#does rathbone holmes count? | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

twistedtummies2 · 3 years ago

Text

Christopher Lee: A Sinister Centenary - Number 17

Welcome to Christopher Lee: A Sinister Centenary! Over the course of May, I will be counting down My Top 31 Favorite Performances by my favorite actor, the late, great Sir Christopher Lee, in honor of his 100th Birthday. Although this fine actor left us a few years ago, his legacy endures, and this countdown is a tribute to said legacy! Today’s Subject, My 17th Favorite Christopher Lee Performance: Sir Henry Baskervilles, from The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959).

Hammer’s “Hound of the Baskervilles” is one of my two favorite cinematic treatments of the famous Sherlock Holmes story. (The other is the Basil Rathbone version, which came out twenty years earlier in 1939.) Much like our earlier entry, the Mummy, you can very much see this film as something of a stepping stone in Sir Christopher’s career: he doesn’t play the bad guy here, he's not a monster of any kind. In fact, in a very rare turn for Lee – even for this point in his career – he is the romantic leading man. In the film, Lee actually plays Sherlock Holmes’ client: a young British earl who returns to his ancestral home in the middle of Dartmoor after the mysterious death of his uncle. The estate is supposedly haunted by a demonic hound, seekin to destroy the young Sir Henry’s life. I do want to say that it’s kind of funny this was the only Sherlock Holmes movie both Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee did together, as well as the first time either of them DID a Holmes related piece: Cushing would go on to play Holmes in a TV series and a TV film, while Lee would appear in two television films as the Great Detective, and as Mycroft Holmes in a theatrical release. Yet in their first and only outing together, Lee does not play Dr. Watson, nor even the villain of the story Holmes must conquer: he plays the victim, the guy Holmes and Watson have to save and assist. While this is probably one of history’s biggest missed opportunities (since Lee would have made a great Watson OR a great Professor Moriarty, in my opinion), I actually kind of like the fact that Lee’s role isn’t what you would have expected nowadays. The reason Sir Henry Baskerville ranks so high is because, both for the time and even since then, this was not a role you usually saw Lee play. And he plays it brilliantly: his Sir Henry is my favorite take on the character, without question. He brings authority to the part that other versions of Henry lack, but he still has the necessary vulnerability and romantic sensitivity other incarnations have, as well. With other takes on Sir Henry, they sort of fade into the background while Holmes and Watson get all the fun, so to speak. Not so with Christopher Lee: his commanding presence allows him to stand up strong in the cast, and he, Holmes, and Watson almost feel like a proper trio, rather than it being Holmes and Watson with Henry as “just” their client. You care about Lee’s character, and no scene he appears in turns out to be a bore. He is just as important as the detective and his sidekick. The only major reason why Sir Henry Baskerville DOESN’T make my Top 15 is simply this: while the part itself is fascinating for what it shows about Lee as an actor at the time, as well as just an actor in general, and he does somehow manage to keep a tight grip on his part and make it just as star-turning as Holmes and Watson…well, let’s face it: it’s still a Sherlock Holmes movie, and at the end of the day, Sir Henry Baskerville just won’t enrapture one as much as the people trying to save him. It’s a brilliant piece of acting in a grand Sherlock Holmes movie…but the film truly belongs to Peter Cushing and Andre Morell as the sleuth and his ally, not to Sir Henry. Again though, this does not make Sir Henry any less great in this movie, and Lee singlehandedly turns what could have been a fairly generic character into somebody you almost wish could have a film all to himself. Almost. There may not have been a Baskerville Curse…but there is a curse when you work with Sherlock Holmes, and it’s the same as when anyone works with children, animals, or puppets. If you know anything about showbiz, you know what I mean. :P We’re almost at the halfway point of the countdown! Tomorrow, I present my choice for Number 16!

#christopher lee #sinister centenary #happy birthday christopher lee #top 31 christopher lee performances #best #favorites #list #countdown #top 17 #hound of the baskervilles 1959 #hammer hound #hound of the baskervilles #sir henry baskerville #hammer horror

18 notes · View notes

nothingofpracticalgardening · 4 years ago

Text

14 Versions of Sherlock Holmes Ranked from Most to Least Likely to Set a Building on Fire in a Fit of Rage

CURRENT UPDATED LIST HERE

1. Jonny Lee Miller — Elementary

This cool modern gent had a Moment™ in the very first episode of this series wherein he crashed Watson’s car into the side of the villain’s for absolutely no reason except the guy had pissed him off. That’s only like half a step down from setting a building on fire, which makes it almost canon, so this fantastic band tee-wearing lunatic gets first place for sure.

