A new face under the deerstalker hat

[sniffles]

I just read in the newspaper that Rupert Everett is appearing in a Sherlock Holmes film on PBS's Masterpiece Theatre. I like Rupert, but it makes me sad that someone else will be trying to wear the deerstalker after Jeremy Brett. He was the best Holmes ever, IMHO. Basil Rathbone wasn't bad, but it was too bad RKO felt it necessary to update the stories to WWII, and Nigel Bruce was such a bumbling idiot as Dr. Watson that it detracted from Rathbone's performance. But Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke made a perfect Holmes and Watson for me. I also had the pleasure of seeing them perform in the stage production "The Secret of Sherlock Holmes" in London back in 1989, and it was a thrill. I went around behind the theatre afterward to try to get Brett's autograph and was so intimidated by him that I ended up being afraid to approach him. But I've always been really happy I got a chance to see that performance.
Just had to share my nostalgia, and maybe a little disappointment that someone else is stepping into the role.

 

[Mark CMG]

Rupert Everett might be a good fit. There have been many, many Holmes (and I agree that Brett was one of the best) but I think there might be room for another.

 

[Kolchak]

The first episode airs this Sunday! It looks very interesting and I will give it a shot. Though I am a BIG fan of Jeremy Brett, I am always like a good Holmes story.

 

[Wombat]

Poor old Basil. He did much better (brilliant!)on radio, before they tried to "extend" the Holmes stories into the (then) modern age. And making Watson into a doofus was downright criminal

And, yes, Jeremy Brett made a fantastic Holmes, but it is odd how enduring the image of Rathbone really is in the collective unconscience.

Still, I'm always up for new protrayals.

Though tonight I am now inspired to watch Without a Clue

 

[ddvmor]

This was aired in the UK sometime around Christmas last year - I think it's the Hound of the Baskervilles, although there may have been a second one as well. It was pretty good, but Everett didn't quite cut it for me as Holmes. Brett is the man!

 

[Richards]

Just a reminder: it's about to start. I'm looking forward to it.

Johnathan

 

[Richards]

So, what did everyone think? I thought he did a respectable job as Holmes, although he did look pretty young, especially as Watson was already no longer living at 221B Baker Street. Also, it was pretty jarring having Watson's fiancee calling him "Sherlock" all the time - nobody calls him "Sherlock," just "Holmes" (well, okay, except maybe Mycroft). Also, am I misremembering things again, or weren't both of Watson's wives (he had two in sequence, not simultaneously) both named Mary? I forgot this one's name, but I know it wasn't Mary.

Johnathan

 

[sniffles]

Yes, Watson had two wives, both named Mary.

I didn't watch it, and I suspect I would have found it too irritating to have someone keep calling Holmes by his given name - not to mention that isn't very appropriate for the etiquette of the period. I did see just the first couple of minutes and it seemed difficult to tell what time period it was set in. Did they change the era, or did I just not watch long enough? Lestrade's costume didn't look Victorian in the brief glimpse I had of it.

 

[Desdichado]

I was always partial to Michael Cain as Holmes and Ben Kingsley as Watson. Although that was a very non-traditional interpretation, of course.

 

[Richards]

sniffles - No, it looked to be Victorian era all right.

Johnathan