I finally saw the movie Sherlock Holmes this week. About what I expected.
But one question. In the movie Watson had a gambling problem. Was that something from Conan Doyle that I hadn’t know or was this something invented for the movie?
Good rule of thumb: Everything in the movie except the names of the characters was invented for the movie*.
AFAIK, Watson in the stories had no gambling problem. I can’t recall him ever putting down a bet.
*I enjoyed it, but it had nothing to do with Doyle.
I agree, though I think the movie did include Holmes’ boxing skill, which is mentioned in the books.
Yes, he did. From “The Adventure Of Shoscombe Old Place”:
“By the way, Watson, you know something of racing?”
“I ought to. I pay for it with about half my wound pension.”
Sorry, but no. Most of the movie had nothing to do with Doyle, but there were a dozen or more sweet little obscure references to the books for buffs.
When Holmes says he locked Watson’s checkbook away so that he won’t spend his money foolishly that’s taken directly from “The Adventure of the Dancing Men.”
I think there was a passing mention on one story about Watson having been to the races, which would have been a common pastime for English gentlemen, but there was no indication that he had a problem, nor did Holmes have any apparent disagreement with Watson getting married (and no details on his later return to the Baker street residence; I guess the whole marriage thing wasn’t working out for him). Holmes, of course, did not have a romantic relationship with Irene Adler–his affection for her was purely based on the admiration of her clever machinations–and of course he didn’t prevent anything like the Powder Keg-esque plot in the film. It was a fun film, and some well done Wing Chug fight sequences, but it had only the remotest odor of anything from the imagination of Sir Doyle.
Stranger
He also makes a “bet” with Holmes in The Blue Carbuncle, (though it’s a trick to wrinkle information out of someone who isn’t othertwise forthcoming)
There was also a subtle reference to Holmes’ cocaine use, which I believe was mentioned in the original stories.
Many seem to confuse the Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce movies with the actual books. The new film is not like those classic films. OTOH, they do hew fairly close to the books.
We had a thread on this before, and other than the fact that the new film has Watson taller that Holmes (and even that’s not entirely solid in the canon, yes, Watson does refer to Holmes as tall, but not taller than him.)
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=544854&highlight=sherlock+holmes
For example in the Rathbone films, Watson is protrayed as rather dense. Not so in the book, although certainly not in the super-genius league of Holmes. In the new film, Watons is about right.
"No, it’s actually quite true to the BOOKs. It’s not true at all to the Basil Rathbone series of movies. In that series we come up with the stuff like the deerstalker hat, and the idiotic witless Watson. The film went back to the literary source for the fairly clever (but no match for Holmes) Watson, rather than the bumbling straightman to gasp at Sherlock’s deduction.
wiki "Watson is described as an intelligent man, if lacking in Holmes’ insight. He serves as a foil to Holmes: the ordinary man against the brilliant, emotionally-detached analytical machine. Doyle created a clever literary pairing: two vivid characters, different in their function and yet each useful for his purposes…In a number of film adaptations, in particular those featuring the comic skills of the actor Nigel Bruce, Watson became more of a caricature than a character. Far from being the able assistant as presented by Doyle, the Rathbone-Bruce films portrayed Watson as an incompetent bumbler."
The elements of the occult fit fine, based upon the ending. If you actually saw the film, you’d know that.
Next Irene Adler was “the woman” for Holmes- wiki "The only woman to impress Holmes was Irene Adler, who was always referred to by Holmes as “the woman”. Holmes himself is never directly quoted as using this term—even though he does mention her actual name several times in other cases. Adler is one of the few women who are mentioned in multiple Holmes stories, though she actually appears in person in only one, “A Scandal in Bohemia”.