2. Yuko Takeuchi — Miss Sherlock

She may look cute, but this girl is fearless and feral. She would set a building on fire on a whim and dance away, leaving her poor Watson holding the matches as a joke. We haven’t really seen her angry, but she for sure would be unstoppable if she was. Sherlock Futaba has a secret heart of gold and a not-so-secret wit of arsenic and she’s not afraid to use either of them to end your ass.

3. Benedict Cumberbatch — Sherlock

He might tie for second place with Miss Sherlock, actually, because we all remember that one American who dared to slap Mrs. Hudson and fell out a window, several times, for it. I don’t need to tell y’all this Sherlock Holmes is vicious as a viper when he wants to be, but he’s also sweet as a newborn kitten deep down. Still, #3 is pretty high on the list and I think this emotion-driven drama queen deserves it.

4. Christopher Plummer — Murder by Decree

For most of this 1970s movie, you would never be able to picture this Holmes with a temper at all, much less one big enough to set anything on fire. He’s empathetic, easygoing, and even downright warm. But then, after discovering how a young woman has been mistreated by people in power, he suddenly goes for a guy’s throat—literally—and then it’s easier to see why he’s #4 on my list.

5. Basil of Baker Street — The Great Mouse Detective

Excuse me, it absolutely counts as a legitimate adaptation. This manic little guy might be cute as a button but he will go absolutely rabid on you if you push him (although he might feel bad about it a second later). I’m not saying it’s super likely, but it’s not super unlikely either. Honestly I wouldn’t take the risk.

6. Peter Cushing — The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959)

He might not be #1 on this list, but on a list of sassiest Sherlock Holmeses ever, he would definitely be at the top. More than once this sly gentleman was seconds away from Losing It(TM) in this movie; we might not ever have seen him show his temper completely, but between his impatient (but still affectionate) bickering with Watson and his mumbled sarcasm at every other character at every available opportunity, I wouldn’t doubt his capability of setting a fire in sheer annoyance.

7. Jeremy Brett — Sherlock Holmes

Calm but intense, this Sherlock Holmes is extremely popular, thanks mostly to Brett’s love and passion for the role; with all his self-control, every once in a while there’s a little flash of something much bigger going on underneath–his voice gets louder and his eyes get sharper and for a second you might wonder what he’s going to do. It would just depend on the situation, I think; hurt Watson, for example, and yeah…his fire will get you for sure.

8. Original Books

There’s no Sherlock Holmes like the original. Like Brett above, the Blueprint Holmes is cool, unruffled, and very much in control most of the time, but there are a few moments here and there when he turns into lightning personified, ready to strike someone down in a split second if they stir up his wrath. Nevertheless, he is softer and kinder and more patient than most adaptations give him credit for, so he’s lower on the list.

9. Basil Rathbone — Sherlock Holmes

Ever wanted to see Sherlock Holmes take out Nazis? This might be the series for you, then. Despite the ‘40s vintage action vibe, though, this Sherlock Holmes really doesn’t have much in the way of a temper and a lot in the way of cool, observant preplanning. When it comes to high-emotion moments, this Holmes is more urgent action than fiery temper. With all that, he tends to lean more on the non-flammable side of the Sherlock Holmes spectrum.

10. Robert Downey, Jr. — Sherlock Holmes & Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows

Okay, you might have expected Action Hero Holmes to be higher up on the list, especially considering he literally did set a fire in the beginning of the second movie. But despite the flack he gets for not being “accurate” enough, I love this Holmes for so many reasons, and one of those reasons is that he’s so gentle and soft-spoken. He’d set a fire in a second for a case, but he faces evil with more melancholy than anger and really isn’t naturally violent at all when you get down to it.

