Action Holmes

I love to blog about things that I've enjoyed, because what better way to show appreciation and pass the goodness to others who might enjoy it too? I also love to blog about things that I intensely dislike, I'll admit – I absolutely adore the creative challenge of expressing my disapproval in the sharpest, yet most elegant manner possible. (My readers may have noticed that I had way too much fun reviewing the novel Le Fantôme de l'Opéra.)

So what is it like to blog about things that... just don't evoke any emotions, positive or negative? I'll tell you, and I'm probably not alone with this opinion: it's an absolute, brain-freezing writer's block. And that's exactly the reaction I get out of the two recent Sherlock Holmes films directed by Guy Ritchie, so bear with me when I try to "make bricks without clay", as the great detective himself might have said. This post has been in the draft stage for ages.

Anyone who has paid the least bit of attention to current trends in the entertainment world will know that we are living in a fairly recent but extremely productive wave of Sherlock Holmes zeal. We now have two modern interpretations of Mr Holmes sleuthing away on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, and an older version played by Sir Ian McKellen to look forward to next year. However, the first notable take on Holmes' adventures on the 21st century screen was the big-budget blockbuster Sherlock Holmes of 2009, directed by Guy Ritchie and starring Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law as Holmes and Watson. A sequel, A Game of Shadows, soon followed, and we might expect a trilogy-fication to this franchise some day.

I saw the first film before reading any of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's works, but it was quite interesting to see that when I did read a couple of those books and short stories and then watched both films, it didn't really affect how I viewed them. The experience was equally non-plussing both times!

Most people whose reviews I've read seem to find A Game of Shadows an improvement from Sherlock Holmes – I disagree. For me, the first film was a generally bland experience with a couple of good things going for it, and the sequel was just unremarkable in every respect. Let me explain why.

The main characters are, of course, the same in both films: Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson, portrayed by Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law respectively. Well, even before I'd read any of the original stories which would have provided me with expectations as to what Sherlock Holmes was "supposed to be like", I wasn't really buying Downey Jr. as Holmes. I would assume that even a person who knows nothing about this character would expect to see someone very British with a remarkable skill of observation, and Downey Jr. doesn't really deliver any of this. My main issue is not the fact that these films have re-imagined the character as more action-oriented and physically capable – I was just confused that they so absolutely under-used Holmes' celebrated intellect! The only scenes where I can truly remember him being the smartest person in the crowd was the boxing scene in the first film where he predicts his opponent's moves, and the final confrontation with Moriarty in A Game of Shadows which is a little too similar, except that Moriarty can do the same trick as well. Does nobody else find it weird that in the first film, instead of using his deductive powers to figure out what happened, he does some psycho pentagram-and-drugs ritual and apparently finds the solution in... I don't know, some drug-induced higher consciousness? Doesn't that kind of go against the very essence of what makes the character of Sherlock Holmes so special?

Now I do admit that I am very partial to Jude Law. I actually like it very much that Dr Watson in these films is close to Holmes' equal in terms of age and useful skills – instead of the cuddly older man he's usually portrayed as, or a Nigel Bruce dunderhead for goodness' sake. Until Sherlock came up and gave us the gift of Martin Freeman's Watson, I think this kind of an approach was quite unique in Holmesian adaptations. Downey Jr. and Law also work really well together, even when their exploits are a bit too messy and over-the-top for my liking. Of course the boys are allowed to have fun and be bros on their adventures, but these films generate suspense out of the numerous, massively special-effectful action sequences rather than the mystery of the case at hand. This is especially apparent in A Game of Shadows where we get the interminably long train ride which includes a clown-makeup-wearing Holmes, and a likewise interminable chase through the woods which seems to take especially long because of all the slow-mo.

Both of the films have their sinister villain and their obligatory filler female character, and I think the first film has the better one in both departments. While I'm not entirely convinced that a society of dark magic works especially well as a villain entity against Sherlock Holmes, Mark Strong's Lord Blackwood makes my blood freeze. In A Game of Shadows we're then given Professor Moriarty – Holmes' The Enemy – and I couldn't figure out why I was expected to be especially apprehensive or impressed about the character Jared Harris was playing. In the best hero/villain constructions, I find that the opponents often have some vital element in common which is a source of attraction as well as disdain for them both  – the more subtle the mirror effect is the better, but it's definitely there. However, this film's Sherlock Holmes and Professor Moriarty don't have much anything in common, no reason at all why they would share this kind of a bond.

As for the obligatory filler women in both films – yes, I'm going to call them that. They seem to exist for the sole purpose of avoiding criticism about a male-heavy cast, and the plot would very well survive without them. Irene Adler is better served in the first film in terms of "getting to do stuff", but the character is both unremarkably portrayed by Rachel McAdams and written in the most unimaginative manner possible – she's Holmes' ex-girlfriend. Even before I read A Scandal in Bohemia, this treatment had a suspicious "easy way out" feel about it. In A Game of Shadows, the female lead is taken over by Noomi Rapace, and I want to make sure you know she's actually a very impressive actress. However, as Madame Simza her main function is to say a couple of Gypsy-stereotypical lines about the power of Tarot cards and have a problematic brother. I love her costumes, though. Kelly Reilly's Mary Morstan Watson, who appears on both films, has no personality at all, except perhaps a slightly annoying one. However, I was positively surprised at how she was involved in the resolution for A Game of Shadows. These films are never abundant in exquisitely clever plot twists, but that one at least came close.

