Palmerin Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 ... having Rathbone and Bruce portray Holmes and Watson as a poor imitation of Abbott and Costello??? Anybody who has read the Doyle originals knows very well that that is not the right way to characterize H&W. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslow_Leach Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 Oh, don't be so bloody over-dramatic. The only reason you can rationalize your analogy is due to the fact that, yes, Nigel Bruce's buffoonish Dr. Watson is an assault on a great literary character. But just because he's tall and fit does not consign Basil Rathbone's Holmes to a Bud Abbott similitude. Fie, I say "Fie"! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesJazGuitar Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 ... having Rathbone and Bruce portray Holmes and Watson as a poor imitation of Abbott and Costello??? Anybody who has read the Doyle originals knows very well that that is not the right way to characterize H&W. The were under contract with the studio. Again, you know little to nothing about movie making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fedya Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 For the right way to portray Holmes according to the Doyle originals, you'd need a coke addict like John Belushi. I'm not certain who'd be right to play Watson opposite that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MovieMadness Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 ... having Rathbone and Bruce portray Holmes and Watson as a poor imitation of Abbott and Costello??? Anybody who has read the Doyle originals knows very well that that is not the right way to characterize H&W. You are seventy-six years too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmovieviewer Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 As a big fan of the Sherlock Holmes stories and Rathbone as an actor in general, when I first saw the later films I was disappointed that they had updated and "Americanized" the plots to tie into current events. Of course that was during World War II so who am I to say if a more faithful adaptation of a Holmes story would be popular with audiences of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laffite Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 For the right way to portray Holmes according to the Doyle originals, you'd need a coke addict like John Belushi. I'm not certain who'd be right to play Watson opposite that. Maybe John could play a dual role. Just give him a pair of stilts when Holmes is on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesJazGuitar Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 For the right way to portray Holmes according to the Doyle originals, you'd need a coke addict like John Belushi. I'm not certain who'd be right to play Watson opposite that. Dwight Frye would have made a more realistic Holmes but of course if Holmes was portrayed as a coke addict those films would have been censored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricJ Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 ... having Rathbone and Bruce portray Holmes and Watson as a poor imitation of Abbott and Costello??? Anybody who has read the Doyle originals knows very well that that is not the right way to characterize H&W. Okay, Attention-boy: My dad RAISED me on Sherlock Holmes--books and movies--the way some dads raise their kids on baseball. And while I'll grant that Benedict Cumberbatch & Martin Freeman are even better than Jeremy Brett & Edward Hardwicke, Rathbone's caddish arrogance captures Holmes' ego and intensity perfectly. Yes, even in the crappy wartime B-movies, although the A-studio "Hound of the Baskervilles" and "Adv. of Sherlock Holmes" are better representations. Now, Nigel Bruce as Watson, OTOH...okay, that was a sad bit of 30's studio watering-down for mainstream audiences, but at least they had the sense to make the character to resemble the real life Arthur Conan Doyle. (They can't all be Christopher Plummer & James Mason from Murder by Decree, after all...) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sepiatone Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Yeah, I guess you could look at Rathbone as a sort of "straight man". But in case none of you noticed.... They recently got it right by casting ROBERT DOWNEY JR. as Holmes. That is if you INSIST on casting a coke addict. Or at least, a REFORMED one. Sepiatone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vautrin Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 From what I recall of the short stories and novels, Holmes' drug use was treated rather sparingly, though it was always there. Even though Nigel Bruce's Watson was very different from the character in the book, it certainly worked to keep things more entertaining in the movies. Take all his bumbling away and you might have a rather boring Watson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricJ Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 From what I recall of the short stories and novels, Holmes' drug use was treated rather sparingly, though it was always there. Even though Nigel Bruce's Watson was very different from the character in the book, it certainly worked to keep things more entertaining in the movies. Take all his bumbling away and you might have a rather boring Watson. The "drug use" (which gets all the giggles, especially in, ahem, some places I could name...) was already a problem in Victorian London, but emphasized that Holmes was a troubled character who NEEDED his fix of mental stimulation at all times. Dr. Watson in the book was a perfectly competent medical doctor, and did often complain about Holmes's habit, but for Holmes, a new case was instant Anti-Drug rehab. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sepiatone Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 From what I recall of the short stories and novels, Holmes' drug use was treated rather sparingly, though it was always there. Even though Nigel Bruce's Watson was very different from the character in the book, it certainly worked to keep things more entertaining in the movies. Take all his bumbling away and you might have a rather boring Watson. Actually, I know a few people, and there are probably also some on these boards who think Bruce's Watson was boring anyway. Sepiatone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vautrin Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 The "drug use" (which gets all the giggles, especially in, ahem, some places I could name...) was already a problem in Victorian London, but emphasized that Holmes was a troubled character who NEEDED his fix of mental stimulation at all times. Dr. Watson in the book was a perfectly competent medical doctor, and did often complain about Holmes's habit, but for Holmes, a new case was instant Anti-Drug rehab. I really never thought of him as a troubled character, except for the already mentioned need for mental stimulation which the drugs provided when the crimes didn't. Outside of that, he's just another English eccentric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vautrin Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Actually, I know a few people, and there are probably also some on these boards who think Bruce's Watson was boring anyway. Sepiatone I can see that. He was certainly one-note. It all comes down to whether one enjoys it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts