My Dear Watsons

Watson1 Watson6

It is, perhaps, appropriate that the friend and confidante of the world's greatest detective, Sherlock Holmes, should--like the man whose exploits he chronicled--also be the subject of several mysteries surrounding his personal life. Was Dr. John H. Watson born in England or, as some Sherlockian scholars have postulated, in Australia or even North America? Where exactly was he shot, in the shoulder or the leg, while serving as a British Army medical officer during the Second Afghan War? Was he married once, twice, or three or more times? And--of primary importance to film buffs--why have most of Watson's depicitions in movies and on TV given the public the impression that he was a befuddled sidekick whom one critic called a prime specimen of  "Boobus Britainnicus"? With last week's release of director Guy Ritchie's big-budget Holmes movie starring Robert Downey, Jr. as the sleuth and Jude Law as Watson, the time is right to look back on the good doctor's screen depictions and at some of the more memorable actors who have played him.

The character of Watson, rather inauspiciously, didn't even appear in the very first of the over 200 cinematic appearances by Holmes to date, a 1903 short entitled Sherlock Holmes Baffled. This 30-second exercise in trick photography was typical of  the detective's films for the next dozen or so years, most of them parodies or unauthorized tales in which he and Watson would battle such non-contemporaneous adversaries as Poe's Arsen Lupin and gentleman thief Raffles. That pattern would change in 1916, when Edward Fielding played Watson opposite William Gillette, re-creating his acclaimed stage turn as Holmes, in the lost Essanay filming of Gillette's play Sherlock Holmes, and in 1922, when Roland Young, future star of the Topper comedies, made his screen debut as the doctor to John Barrymore's sleuth in the Goldwyn Co.'s Sherlock Holmes, which took as many liberties with Gillette's stage drama as did he with the Conan Doyle stories on which it was based. The most prolific of the silent sidekicks--indeed of all movie Watsons--was Hubert Willis, who starred opposite fellow Englishman Eille Norwood in more than 40 film adaptation of Doyle's mysteries between 1921 and 1923.

The crimesolving team's first sound feature, 1929's The Return of Sherlock Holmes, starred Clive Brook as a Holmes attending the wedding of Watson's grown daughter (!) and finding his old nemesis Professor Moriarty lurking. As Watson, H. Reeves-Smith was perhaps the first of the screen doctors to come off as a doddering, older man. Brook would "return" again in the title role of a 1932 remake of Sherlock Holmes, with veteran character actor Reginald Owen as Watson (who, interestingly, got the chance to play Holmes the following year in A Study in Scarlet, one of only a few to essay both parts).  Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, Ian Fleming--no, not the creator of James Bond!--would portray Watson four times in British films, from 1931's Sherlock Holmes' Fatal Hour to Silver Blaze in 1937, opposite Arthur Wontner.

In 1939 moviegoers were introduced to the definitive big-screen Holmes and Watson, as 20th Century-Fox's  The Hound of the Baskervilles, starring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, premiered.  Set in the original novel's late Victorian era (a rarity, as nearly all previous Holmes films had been contemporary affairs), Hound's moody atmosphere and Rathbone and Bruce's on-screen chemistry led to a sequel that same year, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. The series would be picked up by Universal in 1942 (and moved to an incongruous WWII setting), with the actors co-starring in 12 more whodunits of varying quality.

Watson7

It was the amiable Bruce, who played Watson as an extension of the genially befuddled British gentlemen that made him one of Hollywood's busiest supporting actors, who fixed in the public eye the idea that Watson was an incompetent who would wind up needing to be rescued from the villain's clutches by Holmes. To be fair, this was also a fault of Universal's scriptwriters, although one entry in the series, 1944's The Spider Woman, gave the doctor the rare chance to one-up his clue-seeking compatriot, when Holmes mistakes a pygmy skeleton diorama for that of a child:

HOLMES: Why a chart of the skeleton of a child?

WATSON: Because it isn't.

HOLMES: What?

WATSON: It isn't a child.

HOLMES: Are you sure?

WATSON: Look at all its teeth. And the skull of a normal child of this size...would be much larger in proportion to the circumference of its chest.

Score one for Watson.

After the Universal series ended in 1946, the next key Watson player would be one of the first on the small screen. 1955's Sherlock Holmes TV series, a mix of  Doyle adaptations and original stories, featured Ronald Howard (son of Gone with the Wind co-star Leslie Howard) as the detective and an effective H. Marion-Crawford as Watson. Four years later, Andre Morell was an adequate albeit underutilized Watson to Peter Cushing's Holmes in Hammer Films' remake of The Hound of the Baskervilles.