In both of these films, I like the music and the production design very much. Hans Zimmer's music is very atmospheric and suspenseful, with a feeling of adventure and mystery. I find myself quite immersed in the Victorian setting, which is a bit dark and gritty and includes other layers of society besides top hatted gentlemen and hoop-skirted ladies. There is so much more to this long era in English history than Victorian values and a perpetually mourning queen; for example, great technological advancement, which is handled in both films. Of course, a World War geek like me would get excited about the WWI foreshadowing in A Game of Shadows, even though I spent the rest of the film battling with my attention span.

I just don't see why the solution for marketing Holmes and Watson to a new generation would have to be "make Sherlock Holmes an ungroomed, badass action hero and blow stuff up". Why does the Great Detective have to be dumbed down? Why do we need elaborate action sequences at the cost of a well-balanced, properly contained plot? The steadily expanding part of my brain that is possessed by the "nitpicker of dramatic structure" personality is especially peeved by the fact that Holmes fake-dies twice in A Game of Shadows, twice in the space of one movie which frankly isn't otherwise very interested in providing emotional, character-building moments! Then we have to watch Dr Watson being devastated over the loss of his friend, twice, knowing perfectly well that Holmes is going to jump back up any minute. Lord Blackwood's fake death in the first film has much more weight and purpose to it, and when he dies for real it happens on an awesome, half-constructed Tower Bridge. Have I told you before that my love affair with London began from seeing a picture of Tower Bridge?

So, I hope I've provided something of an explanation to why I find Guy Ritchie's take on Sherlock Holmes so unremarkable, and why I was more bored watching A Game of Shadows than watching the first film. What about you? Is an action film portrayal of the Great Detective refreshing or blasphemous in your opinion, unless it's something in between? Do you like one film more than the other? Do you want to see a third film in this franchise? Do you feel like ranting in defense of or against Downey Jr.'s British accent?

There was an unexpected couple of days' gap in my Sherlockian blog posts, but now that I'm back in business there are still two more similarly themed blog posts to come. I'm going to do a joint review of A Study in Scarlet and The Sign of Four and finish off by mercilessly pitting Sherlock and Elementary against each other while having a shameful amount of fun doing so. It's been great to see how willingly and insightfully you readers comment about Holmesian things, and I sincerely invite you to continue doing so, perhaps even after I'm finished (for the time being) with this theme!

5 + 1 screen adaptations of The Hound of the Baskervilles

It is quite safe to say that The Hound of the Baskervilles is the most well-known of Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson's many adventures. One can only imagine what a craze it induced in 1901 when it started appearing in The Strand Magazine in serial form eight years after Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's pen tipped Mr Holmes down the Reichenbach Falls, and nowadays it serves as an introduction to Sherlock Holmes for many curious readers – despite the fact that A Study in Scarlet is the first book in the Holmes canon, in publishing order as well as chronologically.

The Hound of the Baskervilles is also by far the most screen-adapted Holmes story. There have been films, TV films and serials all across the globe by various production companies – the BBC alone has commissioned three adaptations of this story over the years. As I liked the book so much and the long, long list of screen adaptations looked like a rather fun field for investigation, I set out on a mission to find The Best Adaptation. I'll admit right now, though, that I've only watched through five (plus one) of them so far. I picked out the ones that are most well-known, easily available, and represent different decades in film and television history.

So, here's a condensed list of the adaptations I'll be comparing, before I go into them in more detail:

• The 20th Century Fox film from 1939, starring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce as Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson
• The Hammer film from 1959, starring Peter Cushing and André Morell
• The BBC serial from 1982, starring Tom Baker and Terence Rigby
• The Granada TV film from 1988, starring Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwick
• The BBC TV film from 2002, starring Richard Roxburgh and Ian Hart
• ... and what's with the "+ 1"??? You'll find out... Or you might have guessed already. 

In order to make a fair comparison of all these very diverse adaptations, I also made up a list of certain points of assessment – these are elements that, having read the original novel, I feel are important to have in a good adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles. The elements I'm going to compare in all of these adaptations are: 

• Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson – how they work as individual characters, but most importantly what their relationship is like. Do they have the all-important chemistry with each other? Do both of them get enough to do? I'm paying special attention to their reunion scene as I think that's an excellent marker on how the screenwriter, director and actors perceive the Holmes&Watson dynamic.
• The supporting cast. One of my favorite things about the book was Sir Henry's neighbours! Therefore, a good adaptation has to have memorable supporting characters, and if they actually match with their book counterparts, that's a definite plus. I'm going to mention the supporting characters that made the biggest impression on me, good or bad. Just to be clear, Sir Henry will also be considered a supporting character – I know it might be a bit of a stretch, especially as he actually gets top billing in one of the adaptations, but I don't want a third wheel in the Holmes&Watson space! Oh, and if you've read my review on the novel, you'll know how important dear Dr Mortimer is to me – any adaptation that doesn't get him right simply can't get into my good books, at least not entirely.
• The Dartmoor setting. In the book, there's a complete change in atmosphere as the setting moves to Sir Henry's home in Dartmoor, and I want to see that on screen as well. I want to feel the bleakness and danger on the moor and the depressing heaviness of Baskerville Hall that Dr Watson describes to Holmes in his reports.
• The flow of the story. Whether it's a film or a miniseries, the plot has to advance and build up the story and the characters to relevant directions. Adapting from book to screen always involves adding scenes here and chopping off from there, but some screenwriters succeed better than others. Adding completely pointless scenes and inducing boredom while watching will be frowned upon.
• The final hound chase scene. It's not just one scene among the others – everyone spends so much time speculating about the old legend and whether there's really a hound on the moor, that when it finally appears, it had better pay off. 