11. Hannah Drew — Baker Street

Probably the most obscure one on the list, this fan-created Sherlock Holmes is blindingly intelligent and relentless, but also profoundly isolated, lonely, and deeply emotional. Still, the extent of her expressiveness seems to be playing obnoxious practical jokes when someone annoys her or shouting halfheartedly when she’s frustrated, not setting fires. (Also confession: she’s totally my girl crush. I would buy her all the ice cream in the world if she asked.)

12. Vasily Livanov — Sherlock Holmes & Dr. Watson

This Holmes is full of easy charm with emotions that tend to be more prominent on the softer side; he’ll start crying the second his Watson does, and laughs loudly and freely whenever he feels like it, but when provoked by a villain he maintains his cool demeanor like it’s not any kind of a challenge. Like I’ve said before, this Holmes has super-chill trustworthy older brother vibes to me, so he’s almost totally unlikely to be a firebug.

13. Henry Cavill — Enola Holmes (links to trailer)

While it’s true this Sherlock Holmes wasn’t the main character of this movie, we got to see enough of him to make a solid judgment, I think. And my judgment is that he’s one of the most gentle, mild-mannered ones out there. I mean, he might not have started out as a willing parent, but by the end of the movie this guy was volunteering to take in and raise his younger sister. Maybe he could be a fire-starter, but I just don’t see it so far.

14. Ronald Howard — Sherlock Holmes

By far the most adorable version in my opinion, this Holmes is more full of bright humor and childlike wonder than fury of any kind. Like with every version, he has his moments of righteous anger, but guys, come on…this man once spent a whole scene chasing a honeybee around their flat to trap it carefully and set it free. He’s not setting anything on fire anytime soon—at least not on purpose.

These are all the versions of the world’s favorite detective I like so far, but I’m still watching all the ones available, so consider this an incomplete list. If anybody sees this and has a different opinion or a Sherlock to add, feel free to comment! And thanks for reading my rambling.

73 notes · View notes

scifihorroradventure · 7 years ago

Photo

SON OF FRANKENSTEIN (1939)

Baron Wolf von Frankenstein (Basil Rathbone), son of Henry Frankenstein, returns to his home town along with his wife Elsa (Josephine Hutchinson) and son Peter (Donnie Dunagan), a fact which understandably upsets the citizens of the nearby village. As the family moves into the old Frankenstein castle, Wolf is given old research papers from his father. Visiting his father's old laboratory after its destruction at the hands of the Monster, Wolf encounters the deformed Ygor (Bela Lugosi), a murderous criminal who hates those in the village who tried to have him hanged. But Ygor is not alone, as he reveals to Wolf the still-living body of the Frankenstein Monster (Boris Karloff)! Though initially taken aback Wolf is eventually talked into rebuilding the laboratory and bringing the Monster back to full health by Ygor. But once this is done, Ygor merely uses the Monster to exact his revenge on his would-be executors. Angered by more death in their village, the citizens storm Castle Frankenstein, demanding justice, even as Wolf attempts to put an end to Ygor and the Monster's rampage...

After such classics as Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein, Son of Frankenstein is unfortunately a disjointed, nearly boring mess. The first in the series to not have James Whale and Carl Laemmle Jr. involved, Rowland Lee takes over both of their positions, while Wyllis Cooper handles the writing alone, as opposed to the previous films' teams. Unfortunately, this new duo does not prove to be to the movie's benefit, as basic story elements and character motivations either make no sense or take far too long to happen. Wolf von Frankenstein returns to his family's castle outside of... Frankenstein (apparently Cooper was unaware or had forgotten that the village's name had been Goldstadt in both previous films) and at first tries to make amends between his family and the villagers, but then later quickly laughs off their fearful history with his father and the Monster. The men who convicted Ygor and sent him to the hangman's noose start showing up dead, but instead of suspecting Ygor seeking revenge, the people of the village immediately blame Wolf. There are several scenes of Wolf and Inspector Krogh discussing the villagers and their distrust of the Frankenstein name and legacy, which make for nice character moments but ultimately feel very repetitive and mostly unnecessary. It is said that much of the script was written on the fly, just before shooting the respective scene, and it sadly shows. There's also the oddity that we are often shown the massive sets (especially in Castle Frankenstein) in wide, far away shots... revealing that the sets haven't been furnished at all, showing us huge, empty walls. While this obviously doesn't affect the story, it's still strange to see such enormous sets without any furniture or paintings or anything to communicate "people live here." Wolf and Elsa sit at their dinner table with nothing around them at all, and on the rare occasion we do see a properly furnished set (the library, Peter's room), we don't spend very much time there.

