If you are in a Reichenbach panic - read this it may help

Up and down the land (UK) people are waiting with a mixture of excitement and dread for the final Sherlock episode. This episode is entitled The Reichenbach Fall and is of course based, to some extent, on The Final Problem – Arthur Conan Doyle’s story of 1893 - in which Sherlock Holmes supposedly met his end.

People seem seriously worried that our new Sherlock will not return. My thought on this is that people should not panic. I’m not saying that watching this episode will not be difficult or emotional but if you look at it more clinically it seems unlikely that it is the end.

When Conan Doyle wrote The Final Problem he was desperate to see an end to Holmes. He was tired of him and wanted to focus on other things. Despite this he did not close the door on Holmes. No body was found and the person to conclude that Holmes was dead was Watson who, as we know, was famous for seeing but not observing.

Thus, in 1903, Conan Doyle was able to bring Holmes back without any real difficulty.

Now look at the new series. To my knowledge, not one of the writers or actors has made a statement to the effect that they definitely won’t do any more. None have expressed any desire to be rid of Holmes. On a commercial basis the series must be raking it in. Worldwide broadcast rights, DVD sales, soundtrack sales. Does anyone really think that they’ll just stop?

Yes Martin Freeman’s Hobbit commitments and Benedict Cumberbatch’s involvement in the new Star Trek film are bound to cause a long delay but I feel pretty confident at this stage that Sherlock Holmes will return.

Take heart citizens of Britain.

Not long now.....

The Shadow of Sherlock Holmes

Cumberbatch and Freeman in Sherlock

Now that the end of the second series of BBC’s Sherlock is coming into view (for the UK) the inevitable debates as to whether or not there will be a third series have commenced. This would have been the case in any event but it is even more so when the concluding episode of the second series is to be based, at least in part, on The Final Problem.

Some on-line articles have been suggesting that Benedict Cumberbatch may not wish to return to the role. To what extent this is true or not is really only known to him but it made me think about many of the past actors to take on this iconic role and how they fared.

I don’t think any actor truly appreciates how this role can define you (and take you over) until such time as they find themselves playing it. It doesn’t matter what you read about your predecessors you will not truly know until you, as it were, don the deerstalker.

One of the earliest (but not first by a long way) Holmes actors was Arthur Wontner who starred in five films in the early 1930s. Perhaps as a result of only doing five films he avoided being forever associated with the role although he was pretty much typecast in aristocratic/patrician roles. The same was not true for the man who followed. Basil Rathbone became defined by the role, playing him in 14 films and countless radio plays. He eventually put Holmes behind him but by then it was too late and he found other work harder to come by. He ultimately returned to 221B in a play written by his wife – which flopped.

Arthur Wontner

Douglas Wilmer, the notable character actor, is one of the few people who successfully played Holmes on screen more than ten times without being consumed by the part. His series (after a 1964 pilot) aired in 1965 but when he was asked to return to the role he declined highlighting production issues. Although he did go on to make many radio appearances as Holmes his lack of screen outings, helped him to shed the Holmes image with the public.

Wilmer’s replacement, Peter Cushing, possibly escaped being defined as Holmes because he was already largely identified with the role of Van Helsing in the Hammer Dracula film series. He too only made one series for the BBC. However both he and Wilmer returned to the role in one-off appearances. Wilmer in The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes’ Smarter Brother and Cushing in The Masks of Death.

Jeremy Brett

Jeremy Brett was the next notable actor to take on the role and he very much made it his own. With hindsight it is quite clear that the role more or less consumed him with negative consequences. He appeared to go from loving the part to loathing it and finally to being determined to film the entire canon regardless of the cost to himself. In the end his death brought about the end of his mission.

It is perhaps Brett’s experience more than any other that has shaped the attitude of actors to the role since then. Within the UK most actors have taken on the role for only one film - Richard Roxburgh and Rupert Everett making one film each for the BBC. When Jonathan Pryce took on the role in a Holmes drama for children he too confined himself to one appearance (although that might have been due to the fact that it was a pretty poor drama).