Now that I've made clear how I'll be comparing the different adaptations, let's finally move on to business! Here are the five screen adaptations of The Hound of the Baskervilles that I've chosen for this post, in chronological order.

Basil Rathbone & Nigel Bruce film, 1939

Left to right: Dr Watson, Dr Mortimer, Sherlock Holmes, Sir Henry

Screenplay by Ernest Pascal

Directed by Sidney Canfield

Running time 1 h 20 min

Holmes and Watson

This is kind of a sad situation. I really like watching Rathbone's Holmes, he very much looks the part and has got so much style. Nigel Bruce's Watson, however, is a complete idiot. There's just no other way to put it. Dr Watson in this film speaks almost exclusively in questions and is made such a dumb sidekick that it just makes me cringe cringe cringe from start to finish. If Sherlock Holmes is supposed to possess such a superior brain, why on Earth does he put up with this film's Watson? Why does he send him off to Dartmoor as Sir Henry's protection, or let him carry a gun? How did this Dr Watson even graduate from medical school?! The reunion scene is the most cringe-worthy in the entire film. First, Holmes shows up in a disguise and Watson... he... tries to face off the "stranger" by loudly claiming that he's the Great Sherlock Holmes. This scene would be a total head-desk moment even if Holmes himself wasn't standing right next to him, listening to it all. Then he reveals himself to Watson, who spends the rest of the scene sulking like a little kid. This, dear audience, is what 1939 Hollywood made of the most notorious friendship portrayed in literature. 

The supporting cast

Richard Greene, who plays Sir Henry, was billed as the main actor in this film because he was, at the time, more well-known than Rathbone and Bruce, for whom this was the first in a series of Sherlock Holmes films. Greene is pretty much the typical, romantic male lead that films in those days and for decades since liked to have, but he plays the part charmingly enough. Wendy Barrie as Beryl Stapleton is quite a lifeless "pretty blonde girl" and her accent is terrible, which is quite bizarre as the actress is actually English! The household staff at Baskerville Hall are called Mr and Mrs Barryman for some unfathomable reason. Mr Frankland is particularly entertaining in this adaptation, whereas Dr Mortimer is an occultist who holds séances with his wife... Yes, you read that correctly. Isn't it just terrible? He doesn't even obsess about skulls in this film. Apparently, skull-collecting is a much more suitable hobby for the film's baddie than butterfly-collecting, so they give Dr Mortimer's skulls to Stapleton in this film. No one, I repeat, NO ONE should ever ever ever take Dr Mortimer's skulls from him. This blogger is not happy. 

The Dartmoor setting

I'm actually giggling to myself now, because I'm about to write: this movie has a Stonehenge in Dartmoor. I didn't find myself much affected by the atmosphere in Dartmoor while watching this, but then again I often have that problem with black-and-white films. I also remember reading somewhere that they had to stage all the moor scenes in the studio, which of course sets some limitations. But even with budgetary restrictions, they just had to have that Stonehenge where it doesn't belong. 

The story

This screenplay actually works really well in some places. It opens with Sir Charles' death, while the hound howls on the moor. We then see the Barrymans, the Stapletons, the Mortimers and Mr Frankland being questioned about the circumstances of Sir Charles' death before we get to 221b Baker Street. Sir Henry's arrival in England shows his new status as a highly desirable bachelor, which is a good addition. Later on, there's quite a well-placed scene where Sir Henry is about to stumble into the mire when Miss Stapleton, who's out riding, warns him. In the book, the affection between these two seems to build up rather quickly with little justification besides "he's a dashing young man and she's a pretty girl", but this film actually manages to build some sort of a groundwork for it. Also, I just have to mention that Miss Stapleton's horse is really pretty. The flashback to Sir Hugo and the beginnings of the hound legend is a bit clumsy, but the gravest offense that this film commits storytelling-wise is that completely unnecessary spirit séance conducted by Dr Mortimer's wife. It. Is. Pointless!

The hound chase

This scene might have benefited from some tension-building background music. There's just a lot of running around on the moor, Sir Henry wrestles with the hound a bit and doesn't seem to be in very much mortal danger, then Holmes and Watson fire some shots and the hound limps away. It seems like the filmmakers wanted to quickly wrap this scene away so that Stapleton could lock Sherlock Holmes in a Neolithic grave in the next one. 

Peter Cushing & André Morell film, 1959

Screenplay by Peter Bryan

Directed by Terence Fisher

Running time 1 h 27 min

Holmes and Watson

Here we have my favorite Holmes&Watson duo out of all these adaptations. Peter Cushing's Sherlock Holmes possesses the exceptional intellect as well as the social quirks of the great sleuth, you really get the feeling that this man's mind works differently than the average person's. André Morell gives us a Dr Watson who is not only watchable, but actually capable. This film, more than all the others in this posts, shows how Dr Watson is useful to Holmes in other ways besides sending him reports. The two have a couple of really nice scenes together where Holmes and Watson discuss the case and this genuinely helps Holmes make sense of everything that's going on and enables him to reach his conclusion. Their reunion scene is quite unique in that there's very little talking about and the duo almost immediately jump back into action. This wouldn't work at all if the actors weren't so good at communicating through their expressions. You get the feeling that these two have worked together so long and have perfected their dynamics to such extent that they simply don't need to exchange too many words about why Holmes was secretly hiding on the moor. The film ends with the two of them having tea back at Baker Street in perfect harmony. It's lovely.

