• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
The William stories went on far too long, he was a child of the '20s to the early '50s and the later stories generally don't work (there are exceptions, of course) After all they spanned from 1922 to 1970 by which time William would have been in his sixties! There were also the Jimmy stories about a younger child which also don't work IMO.

The only other novels of hers I've read were "of their time".

William has attracted some controversy https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/may/04/rorycarroll although this article doesn't mention the generally moral ending to the stories. William and the Nasties being Crompton's swipe at the Nazis (The Outlaws decide to take what they want from a Jewish sweet shop owner as it's what happens in Germany, despite many misgivings they go ahead but end up saving the owner from a burglar. The owner befriends them and they renounce any fascist ideas) Also Jumble's ratting abilities don't fit contempory sensibilities. The two stories were omitted from later editions of William the Detective.

Interestingly I once asked a successful young Black British author what books inspired him as a young Black guy growing up in England. I thought he would bemoan the lack of Black characters to identify with as there can't have been many; but he answered; "William Brown, what young boy wouldn't identify with a naughty schoolboy?"

But, back to Holmes and Doyle!

The Guardian goes rather OTT with its selective quoting and gawdy hyperbole about "William and the Nasties". referring to it as
"William and the Nasties, a racist 1935 yarn in which the Outlaws emulate Hitler by persecuting Mr Isaacs, a stingy, hook-nosed Jewish sweet shop owner."

A PDF of the book is available online and I skimmed through it. William and his chums are initially suspicious of the new sweet shop owner as they don't think he will be as generous as his predecessor. However, after saving him from the thief (who sounds like a cockney geezer), Mr Isaacs lets them take as many sweets as they can carry, with the words:
"Take vatever you vant. You can have as much as you can carry,'' he went on with reckless generosity. "See how much you can carry."
Mr. Isaacs, still beaming upon them gratefully, saw them off at the shop door. " And ven you come to spend your Saturday
pennies here," he said, " you vill find that I still have not forgotten."

william1.png


I can't see from the drawing whether Mr Isaacs has a "hook nose" or not, but such details obviously didn't stop The Guardian from their rant.

Whilst the language, notably depicting Mr Isaac's stereotypical accent, is clumsy and archaic, the overall message seemed to be that the "Nasties" (i.e. Nazis) got it very wrong and Jewish people can be as friendly and generous as anyone else.

https://gabrielquotes.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/william-and-the-nasties-scan-split.pdf
 
Last edited:
We all know how the long-suffering Watson is terminally obsequious and stands in awe of Holmes.
Which is one of the reasons I'm a huge fan of the Granada productions. With both David Burke and Edward Hardwicke as Watson, Holmes astounds Watson but doesn't make him such a dunce. In The Sign of Four, Holmes shows Watson respect for his field of expertise as he asks Watson to examine the body while Holmes himself takes in the crime scene.
 
Which is one of the reasons I'm a huge fan of the Granada productions. With both David Burke and Edward Hardwicke as Watson, Holmes astounds Watson but doesn't make him such a dunce. In The Sign of Four, Holmes shows Watson respect for his field of expertise as he asks Watson to examine the body while Holmes himself takes in the crime scene.
Yes, making Watson intelligent makes Holmes more remarkable; making him a dolt does nothing to enhance Holmes.
 
Which is one of the reasons I'm a huge fan of the Granada productions. With both David Burke and Edward Hardwicke as Watson, Holmes astounds Watson but doesn't make him such a dunce. In The Sign of Four, Holmes shows Watson respect for his field of expertise as he asks Watson to examine the body while Holmes himself takes in the crime scene.

There was one nice touch in the production I saw. Around an hour in, after treating Watson as little more than his porter, Holmes confides to him "without me, you would have no fame, but without you, I would be nothing."
 
This is a bit of a curio: a lost TV adaptation of a non-canonical Holmes tale from Canada - from 1993 - and starring Patrick MacNee as the great sleuth. (MacNeee will be known to many of us on here for his appearance on the British TV series's The Avengers and The New Avengers from the 60s through to the early eEighties).

