regent. Laurie, known to most Americans as Dr. Gregory House, turns in a hilarious performance as the dunce-Prince Regent, and Atkinson’s Edmund is both witty and charming as he grovels and schemes toward his never-changing goal of amassing as much cash as he can.
One of my favorite clips is from the second episode, entitled Ink and Incapability. In it, the Prince Regent decides to become a patron of Dr. Johnson’s new book, the first English dictionary. Edmund, who does not like Dr. Johnson because he has never responded to Edmund’s submission of a novel, does his best to make the author feel as uncomfortable as possible. Enjoy!
Filed under Movies & TV Tagged with commentary, humor, television