The supporting cast

We obviously have to talk about Sir Christopher Lee first. He plays Sir Henry and boy is he dashing. He's quite good at acting too, in case you didn't know. He works wonderfully in the role, but I'm sorry to say the rest of the supporting cast don't. The most mind-boggling of all is Miss Stapleton, who is now called Cecile. In the 1939 we had a stereotypical bland blonde; here we have a stereotypical exotic bad girl who runs around the moor barefoot and is bitchy to everyone for no apparent reason... except, it turns out that she's totally with Stapleton in his evil plans – and Stapleton is her daddy. Marla Landi does quite a bit of hilarious over-acting and it doesn't help at all that she's struggling with the fake Spanish accent. Yes, this film takes quite many liberties with the source material... Frankland is a batty old bishop and Dr Mortimer isn't really Dr Mortimer at all.

The Dartmoor setting

The outdoor locations are quite stunning here, but it doesn't really look like Dartmoor at all. There's no mist hanging about, we get pretty sunsets instead. Baskerville Hall is quite dark and creaky, which is good. This was the first Hound of the Baskervilles film in colour!

The story

This adaptation deviates from the original book most of all, and the changes and additions don't always seem to serve the plot entirely. There's an unnecessary tarantula in Sir Henry's boot, lots of talk about an ancient blood rite that doesn't seem to serve any purpose, and quite a long scene down in a mining shaft that similarly doesn't take the plot much anywhere. Sir Henry has a heart condition, the only function of which is that Dr Mortimer can point out that Sir Charles had a similar problem. Some of the long conversations could do with a bit of chopping. Then again, there are some genuinely suspenseful moments, and all those good scenes with Holmes and Watson that I mentioned earlier. This film opens with the horrible history of Sir Hugo, which is quite a good move because all the other adaptations have a bit of a struggle slapping in a flashback while Dr Mortimer presents the case.

The hound chase

Cecile Stapleton pretends to take Sir Henry out on a romantic walk but then leads him straight where Daddy Stapleton awaits with the hound, who is supposed to look more terrifying with a funny mask on. Cecile makes some pretty comical facial expressions when Holmes and Watson turn up, but at least Sir Christopher Lee knows how to act properly terrified while being mauled by the hound. His paralyzed expression when it's all over and he realizes that Cecile betrayed him is especially heart-wrenching. 

Tom Baker & Terence Rigby serial, 1982

Screenplay by Alexander Baron

Directed by Peter Duguid

Running time 4 x 25 min

Holmes and Watson

Tom Baker's portrayal of Sherlock Holmes doesn't seem to be very popular – most people seem to think he hadn't quite managed yet to let go of his role as the Doctor. Well, I have to say I quite liked watching him. I haven't seen any of his Doctor Who episodes, so maybe that keeps me from drawing comparisons between those two roles. Terence Rigby, on the other hand, is a ridiculously annoying Dr Watson. Only Nigel Bruce can top his Watson in uselessness. He doesn't do much anything in any scenes, he just stands in the sidelines! I can't really say anything about the dynamic between Holmes and Watson because there doesn't seem to be any. I can't even remember what their reunion scene was like. 

The supporting cast

This is the first adaptation in the list that includes Laura Lyons, and Caroline Shaw is by far the best actress in that role. She delivers the bitterness of the abandoned wife most excellently. The Barrymores are also very book-accurate, as is Stapleton, who doesn't immediately get the "bad guy" stamp on his appearance – in the book, too, he seems like a perfectly normal man, until the very end. I like it very much that this serial stays truthful to that. The best bit, however, is dear Dr Mortimer. Finally, an accurate Dr Mortimer! He even obsesses about Holmes' parietal fissure! Thank you so much! Sir Henry is a bit bad-tempered and abrasive in this version, which is bizarre but doesn't fatally ruin anything.

The Dartmoor setting

Well, this looks like Dartmoor finally. Baskerville Hall seems quite comfy in this version, and the background music doesn't really up the atmosphere – it's actually quite terrible throughout the series. The first time the hound howled, the sound effect was so unconvincing that I actually missed it completely and then wondered for a while why all the characters suddenly looked so frightened. 

The story

A serial format always runs the risk of dragging in some places, but this one keeps the pace very well throughout. Each 25-minute episode ends with a nice cliffhanger. The screenplay is very faithful to the book so it doesn't commit any horrible travesty by changing things around unnecessarily, but neither does it attempt to make any creative choices that would make watching more interesting for someone who already knows what's going to happen. 

The hound chase

Oh, the music is so terrible that it ruins the whole scene. The hound looks ludicrous and there's something a little off about the editing when it attacks Sir Henry. 

Jeremy Brett & Edward Hardwicke TV film, 1988

Dr Watson, Dr Mortimer <3 and Sherlock Holmes

Screenplay by Trevor Bowen

Directed by Brian Mills

Running time 1 h 45 min

Holmes and Watson

Please don't fling your deerstalkers at me when I say I haven't really warmed up to the Granada series like most of the population has. I don't find any particular fault with it, or the two lead actors Brett and Hardwicke, but it's not my cup of tea. Jeremy Brett's dedication for his role shows throughout the series, but I also can't help noticing his deteriorating health. In The Hound of the Baskervilles, the close-up shots already show a man not in the best health, and it makes me sad. Edward Hardwicke's Dr Watson isn't stupid at all, which is wonderful. He's steady and loyal, if a tad bit too "safe" in my opinion. This adaptation has the best Holmes & Watson reunion scene, though. As in the 1959 film, you get the impression of true partnership. Added bonus for displaying Holmes' lack of culinary abilities, and Watson's delightful frankness when he tells him so.