The literary Holmes also is a fighter of some skill *"Fist-fighting Holmes is described as a formidable bare-knuckle fighter. In The Sign of the Four, Holmes introduces himself to a prize-fighter as:
“The amateur who fought three rounds with you at Alison’s rooms on the night of your benefit four years back.” McMurdo responds by saying, “Ah, you’re one that has wasted your gifts, you have! You might have aimed high, if you had joined the fancy.”
Holmes engages in hand to hand combat with his adversaries on occasions throughout the stories, inevitably emerging the victor.[28] It is mentioned also in “Gloria Scott” that Holmes trained as a boxer.*
Martial arts “The Adventure of the Empty House", Holmes recounts to Watson how he used martial arts to overcome Professor Moriarty and fling his adversary to his death at the Reichenbach Falls. He states that "I have some knowledge, however, of baritsu, or the Japanese system of wrestling, which has more than once been very useful to me.” "
Can you show me where in the actual books by Doyle, Watson is described as being shorter? He is described as being thin, not portly as portrayed by Bruce.
Your ideas of who and what Holmes is is clearly based upon the Rathbone-Bruce films, not the actual canon."
Now sure, the new film is a big action film, whereas the books do not have that much action. But the details are correct.
That’s one of those tiny details that writers like to pounce upon.
In “A Study in Scarlet” Watson is indeed described as being “as thin as a lath and as brown as a nut.”
But that’s before he met Holmes, in 1881, after a long period as an invalid after being wounded in Afghanistan. It’s not surprising that a man who spent months in a hospital bed would be thin. (Although why he would still be brown as a nut is a mystery no one has ever solved.)
Most men do grow fatter as they get older and Watson’s association with Holmes lasted 33 years, until “His Last Bow.” In that story, again to no surprise, he’s described as “thickset.”
In between, usually dated to around 1899, we have this dialog from “The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton.”
That’s vague but definitely not a description of a thin man, nor one who is taller than Holmes, as Jude Law is and people in that other thread tried to justify.
In fact, it’s almost an excellent description of Nigel Bruce except for one thing. Bruce was a half-inch taller than Law. That’s right. According to IMDb, at least, Nigel Bruce was an even six foot. Hardly middle-sized.
Doyle was a miserable hack who couldn’t be arsed to remember the first half of a story while he writing the second half, so looking for consistency in his works is a fool’s game. The clues are so scattered and muddled that you can come up with any answers you want. Unless you have a very young and still recovering Watson, though, making him thin, let alone tall, is not faithful casting.
Sherlockiana is less a game than a mania. Once you get in, you’re hooked.
Yep, in the Doyle stories Holmes loves to shoot up the Peruvian marching powder, although Watson eventually does get him to give up the habit.
I agree with DrDeth, the movie was an original creation and interpretation, but in many ways it was true to the Doyle source material. There’s lots of quotes taken directly from the books and stories, as well as lots of small scenes and little details.
As to the ops question, I believe it was a common practice for gamblers in 19th century Britain to have their friends hold onto their checkbook to prevent any rash decisions, and Holmes definitely keeps Watson’s checkbook locked in his desk.
A couple of other aspects of the movie that were true to the original stories: The disorder of Holmes’ quarters (though a bit more extreme than Conan Doyle would have pictured them), which included cigars in the coal-scuttle, tobacco in the toe of a Persian slipper, and huge piles of papers and manuscripts heaped everywhere. He also “draws” the monogram “VR” (Victoria Regina) on the wall with bullets from his pistol (though in actual fact this would probably have shattered all the plaster from the wall).
Please don’t confuse this movie as having anything to do with the Sherlock Holmes genre.
Actually, the Rathbone/Bruce films did not really hew close to the books (Sherlock Holmes in Washington? Please). Hound of the Baskervilles may have – I haven’t seen it – and **Murder at the Baskervilles ** (starring the neglected Arthur Wontner as Holmes) has a very faithful adaptation of “The Adventure of Silver Blaze” at its heart. But faithfulness was never an option for most Holmes films.