So now we have Mr Cumberbatch with six films under his belt. Does he fear the Holmes curse? Perhaps, but I like to think he will stick with the role as long as he gets to do plenty of other contrasting roles elsewhere. For us viewers it could mean that the price of retaining our leading man is longer gaps between each series. Can we cope with that? Probably not. Will we cope with that? We’ll do our best.

Sherlockology post is now available

My article on the 2012 Sherlock Holmes Society of London dinner (featuring Steven Moffat as guest speaker) can be found here.

Sherlock Holmes Society - Annual Dinner 2012

On Saturday January 7th I attended the Sherlock Holmes Society of London's Annual Dinner at the House of Commons. The guest speaker was Steven Moffat and other guests included Sue Vertue, Mark Gatiss and members of the Doyle family.

I have written a short summary of the evening but it will be posted hopefully on the Sherlockology fan site for the BBC Sherlock series. As soon as it appears I shall place the link here.

The Hounds of Baskerville - Some thoughts

I'm pretty confident that this is spoiler free.

The Hound of the Baskervilles is, I feel, more rooted than most Sherlock Holmes stories in the Victorian era. Its central premise – the idea of a phantom hound stalking a family through the generations - works really well in its normal Victorian setting.

Naturally, for a 21st century audience with a more scientific and less superstitious outlook, that was never going to work. Consequently the legend aspect was removed by Mark Gatiss in his retelling The Hounds of Baskerville.

I can only admire the way that Gatiss reworked the story so that many of the characters from the original were able to make their way into his version. Barrymore, Stapleton, Mortimer and Frankland were all woven into the story in very suitable parts. However be warned that the characters do not have the same motives and, consequently, those versed in the original story are likely to be very surprised about who is friend and who is foe.

For those of us versed in the origins of the story there was also a very welcome, and some might say overdue, nod to Bertram Fletcher Robinson – who gave Conan Doyle the inspiration for the original story – in the Dartmoor tour guide Fletcher.

The effects and music do a first class job of creating tension especially in the moments featuring Henry Knight struggling with his internal (and external) demons.

We also see excellent acting (as we have come to expect) from Cumberbatch and Freeman. The former, in particular, shines when we see Holmes struggling with his scientific and logical world falling down around him.

I was in the dark (in every sense) as to how the conclusion would play out and it is well done indeed given the constraints imposed by its new chronological setting and its more sceptical audience.

However, and this is no criticism of Mark Gatiss, while this episode was excellent and easily on a par with its predecessor, I cannot help but feel that this story, perhaps more than any other in the canon, works best in its original setting with its original ghostly canine.

If you are interested in how the original story came about it is covered in my latest book. Online links can be found here.

A Scandal in Belgravia - A few comments

Possible spoilers - if in any doubt do not read. You have been warned.

I have been hesitant to post any comments re A Scandal in Belgravia for fear of incurring the ire of people outside of the UK who are yet to see the episode. However I have been asked to comment now by a few people so I will do so.

I have tried to avoid spoilers but some may have made it into my comments so you read this at your own risk if you are yet to see the episode.

Once again Steven Moffat has shown his strong grasp of the original source material. The early scenes that illustrate how famous Sherlock has become through John’s blog are really well done as are the names of the cases they mention - all of which are plays on original cases from the canon.

Turning to Irene Adler – I think the portrayal of the character was fantastic. I’m sure the idea of her as a dominatrix sounds funny on paper but it seems to work on screen. The link between Adler and Moriarty was predictable but I suppose unavoidable given the way the episode opened.

A problem highlighted by others is that in this film Adler ultimately loses which is different from the original story upon which the film is based. I would contend that she both loses and wins. Yes she loses her hold over the government but she succeeds in gaining a much stronger hold over Sherlock than the character ever managed in the book. I won’t say more as that would be a definite spoiler. I would argue though that this is her victory – she makes Sherlock Holmes care, she makes him feel.

I apologise for the concise comments but I don’t wish to give away anything inadvertently. I am looking forward to The Hounds of Baskerville immensely.

I will be writing a guest post for Sherlockology following the annual dinner of the Sherlock Holmes Society of London. Keep an eye on their website for it.

Review of An Entirely New Country

A nice review has appeared on the Better Holmes and Gardens blog

http://betterholmesandgardens.blogspot.com/2012/01/book-review-entirely-new-country-arthur.html