The supporting cast

Alright, Dr Mortimer in the 1982 miniseries was amazing, but this one is... absolutely perfect! I'm actually working really hard now to restrain myself from filling this section with hearts, smiley faces and exclamation marks. Alastair Duncan's portrayal of Dr Mortimer will be a never-ending source of happiness for me, proving just how perfectly a literary character can be transferred to screen on a rare occasion. I love the scene at Baker Street where he lets his spaniel jump on the furniture, completely oblivious to Holmes' disapproval – and the scene where he shows Dr Watson his recently unearthed skull. Oh my. Right, there were probably some other supporting characters in this film too that I should mention... Yes, Stapleton. He's really good in this too and sticks to his book-accurate pastime of butterfly hunting. Laura Lyons is included as well, but she isn't very impressive. To tell the truth, I always find the female characters in the Granada series bizarrely bland! They even managed to make a flat Irene Adler and Violet Hunter, how weird is that! Does anybody else feel this way? 

The Dartmoor setting

I don't seem to have anything important to say about this point, which probably means that I felt the setting worked reasonably well but didn't impress me in any particular way. This is what I mostly feel like when watching the Granada series. 

The story

The pacing dragged a tiny bit now and then, but I really liked what this film did with the middle part where Holmes is apparently absent from the story. There are little scenes sprinkled here and there that show someone collecting Watson's letters from the post office, and a close-up of Holmes' boots right before the reunion scene. Good work. You might also guess that I wasn't bothered at all that Dr Mortimer's role was expanded a little in this. He sits around with Dr Watson when he tracks down the mysterious "man on the tor" and replaces Lestrade in the hound attack scene.

The hound chase

The hound isn't terribly frightening, but the atmosphere is suitably eerie and Sir Henry seems genuinely affected by the attack. The composer was much better than the one in the 1982 serial!

Richard Roxburgh & Ian Hart TV film, 2002

Holmes on the right, Watson on the left

Screenplay by Allan Cubitt

Directed by David Attwood

Running time 1 h 40 min

Holmes and Watson

This film does the weirdest thing with the friendship of Holmes and Watson; they seem so fed up with each other I'm quite surprised they're living together in the first place. There's nothing Holmesian whatsoever in Richard Roxburgh's portrayal, and there's a terrible scene after Mortimer has presented the case where Holmes calls Watson an idiot, slams the door to his face and retreats to shoot up cocaine in peace. Um, did Allan Cubitt just completely ignore the bit in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's stories which clearly states that Holmes would only seek for stimulation in drugs if he didn't have a case to work on? So why is he now doing it right after he's been given a case? Watson is only fractionally better portrayed than his partner – I initially liked having a Watson who's closer to Holmes in age and portrays the rarely seen kind of Watson whom you can actually believe has seen the Afghan war and knows damn well how to handle a gun. There's also a nice detail about him being unbeatable at billiards. But then it appears that Ian Hart brings very little life and soul to the character. He's bad-tempered and surly most of the time, though that's quite understandable considering what an abrasive Holmes he's paired up with, and his last words in the film are: "I don't trust you, Holmes." ...Excuse me, what? 

The supporting cast 

So the leads are cringy, but hey, here we have the best Beryl Stapleton in the bunch. She's very pretty and, most importantly, she seems capable of showing real emotions, especially towards Sir Henry, with whom she has a couple of useful extra scenes. Sir Henry's character is perhaps a little overdone, but this film makes the most effort in exploring what it must have felt like for him, suddenly learning that he's heir to a large property on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. There's a particularly clever scene where he sits at the dinner table and looks furtively at the paintings of his ancestors, clearly feeling quite out of place. Richard E. Grant plays Stapleton, and he's a bit too obviously evil from the very beginning. And once again, Stapleton steals Mortimer's skulls. Mortimer himself has nothing to do with his literary counterpart. Aargh. 

The Dartmoor setting

Whatever the numerous faults with this film, I can honestly say that the cinematography is excellent. This is the only version that manages to build up real tension when Sir Henry and Dr Watson arrive at Baskerville Hall. I actually felt the chills on their journey there, it was so well shot. Baskerville Hall is quite gorgeous too.

The story

I like the beginning. It shows the prisoner Selden being pursued by policemen across the chilly moor, and we get quite a disturbing glimpse of how fatal the mire can be. This film then takes a leaf out of the 1939 film's book and shows how the investigation of Sir Charles' death proceeds, and this is very well done. Unfortunately, the film also recreates the damned séance scene which, once again, is completely useless. There are some extra scenes that give more depth to some characters, though in the case of Holmes and Watson it only works to highlight their incompatibility... At one point there's a time jump and suddenly it's Christmas! There's a huge party at Baskerville Hall, and there's a really stupid play for the guests' entertainment. Well, not a play exactly, just people tottering around in costumes. One of them is dressed as a black dog which I suppose was meant to be ominous foreshadowing, but I was laughing too hard at this point to pay attention to it. Laura Lyons doesn't exist in this film, so there is no explanation to why Sir Charles was waiting around outdoors in the first place.

The hound chase

Well, the hound in this version shows that special effects have progressed a little since the '80s though it could have been done much better, otherwise there isn't much to say. There's such an awful lot happening after the climax that it kind of diverts the viewer's attention. Beryl Stapleton is found dead. That's just awful and unnecessary. Watson gets shot, which enables Holmes to be suddenly concerned for his companion's welfare for a while, which is quite unexpected given how he's been acting earlier. Holmes follows Stapleton to the mire, where he almost drowns himself, but Watson comes to the rescue. I get the feeling that the screenplay started off wanting to cook up as much friction as possible between Holmes and Watson, then, after the hound chase, it suddenly occurred to it that this relationship should develop somehow and these guys were actually supposed to be friends – hence the shooting and drowning. All this forced development then amounts to nothing as Watson utters his last words.

