Inside Holmes

DiscussionsBaker Street and Beyond

Rejoignez LibraryThing pour poster.

Inside Holmes

Ce sujet est actuellement indiqué comme "en sommeil"—le dernier message date de plus de 90 jours. Vous pouvez le réveiller en postant une réponse.

Juil 12, 2012, 8:33pm

Jeremy Brett's psychological interpretation of Holmes, was much more accurate to me than Rathbone's, whose portrayal of the character as I viewed it. was a little one sided. But then Conan Doyle's portrayal of Holmes in the canon can be quite varied. Often he seems cold and calculating, and other times he is quite sympathetic, even philosophical. But always a master of his craft, yet socially awkward and emotionally fragile. Of course audiences were much different in Rathbone's day with different expectations, now we have Robert Downey Jr who has made Holmes an action hero. And I did actually enjoy both of his films!
Any thoughts?

Juil 12, 2012, 8:41pm

I think his complexity is one of the main reasons Holmes has survived so long. He is so much like a real person its almsot uncanny. I also like Brett's Holmes. I also found Sherlock an interesting interpretation of the character (though I haven't seen anything past season one at this point).

Juil 12, 2012, 9:08pm

I agree. I have Sherlock on dvd. I think the creators Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss aimed to free Holmes, in what was their view, of the paralyzing traditionalism in adaptations. Sort of 'Uber' fans perhaps! Jeremy Brett researched the canonical Holmes meticulously, and to many fans, his IS the man! Benedict Cumberbatch was an interesting choice though, his chemistry with Freeman was noteworthy, but I feel he is a little young to be playing Holmes really, but nevertheless, a good portrayal.

Juil 13, 2012, 9:39am

Pray what is wrong with traditionalism. If their intention was to create a modern superhero why not simply call him John and write new stories. If you call him Sherlock and simply update the stories they will always be unfavourably compared with the originals.Sherlock Holmes was written and set in Victorian/Edwardian times and bringing him into the 2010s makes as much sense as writing Morse or CSI and setting it in 1800.

Juil 21, 2012, 8:16pm

Nothing at all. In fact, I much prefer the more traditional Holmes. I like to watch modern interpretation, and it can work with the right script, actors and setting. But Conan Doyle wrote him and his whole persona for the Victorian era, and I think that is where he should be evermore.

Devenir membre pour poster.