1965 saw the first of two movies pitting Holmes against Victorian London's most infamous real-life criminal, Jack the Ripper--A Study in Terror--debut in 1965, with John Neville as Holmes and a rather Bruce-like Donald Houston as his somewhat dense Watson. A more edgy depiction of the character came courtesy of director Billy Wilder's 1970 mix of homage and pastiche, The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, in which Colin Blakely's Watson is continually put out by Holmes' (played by Robert Stephens) dismissal of his literary accounts of their cases and less-than-hygienic living arrangements. Blakely's breaking point comes, in a scene many purists winced at, when Stephens avoids a Russian ballerina's request that he sire her child by stating that he is "a bachelor...living with another bachelor...for five years. Five very happy years," and an apoplectic Watson nearly moves out of Baker Street before matters are settled.  The most unique doctor of this period was undoubtedly Joanne Woodward, playing a psychiatrist named Watson treating a judge (George C. Scott) who believes he is the great detective, in the charming 1971 comedy They Might Be Giants. Meanwhile, American TV boasted fine performances by Bernard Fox, opposite a miscast Stewart Granger as Holmes, in a 1972 remake of Hound and Avengers leading man Patrick Macnee co-starring with 007 himself, Roger Moore, in 1976's underrated Sherlock Holmes in New York .

Watson3

The trend of more independent and strong-willed Watsons continued with the 1976  film version of Nicholas Meyer's best-seller The Seven Per-Cent Solution, with dedicated doctor Robert Duvall teaming with an obscure Vienna physician named Sigmund Freud (Alan Arkin) to try and wean a delusional Holmes (Nicol Williamson) off his dangerous cocaine habit. Three years later, the great James Mason brought his own "pawky sense of humor" to the role, with Christopher Plummer donning the deerstalker and Inverness cape, as Holmes and Watson again entered London's  Whitechapel district to stop Jack the Ripper's bloody rampage, in the very effective Murder by Decree.  1988 saw this trend reach its (il)logical zenith with the comedy Without a Clue, in which it's revealed that Watson (Ben Kingsley) is the true brains of the duo and Holmes (Michael Caine) was merely a boozy actor hired to play the detective that the medico-turned-author concocted as a hero for his stories.

Watson5

The 1980s would see British TV give fans the most acclaimed Holmes/Watson team yet, in a faithfully executed and superbly acted string of series--starting with The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes--adapting Doyle's writings. Jeremy Brett was lauded for bringing Holmes' quirky persona and fitfully energetic nature to life, but equally fine at fleshing out the character of Watson were the two actors who portrayed him over the program's run, David Burke (who left after the first season for stage commitments) and Edward Hardwicke.

All of which brings us to Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes and the duo of Downey and Law. In keeping with the film's emphasis on Holmes as a man of action as well as reason (a depiction not out of sync with the original stories, in which the sleuth was a former bare-knuckle boxer and well-versed in the [imaginary] martial art of baritsu),  the Watson seen here is a two-fisted colleague who has had his fill of Holmes' eccentricities and is ready to start a more subdued life with fiancee Mary Morstan (the client in Doyle's second novel, The Sign of Four). The banter between Downey and Law at times borders on a 19th-century version of  The Odd Couple, but both actors manage to acquit themselves and show the true bond of friendship between the pair. Law's performance is a fine one in the continuing screen evolution of a character whom Holmes--in a rare inaccuracy--once referred to as "the one fixed point in a changing age."

 
Click Here to get MovieFanFare delivered to your inbox!

Share It!

8 Responses to “My Dear Watsons”

  1. Chuck Clark says:

    I enjoyed the movie, after I got over the anger welling up in me for what Richie did to two of my favorite characters in fiction (?). I'm a past member of the Paris, France chapter of the Baker Street Irregulars and I take Mr. Holmes and his companion seriously. Robert Downey Jr. is a great actor, and could probably play Holmes, but not Richey's Holmes, please.

    Taking characters from real classics and taking them so far from their known characterizations is wrong in my book. Different takes on certain things or getting another slant on a story is one thing but having Holmes going into the public fight ring is just silly, and did Richie's character ever take a real bath, or shave. Come on... Jude Law is a super acter, but the role of Dr. Watson wasn't right. When I finally got over my fit... and just watched as if they were totally different characters. It was a fun movie, but too much Guy Richie gratuitous violence and repeated seems of the action, etc., ect.... We aren't all teenagers who are easily won with silly stunts. As the old adage goes.. "If it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage."

  2. Bill Leistner says:

    Where does one go to purchase all the SH movies or DVDs ?

  3. Bill Leistner says:

    Where does one go to purchase DVD's of the SH films??

  4. Bill Leistner says:

    As a guest, I'm asking "Where can I purchase the entire S>H> films on DVD???