Unfortunately there is only aboute 30 minutes of it here - so we never get to learn what is behind the intriguing title.

Macnee is cast against type as he's too stocky of build fot this famously wiry character - but otherwise puts in a creditable performance. (He has played Doctor Watson before apparently). The real star here though is John Scott Paget as a rather commanding Doctor Watson.

The script is good, being based on a stage play.

Tantalising. If anybody could source the whole thing I would be most grateful.

 
I've VHS tapes of the McNee as Watson/Christopher Lee as Holmes; they're called "Sherlock Holmes: The Golden Years" and, if I recall correctly, there were only two 'cases' - The Leading Lady and The Victoria Falls. Set in the mid-Edwardian period, Holmes keeps trying to retire. Not bad, considering they were 'Made For TV Films'.
 
Just for the hell of it: let's be having your - (1) Top 4 Sherlock Holme's depictions, (2) A promising Holmes that you'd like to see more of, (3) A Disastrous Holmes.

For me:

(1)
(a) Peter Cushing in the late Sixties TV adaptation. He brought a real sense of urbanity and decency to a character who can otherwise seem off-putting to many. His is the image that my mind defaults to whenever I read a Holmes story.

(b) Vasily Ivanov. The Soviet Holmes. Ivanov brought a sense of boyish mischief to the role which was very much his own take - and it works.

(c) Matt Frewer. This is a controversial one - but, for one thing, the Canadian comic really looks the part and for another his comedic, supercilious manner does kind of fit. He's great in his version of A Scandal in Bohemia.

(d) Colin Baker - audio only. So Mr Baker (see above) was involved in a stage audio version of Baskervilles recently. (I don't quite know how that works...but anyway). Now, okay, I've only heard snippets of this, but I've heard a lot of his Who and The Stranger audios and just know that he would be perfect as the voice of Holmes.

(2) So Rupert Everett played Holmes in a one off non-canonical TV drama a few years back and, even though I didn't much like the story itself, found it promising. I liked the way he dispensed with the usual traditional paraphernalia associated with the role (deerstalker hat, pipe, etc) whilst referencing other stuff mentioned in the origianl stories ( e.g drug use) Also - and as a staright guy I'm secure enough to say this - he brought a touch of beauty to the role.

(3) I'm tempted to say Robert Downey Junior, but I'm all for a bit of iconoclasm and, as I haven't seen the two films with him as Holmes I'll reserve judgement. Instead I'll plumb for Roger Moore (Holmes in New York, 1976). Being English, upper class and thin do not naturally confer Holmesian status onto an actor - particularly so if he's already known for being James Bond - a very different role - and plays the character in more or less the same way!
 
Last edited:
Just for the hell of it: let's have your - (1) Top 4 Sherlock Holme's depictions, (2) A promising Holmes that you'd like to see more of, (3) A Disastrous Holmes...

Not sure about the others, but my favourite representations of Holmes and Watson were those performed by Clive Merrison and Michael Williams for BBC Radio Four's adaptations of the Holmes canon. Many of these were written by Bert Coules, who is a great writer for radio - and always stays close to the original stories.

As I've said somewhere before - these adaptations managed to portray Holmes as not quite as infallible, and Watson as not quite as dense, as many other interpretations, while still keeping true to the originals. Highly enjoyable radio drama, in my opinion.
 
While I appreciate other 'Holmes' actors - especially Cushing - I'd recommend watching any of the Ronald Howard tv series, though he does conform to the stereotype of deerstalker and Inverness cape.The one actor who really nailed it for me was Jeremy Brett.
 
While I appreciate other 'Holmes' actors - especially Cushing - I'd recommend watching any of the Ronald Howard tv series, though he does conform to the stereotype of deerstalker and Inverness cape.The one actor who really nailed it for me was Jeremy Brett.
Definitely. Brett captured Holmes in a way I always imagined him. Quirky, arrogant, that knowing smirk and dismissive manner were perfectly brought to life.
 