Basil Rathbone, best known as Sherlock Holmes, plays Wolf von Frankenstein, the son of the infamous doctor from the first two films. Sadly, the Baron is as uneven as the rest of the film. Rathbone plays him very well, appropriately nervous and eccentric, but nothing he does makes any sense. He has no interest in continuing Henry's work, but is talked into reviving the Monster by Ygor stupidly easily. His motivation essentially boils down to:

Wolf: "I don't want to make a monster or continue my father's work!" Ygor: "Yes you do." Wolf: "Yeah, you're right."

Honestly, even Frederick needed more convincing in Young Frankenstein. Just why Wolf allows Ygor to push him around is never explained, either. Perhaps if Ygor had something to blackmail him with (maybe Wolf had been keeping his identity as a Frankenstein secret and Ygor threatened to tell the town) it could've worked, but as it is, it just sort of... happens, with the brilliant, mostly respected scientist listening to the creepy deformed criminal for no real reason. Yes, Wolf wants to prove to the world that his father wasn’t an evil madman, but following the instructions of an unhinged killer is likely not the best way to go about it. Ygor doesn't even entice him into it, as Dr. Pretorius had done with Henry in Bride of Frankenstein. With Ygor, Bela Lugosi finds his most iconic role, second only to Count Dracula himself. A bizzare, graverobbing outcast, the people of Frankenstein/Goldstadt had attempted to execute Ygor for his crimes, only for the hanging to fail and leave him deformed (the moment where he knocks on the bone in his neck is effectively unsettling). As Ygor, Lugosi is perfectly creepy and bitter, having come to use the Monster as his weapon to exact revenge on those who had attempted to kill him. He's a great villain and Lugosi definitely deserves the praise he received for the role.

If there's one complaint to be had about Ygor, it's that he's such a well done villain and takes up such a large part of the movie that the Frankenstein Monster himself feels rather shoehorned in and almost unnecessary in his own film. Boris Karloff was jealous of the praise Bela Lugosi received as he himself got very little, but honestly, it's not hard to see why. It takes forever for the Monster to finally appear and when he does, for the most part he's either sleeping or standing there staring at Wolf and Ygor. Karloff does have a few brilliant moments - The first real scene with the Monster, where he first encounters Wolf and stares at himself in the mirror, seemingly confused and saddened by being alive once again, is a great sequence. But bits like this are way too few and far between. For some reason, the Monster is mute again, with his ability to speak completely ignored or forgotten. Wolf mentions that the Monster is not "well in the head," but this is never expounded upon. Does the Monster have amnesia, thus forgetting his time with Henry, the Bride, and learning to speak? Or does he remember everything, but suffered an injury to the head in the destruction of the laboratory that renders him no longer able to speak, unable to vocalize his misery at having failed to die in the last movie? Thanks to the shoddy writing, we will never know. Equally strange is the lack of any resolution as to what happened to the Bride of Frankenstein and why the Monster survived while she did not, despite most of the monster action happening in the same laboratory as Bride and the fact that, theoretically, she should be just as powerful as he is. And while Jack Pierce's prosthetic makeup looks as good as ever, the decision to cover the Monster in a fur poncho is an odd one, giving him the look of an "expensive head, cheap body" type monster, such as Ro-Man from Robot Monster.

While not necessarily a bad film, Son of Frankenstein is incredibly lackluster compared to its predecessors, though it did leave its own mark on the Frankenstein franchise and horror as a whole. Over the years, the character of Ygor would become blurred and often combined with Fritz from the original Frankenstein, becoming a hybrid, often Peter Lorre-sounding hunchbacked Ygor that never really existed. This would also mark the last time Boris Karloff would play the iconic role, leaving Lon Chaney Jr. to pick up the bolts and stitches in The Ghost of Frankenstein three years later.