  5. Gary Cahall says:

    Elementary, my dear Mr. Leistner. You can follow the links in the article, or go directly to http://www.moviesunlimited.com for a listing of all Sherlock Holmes titles currently available on home video.

  6. Phyllis Silvers says:

    I was impressed and amazed by the pugilistic nature of Robert Downy’s Holmes, especially after having so often wondered how Holmes could have so easily came out the winner in all of his scrapes over all the years. I have been addicted to watching the Sherlock character in the movies and reading his exploits but the thing that I found so profound was the so even handed depiction Guy Ritchie gave his recent Watson. I had in the past always wondered why the brilliance of a Sherlock Holmes would have befriended, no less consulted with a fool as bumbling as most of the previously filmed Watsons had been. In Ritchie’s Holmes these two men are equals, both with foibles yet complimentary compatriots both playing off each others rather high IQ. Each of these men, offering the other information from their vast yet very different expertise which easily moves the action and therefore the case forward creating for me the most realistic and therefore truly most believable Holmes and Watson couple to date. I look forward to the next of the series and just hope that the staff and cast do not in the future become bored while so expertly bringing this duo to life again and again. I imagine, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle feels his creation has finally been done great justice by all involved in the Guy Ritchie effort. Kudos and thanks to all those who were part of this recent production especially to Guy Ritchie and to whoever designed the titles before and after they are in themselves masterpieces.

    Earlier in this decade we film goers were given a very contrasting glimpse into another pair of best friends, men who leaped from a series of 19 books written by the late Patrick O'Brien onto the silver screen. In the 2003 film "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World”; which was directed by Peter Weir, starring Russell Crowe as Jack Aubrey, with Paul Bettany as Stephen Maturin and released by 20th Century Fox, Miramax Films and Universal Studios. That film was adapted from three of the novels in that Aubrey–Maturin series by Patrick O’Brien. The books are about the adventures of two men who clearly bond while serving on all manner of wooden ships as they patrol the high seas in the wars between the English and the French for the Admiralty and the crown. In this very salty book series Captain Jack Aubrey, from his maverick way of creatively following orders from the Admiralty is portrayed as the larger than life adventurer, beloved by his crew and not just because his exploits on the high seas are making them well off, but because of his strong open heart and quickness of mind when under battle. The reader finds Aubrey, real enough to be seen as a fun and pun loving man's man. On the other hand his traveling companion, the ships doctor, Stephen Maturin is one of the earliest of nerds and a real land lubber also, who is actually a brilliant surgeon who chose to come aboard to see the world in an attempt to explore his studies as a naturalist like Darwin. His lack of athletic prowess, his gawky looks, and his ignorance of stylish dress or his lack of attention to how he eats all easily covers up his talents as fine surgeon and as a multi-lingual spy for the English. In the books he is the true bumbling doctor who is as such an ongoing source of humor. Despite his untidy dress and lack of prowess around anything afloat; after just a few operations and miraculous recoveries of the crew members from formidable battle injuries he becomes the well cared for pet of the crew and a topic about which they brag when ashore. Fumbling as Dr. Maturin is, his strength is also clearly exhibited in the many novels of the series. I found it very sad as well as a true opportunity missed that the film goer was deprived from getting a clear glimpse into the fun personality and real quality of brotherly love that these two men so easily shared in the book series.
    So after the disappointment in the 2003 film rendering of Aubrey and Maturin I found it doubly refreshing to meet such an athletically capable and intellectually well matched pair as Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock and Watson.

  7. Marilyn Penner says:

    After reading comments on the Sherlockian lists before the film was out about Downey's lack of stature to play the six-foot, cerebral sleuth, I was pleasantly surprised by his and Law's Holmes and Watson. All right, he should've shaved and dressed with more of the "cat-like cleanliness" that Conan Doyle's Watson said Holmes posessed; but then Conan Doyle's Holmes was a 'bohemian' [meaning that he did not care to observe conventional behaviour], and had 'no taste for society' [which certainly was Downey's Holmes's view of the restaurant where Watson forced him to meet his fiancee]. Conan Doyle's Holmes also fought a benefit round with a pugilist - refered to in "The Sign of Four", and his opponent said Holmes should have fought professionally.
    So, with some rough edges and leeway for Hollywood's love of spectacle, the Ritchie / Downey interpretation fits the books, in my opinion - and I have read all the books from covers to covers several times. Watson and Miss Adler were close to their originals too.

  8. This Week In Film History 3-21-10 | MovieFanFare says:

    [...] 1939: Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce make the first of 14 screen pairings as Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson (Related Article) in The Hound of the [...]

       

Leave a Reply

To leave a comment, log in using Facebook Connect or complete the form below to comment as a guest.

(required)

(will not be published) (required)

Read More Posts From…