Definitely. Brett captured Holmes in a way I always imagined him. Quirky, arrogant, that knowing smirk and dismissive manner were perfectly brought to life.
Jeremy Brett was my favourite too for the above reasons, & his occasional use of cocaine & morphine wasn’t skimmed over, as in most other portrayals where it's never mentioned.
 
A good Watson is essential to an effective Holmes. I reckon Hardwicke nailed it. I've a lot of time for Martin Freeman, too. However, I recently started watching Elementary, which stars Lucy Liu's legs as Dr Watson's legs. Some might saying they're pandering to the woke brigade casting female Chinese-American legs in a role traditionally associated with male anglo-saxon legs, but I have to say it's my favourite interpretation of the role.

As for Elementary itself; can't say I feel much association with the original literature, and the Holmes is a bit annoying, but I'm enjoying it overall.
 
Just for the hell of it: let's be having your - (1) Top 4 Sherlock Holme's depictions, (2) A promising Holmes that you'd like to see more of, (3) A Disastrous Holmes.

Top four Holmes depictions.

4) Ronald Howard. A good, solid, workmanlike Holmes, that hits the main beats well, but does lack depth, not since the restrictions of the time meant Sherlock's less agreeable aspects had to be glossed over.

3) Benedict Cumberbatch. Slightly odd one in that I distinctly prefer his Holmes to the show he's in, which is a little too taken with its own cleverness and pizazz right from the off, makes poor choices, and ultimately completely loses its way. Cumberbatch gets a lot right, but, ironically enough, is guilty of a charge I've seen levelled at my number one: he overplays things, at times verging on pastiche. It also isn't distinct enough from other roles of his, like Doctor Strange; he seems to be playing variations on a theme of Cumberbatch.

2) Peter Cushing. I refer to his turn in the appealingly ghoulish Hammer Hound of the Baskervilles, as that's the only one of his Holmes' I've seen, which is every bit as sharp, impatient and subtly playful as Sherlock should be.

1) Jeremy Brett. The most nuanced, the deepest, the richest Holmes by some way, every facet of the character brought vividly to life, and as close to perfection as we're likely to ever get. Two great Watsons and fantastic fidelity to the source material aid him ably.

A promising Holmes I'd like to see more of.

Jonny Lee Miller, aka the one that played him in Elementary. Not sure this is entirely true to the premise, but I think he was a good fit for Holmes, but badly let down by the show's creative choices, which made him feel more a character inspired by Holmes than Holmes himself. I'd like to see him play Sherlock with better supporting material.

A disastrous Holmes.

Don't think I've seen one I'd truly class as 'disastrous'. Rathbone left me a little wanting. Plummer was fun but rather lightweight. Closest would be Robert Downey Jr, because his Holmes is basically broad, knockabout parody with a faintly questionable accent, which is somewhat annoying as I think he'd be pretty good in a more faithful version.
 
Top four Holmes depictions.

4) Ronald Howard. A good, solid, workmanlike Holmes, that hits the main beats well, but does lack depth, not since the restrictions of the time meant Sherlock's less agreeable aspects had to be glossed over.

3) Benedict Cumberbatch. Slightly odd one in that I distinctly prefer his Holmes to the show he's in, which is a little too taken with its own cleverness and pizazz right from the off, makes poor choices, and ultimately completely loses its way. Cumberbatch gets a lot right, but, ironically enough, is guilty of a charge I've seen levelled at my number one: he overplays things, at times verging on pastiche. It also isn't distinct enough from other roles of his, like Doctor Strange; he seems to be playing variations on a theme of Cumberbatch.

2) Peter Cushing. I refer to his turn in the appealingly ghoulish Hammer Hound of the Baskervilles, as that's the only one of his Holmes' I've seen, which is every bit as sharp, impatient and subtly playful as Sherlock should be.