The trumpeting that showing Holmes as boxing is the high point of their faithfulness is phony ingenuousness. It is a trivial part of Holmes as a character – a little background color that rarely came into play. The comparative height of the two characters is even more trivial – it’s absurd to make a point over it.
The movie played fast and loose with everything. They manage to run from the House of Parliament to Tower Bridge in about 30 seconds – pretty good, considering the landmarks are two miles apart. Holmes knows immediate what radio is at the end, even though the term wasn’t coined until a decade after Tower Bridge was complete.
More importantly, Holmes in the books wasn’t an action hero. It was rare that he’d actually fight anyone (and, as indicated in “The Adventure of the Empty House,” his most iconic fight was a matter of wrestling, not boxing), and the fights as they were lasted only a moment. Holmes is an icon of pure intellect and I can assure you that no one read the stories in order to watch him fighting others.
Of course, the plot was made up of the whole cloth and, as is usual for Sherlock Holmes films, Moriarty’s importance is overstated (He only appeared in one story, and his death is mentioned in another, yet he always shows up in every Holmes movie). Irene Adler, too, is overstated – despite the “the woman” comment – in the first Holmes story – she is completely forgotten in the canon otherwise. She leaves, but she does not come back. You could make as good a case for any of the other women who passed through the stories, and, of course, Adler was only “the woman” because Holmes admired her intellect, not because he felt any romantic feelings toward her.
The movie is entertaining and I definitely liked it, but the Sherlock Holmes elements could have been completely eliminated and the film would have been just as good.
The first two Basil Rathbone films tried to stay close to the books – Hound of the Baskervilles and The adventures of Sherlock Holmes (although the latter isn’t based on any Sherlock Holmes story – but does have Professor Moriarty in it). After that they switched Holmes to then-contemporary London, with the result that he eventually fought Nazis. Some of these films are ostensibly based on Doyle’s stories, but it’s a big leap.
For my money, the best adaptations are the PBS/Granada series starring Jeremy Brett. But I suspect that’s true for much of thos Board.
I haven’t seen the film Sherlock Holmes yet. But I undoubtedly will.
This was a movie that completely re-envisioned Holmes as this hedonistic, degenerate party animal – yet left out the most hedonistic, degenerate thing about Doyle’s original character, to wit, his cocaine addiction. Even though they had Robert Downey, Jr. to play him. WTF?! 
As I pointed out, there was a reference to Holmes’ cocaine use in the movie.
While you’re correct that Holmes wasn’t an action hero, he was more than capable of defending himself and exhibiting remarkable feats of strength. Off the top of my head, I can think of several references to his physical abilities:
[ul]
Watson includes boxing and fencing among Holmes’ specialties
Holmes mentions out-boxing a “slogging ruffian” in The Adventure of the Solitary Cyclist
Holmes tells Watson he is “a bit of a single-stick expert” in The Adventure of the Illustrious Client
Holmes straightens an iron poker that Dr. Roylott had bent in The Adventure of the Speckled Band
[/ul]
This isn’t quite right either … Moriarty was mentioned, either directly or indirectly, in several stories. As you noted, he appears in “The Final Problem” and “The Empty House.” He makes a cameo appearance in “The Valley of Fear.” I know he was mentioned in other stories, usually as a comparison to villains Holmes was facing, and once in frustration, as Holmes was complaining that the London criminal was no longer a challenge with Moriarty gone. Considering that Holmes considered him the deadliest man in London, and his intellectual equal on the opposite side of the law, it’s natural that filmmakers would want to use him.
He’s mentioned in only those three stories, and not anywhere else.
Nope. I’ll pull the exact quotes from the stories if you want, but according to Wikipedia: “Holmes mentions Moriarty reminiscently in five other stories: ‘The Empty House’ (the immediate sequel to ‘he Final Problem’, ‘The Norwood Builder,’ ‘The Missing Three-Quarter,’ ‘The Illustrious Client,’, and ‘His Last Bow.’”