Sherlock Holmes: Basil Rathbone
John Watson: Nigel Bruce
Year: 1939
Case: none
Rating: 
The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes is the second film to feature Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes and Nigel Bruce as Doctor Watson. Loosely based on William Gillette’s 1899 play, ‘Sherlock Holmes’, The Adventures is a period piece set in Victorian London. Here, Holmes battles against his old nemesis, Professor Moriarty, and only Holmes can stop Moriarty from committing the greatest crime of the century.
Notes
It should be noted that, while William Gillette’s name appears in the credits, the film bears little resemblance to his play, ‘Sherlock Holmes’. This information is, of course, second hand, as I have obviously not seen Gillette’s play. I have read a reproduction of the script, however, and it would appear as though this information is accurate; that The Adventures is quite original.
Basil Rathbone, as Sherlock Holmes
I have commented on Rathbone’s performance before, and yet it does bear repeating, for Rathbone truly does capture the Great Detective. Admittedly, he is far more tactile than one would imagine Holmes to be, but his single-mindedness, attention to detail, precise manner of speaking, and reserved body language all speak to the man he is attempting to portray. Even his appearance rings true, and so it is not hard to understand why an entire generation of fans consider Rathbone to be the definitive Holmes.
Nigel Bruce, as Dr. Watson
I must confess; I was less disappointed with Bruce’s performance here than I have been in previous films. Admittedly, it is not Bruce’s fault, but rather, that of the script writers, and so I cannot fault him for doing the best he could with such limiting material.
The script writers interpretation of Watson aside, Bruce and Rathbone do have tremendous chemistry together, and their interaction does lend itself well to slash.
Atmosphere
Of all the pleasant aspects in this movie, the atmosphere ranks on the top of my list. The sets were beautifully done, the props realistic, the costumes a thing of beauty, and the attention to detail astoundingly obvious. From the fog filled streets to the lurching hansoms; the whole of Victorian London was very much present. My only quibble would be Baker Street, which was far too large and opulent to be realistic.
Quibbles
Most of my quibbles rest with the script, and this is quite depressing, for one can easily imagine that, were Bruce and Rathbone given a flawless script, what was a reasonably good movie would have been elevated to the fantastic.
There were continuity issues. We are told that the film takes place in 1894, and yet Moriarty is quite alive during this time. Although the film does not adapt Canon and hence is not bound by Canon, this is still quite jarring.
The actor chosen to play Moriarty, while obviously talented, does not at all resemble the man Holmes described as the Napoleon of crime. In fact, he is the spitting image of Sigmund Freud, and this is quite alarming. I’m not sure if this was intentional, or merely the result of an actor shortage. Whatever the reason, I would have liked to have seen the role better cast.
I also had issues with Moriarty’s characterization. From his sharing a cab with Sherlock Holmes to his actively engaging in a crime (this from the man who pulls strings from behind the scenes) I felt as though I was watching some other criminal at work; certainly not Moriarty. Then there were the flowers, which were… unusual. And the obo player in the background –and I’m still not sure what this was about. In fact, most of the character driven plot pieces surrounding Moriarty were just plain weird.
We’re not going to mention the albatross drawing, because I’m fairly certain I broke something with the force of my laughter.
I had issues with Holmes’ characterization, too. I mentioned above that Rathbone’s Holmes was entirely too tactile, and this is quite evident in this movie. In fact, I don’t think there was a single person that Rathbone didn’t fondle in some way. Finally, there was the singing. And the dancing. I think I might actually be scarred for life.
Then, of course, there was the plot, and most of my irritation rested with the plot. It was convoluted, and made little sense. It did not connect the way Doyle’s stories did, and it became an instant reminder of why you should never attempt to improve on the original. Perhaps I am merely a Canon snob, but it is very rare that a pastiche will garner my interest and this is no exception.
I will, however, confess that the b-grade horror movie aspect of the b-plot conclusion was quite amusing –although I will question why female characters always choose to run *away* from civilization and safety.
I must also question why every Sherlock Holmes film adaptation feels the need to have Moriarty plummet to his death. Adding a single element of Canon does not make up for the complete lack of loyalty found elsewhere in the film.
Finally, we must return to Watson, for the treatment of his character will forever be my stumbling block with these films. I would dearly love to call myself a Rathbone fan (and while I do appreciate Rathbone as Holmes, I can not call myself a fan of his movies), but this is next to impossible with this Watson.
And it is not Bruce alone. There is the manner in which Holmes treats Watson (with such a patronizing air), and the jokes at Watson’s expense. I will confess that it is Watson, rather than Holmes, that interests me, and so I place a good deal of emphasis on Watson and his role in the canon. That the script writers do not see the Watson I see is too much for my heart to bear.
Despite my many quibbles, the film did contain several pleasant elements, and so I give you:
Squee-worthy
For as much as I wish I could find no redeeming quality in these movies, I must confess that they are exceedingly slashy. Rathbone and Bruce’s chemistry is amazing, and this is saying something considering how deplorable Bruce’s Watson is.
In fact, this is where Rathbone’s tactility comes in handy, because Holmes literally spends half of the film touching Watson. There are the pats on the back, and the subtle leaning, and the sitting hip to hip, and the constant gazing, and a dozen other gestures which instantly convince the audience that Holmes and Watson were completely in love. In fact, Rathbone’s films go so far as to present Holmes and Watson as lovers –for why else would Holmes tolerate such a Watson? The slash is quite remarkable.
I am also quite impressed by an element of the plot. Holmes is being diverted by Moriarty, and spends the entire film oblivious to Moriarty’s plans (to steal the crown jewels). He becomes consumed by Moriarty’s side plot (the lingering threat to Holmes’ female client), and completely ignores what is quite obvious to the viewer. Watson, on the other hand, spends half the film reminding Holmes of his obligation to protect the crown jewels. It is quite ironic that it is Watson, the story’s bungling idiot, that has the rights of it. Well done Watson. Well done, indeed.
Finally, I will be forever delighted by the sight of Sherlock Holmes driving and crashing a hansom.
Overall, this film gets 2 out of 5 pipes. It’s worth watching, at times quite amusing, and Rathbone is a delightful Holmes, but Watson is still jarring, and the script issues are annoying at best.