1) Jeremy Brett. The most nuanced, the deepest, the richest Holmes by some way, every facet of the character brought vividly to life, and as close to perfection as we're likely to ever get. Two great Watsons and fantastic fidelity to the source material aid him ably.

A promising Holmes I'd like to see more of.

Jonny Lee Miller, aka the one that played him in Elementary. Not sure this is entirely true to the premise, but I think he was a good fit for Holmes, but badly let down by the show's creative choices, which made him feel more a character inspired by Holmes than Holmes himself. I'd like to see him play Sherlock with better supporting material.

A disastrous Holmes.

Don't think I've seen one I'd truly class as 'disastrous'. Rathbone left me a little wanting. Plummer was fun but rather lightweight. Closest would be Robert Downey Jr, because his Holmes is basically broad, knockabout parody with a faintly questionable accent, which is somewhat annoying as I think he'd be pretty good in a more faithful version.
I'd agree with all this. Brett was our Holmes for a decade. At no small cost years ago, I got the boxset of the Grenada programme, and they're among the few DVDs that escaped my last purge. If I fancy a bit of Holmes, I'd as soon watch the earlier Grenada's that are more faithful to the source and before Brett's health issues were affecting his performance as I would read the stories.

Robert Downey Jr's Holmes was a mess, and so were the movies. Good try at making an action hero Holmes, but a failure, I thought.

Cumberbatch really captured some of the spirit of Holmes, but the show declined, certainly after the second series.

Other portrayals were mostly so-so. Cushing was very good, and it was always going to be. I don't remember much about Roger Moore's attempt, except it wasn't great.
 
I remember discussing Downey's version with someone and they said they didn't know if he was playing Sherlock Bond or Indiana Holmes.

For me, my Sherlock and Watson has to be Jeremy Brett and either of his Watsons.
 
I remember discussing Downey's version with someone and they said they didn't know if he was playing Sherlock Bond or Indiana Holmes.

For me, my Sherlock and Watson has to be Jeremy Brett and either of his Watsons.
I don't know why I prefer Edward Hardwicke's Watson to David Burke's, but I think it's because Burke always seemed to look a bit gormless. He felt closer to Nigel Bruce's moron Watson than the Watson of the original material. I think I need to rewatch some of those early episodes with an aim to give his portrayal a better chance, but for me Brett's Holmes' Watson didn't solidify until Hardwicke.
 
I don't know why I prefer Edward Hardwicke's Watson to David Burke's, but I think it's because Burke always seemed to look a bit gormless. He felt closer to Nigel Bruce's moron Watson than the Watson of the original material. I think I need to rewatch some of those early episodes with an aim to give his portrayal a better chance, but for me Brett's Holmes' Watson didn't solidify until Hardwicke.
I liked Burke but found him a little cold compared to Hardwicke who seemed to be a much more likable chap.
 
I liked Burke but found him a little cold compared to Hardwicke who seemed to be a much more likable chap.
I think that's very perceptive, and I think an important part of a duo that includes a character who can be as cold as Holmes can seem is for the other half to seem very empathetic and amiable. His character is, after all, our window on the story.
 
I'd agree with all this. Brett was our Holmes for a decade. At no small cost years ago, I got the boxset of the Grenada programme, and they're among the few DVDs that escaped my last purge. If I fancy a bit of Holmes, I'd as soon watch the earlier Grenada's that are more faithful to the source and before Brett's health issues were affecting his performance as I would read the stories.
I also own the boxset, and agree the early episodes, the first two series, are the best ones. Although, there are still good things in the later episodes, prime among them for me Robert Hardy's straight-out-of-the-story-and-the-Paget-illustrations Charles Augustus Milverton.

I don't know why I prefer Edward Hardwicke's Watson to David Burke's, but I think it's because Burke always seemed to look a bit gormless. He felt closer to Nigel Bruce's moron Watson than the Watson of the original material. I think I need to rewatch some of those early episodes with an aim to give his portrayal a better chance, but for me Brett's Holmes' Watson didn't solidify until Hardwicke.
I used to prefer Hardwicke, but have fairly recently come to appreciate Burke a lot more. Certainly never thought of him as 'gormless'. Next time I rewatch, and I rewatch fairly regularly because little current stuff appeals, I'll be reassessing, too.