------

Now, did I find The Best Adaptation among all of these? Well, as you can see from my assessments, each of these five adaptations has something good about it. Sometimes they fail miserably in some areas, and at times they play too safe. Overall, I think the Granada version manages to deliver a most consistent adaptation, but for me it's not the kind of Favourite Adaptation that I would absolutely want in my DVD collection, though I would like to keep that Dr Mortimer. So, I'm still waiting to see an adaptation that does proper justice to the main characters and their partnership, doesn't ruin any of the supporting characters, delivers the haunting atmosphere of Dartmoor, and gives us a properly scary hound.

What about that mysterious "plus one", then? Dear readers, that is actually my favourite Hound adaptation but I couldn't place it alongside the others because... yes, it's the Sherlock episode "Hounds of Baskerville"! As it is a modern re-telling rather than an adaptation of the book, with different locations, characters and plot points, it isn't entirely comparable with the rest of the list. However... as it is a very good re-telling, it actually delivers all of the five elements that I was looking for in a Hound screen adaptation. Let's take a look.

"The Hounds of Baskerville" in Sherlock, 2012

Screenplay by Mark Gatiss
Directed by Paul McGuigan
Running time 1 h 28 min

Holmes and Watson

I'm going to be writing more about Sherlock in a couple of days, so I'll save most of my raving about how perfectly cast and portrayed the lead characters are for that post. These two are my favourite Holmes and Watson without a doubt, and I love watching how their friendship evolves throughout the series as well as in this episode alone. In this version, Sherlock comes to Dartmoor with John and Henry in the first place, so there isn't a reunion scene – however, I think the "I don't have friends. I've just got one." scene serves a similar function, and I love that moment to bits. 

The supporting cast

So, instead of upper-class Dartmoor residents we've got a severely traumatized Henry Knight, a couple of whitecoats and army officers at a military base, and Henry's therapist. The supporting characters pay homage to the book counterparts in familiar names, but they function very differently. They all serve a purpose, however, and are very memorable. I like Doctor Stapleton especially, and the two innkeepers who were added in.

The Dartmoor setting

I love the locations in this episode. Changing Baskerville Hall from a shady, ancestral mansion to a blindingly white-walled, sinister army base is a brilliant modern update. It's absolutely scary, as is Dewer's Hollow. The editing and the music set the increasingly tense atmosphere excellently.

The story

This episode explores how fear works in the human mind, and it's quite compelling. Numerous red herrings are thrown around involving sugar, Morse code and an actual dog. It's one of my favourite episodes in Sherlock overall! It doesn't go by the original book, but pays homage to it in brilliant little ways.

The hound chase

We don't know till the very end of this scene whether the hound is real or drug-induced... or both. Once again the editing, and the unique visual style employed in Sherlock, really works to up the adrenalin. 

-----

Have you seen The Hound of the Baskervilles adapted to the screen? Which one do you like most out of my list? Can you recommend an adaptation that wasn't mentioned in this post? What do you think are the ingredients for a great Hound adaptation? Let's get some proper discussion going in the comments!

Oh, by the way, there's also an episode in Elementary called "The Hound of the Cancer Cells". It has nothing to do with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle except the clumsy wordplay in the title.

The Adventures and Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes: The Best in the Bunch

I mentioned in my New Year's post that I want to read all the Sherlock Holmes stories by the end of this year, going by the order in which they were published. I've read till The Hound of the Baskervilles and "The Adventure of the Empty House" from The Return of Sherlock Holmes so far, and I'm starting to shape the opinion that I prefer the short stories to the novels – with the exception of The Hound of the Baskervilles, which I thoroughly enjoyed. In my opinion, the Adventures and Memoirs collections are better than A Study in Scarlet and The Sign of Four at containing the adventure and mystery elements in the Sherlock Holmes stories and keeping the pace enjoyable. I liked both of these compilations of short stories very much, and rather than going for a traditional book review I thought I'd experiment a little and simply list my ten favorite stories from Adventures and Memoirs, and of course the reasons why I liked them particularly – as I'm always a huge why? person! I've listed the stories in the order in which they appear in the books because I think I need to get a bit more familiar with the canon and re-read all of these at least once in order to place them in an order of preference.

So, this is my Top Ten list out of the short stories in The Adventures and The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes!


A Case of Identity

Sherlock Holmes' adventures introduce us to clients and criminals of diverse walks of life and Holmes uncovers relevant character history from as far as the Australian gold rush and the Sepoy Rebellion in India. A Case of Identity shows the other end of the spectrum as it's a decidedly domestic affair, but no less crooked and appalling for it. Even if the subject of evil stepmothers has been endlessly explored in fairy tales and all kinds of fiction besides, I find Mr Windibanks a most intriguing villain in his terrible pursuit of psychologically destroying his stepdaughter.


The Adventure of the Speckled Band

And here we have another "Best Victorian Stepdad" candidate. Grimesby Roylott is an even darker character than Mr Windibank, and he has an awesome name. The part where Holmes and Watson sit in the dark for hours gives me the veritable creeps.


The Adventure of the Noble Bachelor

I fell in love with this story right at the beginning when Mr Holmes' conversation with his noble client Lord Robert St. Simon had me laughing my head off. Also, the little business with the F.M. initials completely fooled me.