Rating: ★★ ½

Cast: Basil Rathbone ... Baron Wolf von Frankenstein Bela Lugosi ... Ygor Lionel Atwill ... Inspector Krogh Boris Karloff ... The Frankenstein Monster Josephine Hutchinson ... Elsa von Frankenstein Edgar Norton ... Thomas Benson Emma Dunn ... Amelia Donnie Dunagan ... Peter von Frankenstein

Director: Rowland V. Lee. Producer: Rowland V. Lee. Writer: Wyllis Cooper (screenplay) and Mary Shelley (original "Frankenstein" novel). Music: Frank Skinner. Special Effects: John P. Fulton (uncredited) and Jack P. Pierce (uncredited makeup artist).

#sci fi horror adventure #son of frankenstein #universal #frankenstein #boris karloff #bela lugosi #mad scientists #1930s #black and white

2 notes · View notes

nightingveilxo · 8 years ago

Photo

Sherlock Holmes & Batman

If there’s one thing that Adam West’s Batman has done better than any other live-action portrayal of the Dark Knight Detective, it’s illustrating the Caped Crusader’s expert sleuthing skills, a trait that has been largely overlooked in Batman films, and has only been equaled by Bruce Timm’s Batman The Animated Series.

While West’s take on Batman’s detective genius was played for laughs, his passion for solving clues was a huge part of the show’s appeal. West’s inspiration for his character came from another iconic detective: Sherlock Holmes. In particular, West drew upon the performance of Holmes actor Basil Rathbone: “Some of my influences were Sherlock Holmes — Basil Rathbone. People like that who were always musing and deducing and pacing, and suddenly just a thunderbolt of deduction. I used that in a comedic way. You borrow from everything. You do borrow a lot of stuff as an artist or an actor or whatever.” - Batman: 15 Things You Never Knew About The Adam West TV Show

Sherlock in The Hound of Baskerville, a case where he is helping Henry Knight, a young man trying to live with the horror of his father’s homocide. Henry is a mirror for Sherlock, which comes back in TFP, due to childhood trauma, a hound/dog, and possibly something to do with Sherlock’s own parents actually being murdered (if S3 is a faulty one). Until S3, Mummy is always mentioned in the past tense, and in all seasons, Mycroft is always shown as being the owner of what looks like the family home. Batman, The Dark Knight, who is also a poshboy dealing with the homocide of his parents, and then became a crime fighter.

ASIP

Mycroft: We have more in common than you’d like to believe. This petty feud between us is simply childish. People will suffer. And you know how it always upset Mummy.

Sherlock: I upset her? Me? It wasn’t me that upset her, Mycroft.

ASiB

*Mycroft pours tea* Mycroft: I’ll be mother.

Sherlock Holmes: And there is a whole childhood in a nutshell.

Joker to Vicki: As though we were made for each other... Beauty and the Beast. Of course, if anyone else calls you beast, I'll rip their lungs out.

Moriarty: Why does anyone do anything? Because I’m bored. We were meant for each other, Sherlock.

Bruce Wayne: People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy, and I can’t do that as Bruce Wayne.

Sherlock: *several different quotes about him being dramatic or his not being able to resist a touch of the dramatic*

Bruce: Rachel, all this...it’s not me, inside, and I am...more...

Sherlock: Yes, of course it’s Rachel...

I’ve lost count of how many crossover comic books have included both Holmes and Batman.

16 notes · View notes

swissmissficrecs · 8 years ago

Link

Word count: 113,288 Chapters: 17/17 Fandom: Sherlock Holmes & Related Fandoms, Sherlock (TV) Rating: Explicit Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings Relationships: Sherlock Holmes/John Watson Characters: Sherlock Holmes, John Watson, Canon Character(s), Mycroft Holmes, Mrs. Hudson (Sherlock Holmes), Mike Stamford, Original Female Character(s), Original Male Character(s), Mary Morstan (mentioned), Harry Watson, Billy Wiggins, Molly Hooper Additional Tags: Developing Relationship, Romance, Trust Issues, Case Fic, Canon-Typical Violence, mentions of drug use, mentions of abuse, Post Reichenbach, Canon Divergent at S3, ACD Canon References, S3 References, TAB References, Pining, Rows, Past Violence, mentions of human trafficking, Not S4 Compliant, Mentions of past suicidal thoughts, Alcohol, Sex, Imbricated Chapters, S4 References, Angst, Harry is not nice, Family Issues, Homophobic Language, Injury, Hurt/Comfort, Hospital, Love Confessions, Implied/Referenced Child Abuse, Art History, Rathbone Holmes references, long night of the soul, Sharing a Bed, Love, Drinking, Intimacy, Sherlock's Violin, Marriage Proposal, publishing, Dogs, Fluff Series: Part 3 of Ode to Broken Things Summary: ‘We’re a couple!' John burst out, bluntly. His face was nearly twitching with rage. He hadn’t even meant to say anything, to anybody, because he wanted what they had for himself just a bit longer, for a million reasons half-romantic and half-defensive, and yet here he was, gripping Chez Francine’s thick cream tablecloth with enough force to tear it in half, suddenly wanting nothing more than to tell everyone within earshot that Sherlock was absolutely infuriating, surprisingly good at blowjobs, and probably in love with him.

