Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 6
I did not mind the movie much. It is not like the (late) Jeremy Britt series. I guess that I think "House" is closer to the spirit of the Doyle characters anyway.
|
The recent movie was an attempt to cash in on the enduring appeal of Sherlock Holmes. About once a generation, there is a "new discovery" and one sees an increase in the # of SHerlockian items in the various media. The Jeremy Brett series is a good example. Jeremy Brett's portrayal is considered one of the best. It was excellent initially, but as time went on, I feel that Brett got too caught up in how he thought Holmes should be portrayed. Personally, I prefer Basil Rathbone, but many would argue that so many of the Rathbone/Bruce films were not sufficiently based on the Doyle documents.
I agree that the investigative and deductive powers portrayed in "House" are a pretty good example of what Holmes might have done were he a physician. But I would argue with your use of "Doyle characters". That suggests that Doyle invented something. The truth is that Doyle was merely Watson's literary agent and was responsible for the fine tuning and eventual commercialization of the few cases Watson allowed to be published. Watson was a decent physician and an adequate (at times) companion and Boswell, but he was not the best businessman.
Had Holmes had his way, nothing would have been published and he was quite disappointed that Watson chose to renege on the gentlemen's agreement to "chronicle but not publish". To this day, Holmes contends that his association with Watson was, on balance, not positive.