The Adventure of the Copper Beeches

Reading the other participants' tag answers for Hamlette's blog party serves as proof that Miss Violet Hunter has many admirers. She deserves them, too, smart and adventurous as she is (I think you have to be quite adventurous to agree to move in with such a crazy household as the Rucastles'!) I only question her action of carrying around her cut-off hair... What's the point? There are plenty of utterly confusing clues along the story, and I was especially freaked out by the coil of red hair that Miss Hunter finds locked up in her room. This story also holds for me the golden memory of when I managed to deduce at least part of the mystery correctly – the part that Violet was hired to impersonate another red-headed woman! Jephro Rucastle is another great name for another diabolical character.


Silver Blaze

As a long-time horse lover, I'll never object to following Holmes and Watson to a horse stable, especially if it's located on Dartmoor. Dr Watson gets to show off his knowledge of surgical instruments, and we encounter the famous phrase "the curious incident of the dog in the night-time" which now has a life of its own as a successful novel and stage play.


The Adventure of the Yellow Face

I was completely lost with what the meaning of that yellow mask could be, and the final resolution was not even remotely close to anything I could possibly have imagined. I never expected to be moved to tears while reading a Sherlock Holmes adventure, but now I have experienced that as well. Sadly, our society is still not done with finding fault in multi-racial families.


The Adventure of the Gloria Scott

Basically, I like this one because it was The First and because part of it happens on a ship. Something about a mutiny in a confined space in the middle of nowhere sets my mind reeling...


The Adventure of the Musgrave Ritual

When I was a child, there were few things I loved more than a proper riddle in poetic form. The Musgrave Ritual totally wakes the child in me. I love watching Holmes running around the Musgrave estate, measuring imaginary trees.


The Adventure of the Greek Interpreter

I confess, the main appeal for me in this story is just that it's so hideously dark. Oh, and I met Mycroft Holmes for the first time! Hearing a character's voice and intonation in my head while reading is essential for me in order to have a perfect reading experience and not knowing what Mr Melas' Greek accent would sound like bothered me so much that I had to consult some Youtube videos to get a proper idea and continue reading.


The Final Problem

I had huge expectations for the original Moriarty after seeing Andrew Scott play him, and I wasn't disappointed. I was thrilled to find out that the fantastic "tea party for geniuses" scene in The Reichenback Fall has its roots in this story, and that Sherlock used a lot of the best original dialogue between Holmes and Moriarty!


What are your favorite short stories in the Holmes canon? Do you find them generally better than the novels or not? How do Adventures and Memoirs measure up against the later compilations that I haven't read yet?

Sherlock: Chronicles by Steve Tribe

New Year – new blog posts. And a new laptop. Santa was very nice this year. In fact, the subject of this year's second post (originally planned as the first, but then Hamlette's Sherlock Holmes blog party came by so conveniently) is another Christmas present, one that my sister (who is always wonderful with gifts!) gave to me: Sherlock: Chronicles by Steve Tribe, in other words a most fantastic behind-the-scenes companion to my favorite TV show.

You know how sometimes, these kinds of making-of books just have loads of pretty pictures and maybe a couple of little paragraphs of text, none of which is new information for you if you've seen the DVD extras. Well, not so with Sherlock: Chronicles. There is a lot to read in here – without forgetting the pretty pictures too. This person typing here, who normally finds it hard to get kicks out of visual stimuli, admits that she nearly had a fit on every turn of the page – that's how gorgeous this book looks. Whoever were responsible for the visual outlook of this book have done their job amazingly well.

Sherlock was, of course, born in the collective imaginations of Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss, who share a passion for Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's stories. Sherlock: Chronicles starts from the very beginning: the reasons behind Moffat and Gatiss' Holmeslove and why they wanted to create a modern Sherlock Holmes (for which they give impressively good justifications) and the process of collecting the most valuable members of the Sherlock-making team. All of these people share their thoughts in this book, and the textual portion is almost entirely made up of direct quotes. I think this kind of a structure works wonderfully; rather than feeling like we're relying on Steve Tribe's perception of Sherlock behind the scenes, it feels like we are hearing it all from the real people who made it. I even heard Moffat's, Gatiss', Cumberbatch's, Freeman's & co's voices very vividly in my head while reading, which was a rather fun experience.

The various quotes from Moffat and Gatiss alone provide a very intriguing view of the creative process that became Sherlock, but this book gives us even more than that. We actually get snippets from screenplay drafts that didn't make it to the final cut (an earlier version of John and Sherlock's "will you be my best man?" conversation reveals that John's mother is dead, and now I desperately want to know if it's still canon and if so, when and how!) and emails that they sent to each other while working on it.

The entertainment world and its media coverage often seems most obsessed with film stars and what they're wearing on the red carpet, and I think that those of us who want to consider ourselves aficionados of film and television can't be reminded often enough that the greatest productions on screen are always the result of a tremendous, hugely dedicated group effort in which the actors are just one important element among others, though of course they do make the most visible contribution. In the case of Sherlock, it looks like Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss, the creators and principal writers, are getting recognition comparable to that of lead actors Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman, which is already a very positive development in my mind. However, Sherlock: Chronicles draws even more of the uniquely talented people on the show's team to the spotlight. Someone had to compose that music that sets the atmosphere in the way we all now associate with Sherlock; to manage the editing which gives the show its distinctive look; to dress up all of John and Mary's wedding guests; and decorate Sherlock and John's flat where we all want to live in. Sherlock: Chronicles gives a voice to all of these people. One of my favourite parts in the book was director Paul McGuigan's delightfully lengthy portion. He has directed four episodes of Sherlock so far, and did you know that it was originally his idea to show text messages directly on the screen? Just try to imagine Sherlock now without that one unique visual trick! McGuigan also gives some insight to the differences of film and TV and how they have evolved lately, and how the positions of a director and a screenwriter differ in those worlds.