Just remembered a potential disastrous Holmes candidate, if I ever find morbid curiousity enough to actually watch it: Anthony D P Mann, who directs Sherlock Holmes and the Shadow Watchers and stars as Sherlock. Looks...pretty painful.
 
Just like to put in a vote for Basil Rathbone. His 'Hound of the Baskervilles' got me to read the books in the first place. But Jeremy Brett was the best, sad that his illness affected his later performances.

Some of the 'off piste' Rathbone films are a cult of their own. A friend of mine has books written in the Conan Doyle style based on the non-canonic films.
 
My Brett DVD box set is a treasured posession.
I regarded the Robert Downy Jr. films as in name only. Rename the canonical characters used and they make for a fun action adventure ... with people complaining that they were a rip-off Sherlock Holmes. :D
Cochise: it's funny that Rathbone's "Hound ..." got you reading the series - it was, as far as I recall, the only one actually set in Victorian times. All the rest were propoganda/morale entertainment. I can watch them for fun, but one element of Holmes that a few captured but Rathbone didn't was his emotional non-connection to other people. He regarded emotions and attachments as an element of human behaviour ... and nothing to do with him at all. The only time Sherlock shows emotions is in a professional, not personal, setting.
 
I used to prefer Hardwicke, but have fairly recently come to appreciate Burke a lot more. Certainly never thought of him as 'gormless'. Next time I rewatch, and I rewatch fairly regularly because little current stuff appeals, I'll be reassessing, too.
I feel the exact same way. Burke is excellent, as is Hardwicke, yet both have a different take on Watson ..... Burke can be serious but also a little goofy and sometimes too wide-eyed and fawning over Holmes yet he still portrays a very believable and likeable Watson. Hardwicke on the other hand is more emotionally more mature but like Burke's Watson also very kind-hearted and even light-hearted, and of course very dependable when supporting Holmes.
 
Does anyone happen to know the filming order of Granada's Sherlock Holmes stories? All that I've been able to find out is that The Solitary Cyclist was filmed first. You can get an idea of the earlier stories by Brett's appearance, particularly his hair: at first it was more of a standard side parting but after a number of episodes became the more slicked-back look. There area also changes of the decor in Holmes's main room at 221B but I'm still uncertain of the exact filming order.

I must emphasize that I mean the filming order and not the broadcast order, which are different.

Note: I should have been clearer in stating that I mean the filming order of the first series (The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes).
 
Last edited:
Just like to put in a vote for Basil Rathbone. His 'Hound of the Baskervilles' got me to read the books in the first place. But Jeremy Brett was the best, sad that his illness affected his later performances.

Some of the 'off piste' Rathbone films are a cult of their own. A friend of mine has books written in the Conan Doyle style based on the non-canonic films.
I’m with you on this one Cochise. I adored those old black and white’s films with Rathbone and Bruce as Holmes and Watson. BBC 2 Friday evenings if I’m not mistaken.

Few years ago (maybe as many as 10 or even 12) I had comeback from holiday on a Sunday afternoon (from Devon coincidently) It’s 10.30pm everyone else was in bed and I’m sitting there down in the dumps because I had work the next day. I needed to cheer myself up and so went to my DVD collection to look for the film last Orders – which I think was Bob Hoskins last ever film before he died.

Instead, I stumbled across the 1939 adaption of “The Hound of the Baskervilles” starring of course Rathbone and Bruce . I hadn’t seen it in years. For the next 90 minutes I was enthralled. All thoughts of work and the dreaded feeling that I had to be up early for work the next day gone, and I went to bed that night much happier than what I thought I would do.
 
It must be noted that most of the Rathbone outings as well as the Howard ones are on You Tube.
 
Back
Top