All in all, Steve Tribe's Sherlock: Chronicles is a great read for any fan of the show, but it will also satisfy someone with a deeper interest in what goes into making good television as it covers the different stages from screenwriting to visual effects. It's beautiful to look at and abundant in interesting and informative content. Most importantly, it celebrates not just Sherlock as a unique and widely acclaimed TV show, but all the diversely talented people who bring it to us and the cultural significance and inspiring qualities of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's original stories that put Moffat and Gatiss in action in the first place. Sherlock is something very special and so is this book.

So, this is the first in a series of Sherlock Holmes-y posts that I'll be putting up this week to commemorate the legendary sleuth's recent birthday, for which occasion fellow blogger Hamlette hosted a marvellous blog party. I have the upcoming posts mostly planned out and half-written, but there is one subject on which I simply can't make up my mind, and I was wondering if any of you readers would like to help me out and voice your opinion on what you would like to read in the near future.

The (Final) Problem is handling the two current modern-day Sherlock Holmeses in BBC's Sherlock and CBS's Elementary. I was initially planning a good old Sherlock vs. Elementary post where I'd compare the two shows side by side. I have to confess that I love the idea of pitting two similar-yet-fundamentally-different things against each other in writing and I have a couple of other This vs. That posts planned already. However, there was a lot of Sherlock vs. Elementary stuff on blogs, websites and Youtube at the time when the two shows emerged, so I wondered if people have gotten bored of that sort of thing already. Some people also find that the two shows are so different structurally that there's little point in comparing them to each other, and I can see their point as well. So, readers, do you want to see a comparison post or individual posts on both shows? Throw me a comment so I'll know and keep checking up Music & My Mind over the week if you're interested in more Holmes-y content!

Happy Birthday, Sherlock Holmes!

So, it looks like someone has a birthday today! Hamlette is celebrating at The Edge of the Precipice, and she graciously invited the rest of the Blogiverse to join in – thank you for hosting, Hamlette, I love your blog parties in case you didn't know! As it happens, I've been preparing a couple of Holmes related blog posts myself, so somewhere during this week you might expect a couple of Sir Arhur Conan Doyle book reviews, my opinions on the Guy Ritchie films, The Hound of the Baskervilles screen adaptations across the ages, and a couple of words... or a lot more than that... about BBC's Sherlock and CBS's Elementary. But first in order are Hamlette's party questions.


1. When and how did you first encounter Sherlock Holmes?

Sherlock Holmes is such an iconic character that I think everyone has some sort of an image of him, even if they don't intentionally seek him out. I was like this for the first 23 years of my life. I think I can call myself one of the "Cumberbatch generation" Sherlockians because, quite honestly, it wasn't till I got excited about Sherlock last March that I had any interest in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's works. Before Sherlock, I think the only thing even close to Sherlock Holmes that I had ever consumed was Disney's The Great Mouse Detective – I still love that film, by the way.

2. Please share a fact or two about yourself related to Holmes. (You've read the whole canon, you've been to Baker Street, you're an official BSI member, etc.)

The aforementioned fact that my first Sherlock Holmes was the modernized one might already be  shocking enough for an old-school Sherlockian... Alright, I'm still going to add that Holmes' fixed association with the deer-stalker hat annoys the heck out of me. Only few months ago I read a (supposedly prestigious) film critic who went on about how Sherlock Holmes ain't a true Sherlock Holmes without that damned hat.

3. What are three of your favourite Holmes adventures?

I've only read the books in publishing order till The Hound of the Baskervilles, but I do have a couple of very strong favorites. The top three would be The Adventure of the Copper Beeches, The Final Problem and The Adventure of the Musgrave Ritual. 

4. What draws you to the Sherlock Holmes stories?

Initially, I wanted to see exactly how Sherlock compared with its source material and why the writers had felt like this character and his adventures would work particularly well in a modern setting. Then, I found out that the stories were hugely entertaining, especially regarding the main character himself. I love all of his snarky lines.

5. If you were going to give Sherlock Holmes a birthday present, what would it be?

I would give him a top hat because I'm obsessed with them myself. It's also much more fitting for a Victorian London gentleman than... you know, that hat.

6. If you could climb into a Holmes story and replace any one character for a day, who would you like to be? 

I would want to be one of the Baker Street Irregulars. I would totally be in for one day on the grimier side of London, and I'd get to do seemingly random but very important stuff for Holmes, like dig for newspapers and tail people.

7. Please share some of your favorite Holmes-related quotes. 

"-- I naturally gravitated to London, that great cesspool into which all the loungers and idlers of the Empire are irresistibly drained." (Doctor Watson in A Study in Scarlet)

"The chief proof of man's real greatness lies in his perception of his own smallness." (Sherlock Holmes in The Sign of Four)

"We solve crimes, I blog about it, and he forgets his pants. I wouldn't hold out too much hope." (John in BBC's A Scandal in Belgravia)


My Holmesy blog posts:

The Hound of the Baskervilles

Sherlock: Chronicles by Steve Tribe

My Top 10 in the Adventures and Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes

5+1 screen adaptations of The Hound of the Baskervilles