======

Rec: Another fabulously written fic with a (currently, inexplicably) low kudo count, this is a masterful update of the eponymous ACD canon case coupled with an angsty recent relationship update between Sherlock and John. It’s exciting, juicy, sexy, insightful, sensual, and just a little heartbreaking (but only a little). The OCs (including Harry Watson in a cameo appearence) are brash and memorable; the mystery is both psychologically gripping, physically challenging, and even for those who know the canon story, stubbornly puzzling. And of course the bass accompaniment thrumming throughout it all, Sherlock and John’s intense push-me-pull-you relationship, brilliantly rendered in exquisite details that had me wallowing and luxuriating for days.

The author mentions greywash as one of their fandom author influences, and I can see that in here along with hints of ivyblossom and wordstrings, so if any of those names mean anything to you then you will understand what I am talking about with the quality of this, as well as the general tendency toward introspection, thinky thoughts, and fairly hypnotic stream-of-consciousness narration.

Although this was posted almost entirely after series 4 aired, it is canon divergent after series 2. It does incorporate various elements of series 3 and 4, though, sometimes as inside-joke “Easter Eggs” and sometimes in more substantial ways that I thought were quite clever and natural to the story. (Don’t worry, no Rosie!) This is also part 3 of a series, although I didn’t read the first two parts and got along swimmingly.

Warnings for mention of noncon and underage (neither involving Sherlock or John).

#arabellastrange #100k+#established relationship #casefic #angst #post-reichenbach #best #100k

40 notes · View notes

abundanceofnots · 8 years ago

Text

there’s not enough sherlock love on my side of tumblr at the moment (i really need to follow more blogs) so here are just some of the reasons why i liked the last episode:

mycroft’s character development

moriarty being the rockstar he always was

sherlock being the adult of the three holmes siblings

sherlock and john looking for each other’s support in times of crises

eurus being recognised as mentally ill and treated as such

eurus making everyone doubt their morality

mrs. hudson

mycroft trying to make it easier for sherlock to shoot him

sherlock finally acknowledging himself as an adult (a nice shift from: “it’s what adults want” - “why?” - “i don’t know, i’ll ask one” to ”why are adults always lying?” - “i am telling the truth”)

john’s soft “sherlock” when he puts a gun to his chin

the way sherlock talks to the “little girl”

flashbacks. all of them

despite being executed in a horrible way, molly does count after all

eurus still being the little child waiting for her big brother to spend time with her

sherlock completing his character arch and acknowledging his big big heart (”i’m just an idiot, on the ground. but it’s not too late” / “this is family matter” - “that’s why he stays” / “make sure mycroft is looked after. he’s not as strong as he thinks he is”)

sherlock and john being closer that ever (without it being blatantly stated if romantically or platonically)

“thanks, greg”

holmes family moments

sherlock using the deep connection he shares with his sister through music to communicate with her

john inviting sherlock over to watch mary’s dvd

full circle

john and sherlock and rosie

rathbone place

#sherlock

39 notes · View notes

seepygoat · 8 years ago

Text

I was tagged for this by @burkewicke which was a wonderful surprise, thanks, gov!

nickname: Baz, Bazzy, Sissy, Landis, (my nephew calls me Aunt Bazzy does that count??)

star sign: no clue lol

height: 5″6″

time right now: 10:17 am

favourite music artist(s): Andy Williams, Paul Byrom, Peter Hollens, ALL the members of Celtic Thunder, Evynne Hollens, and so many more...

song stuck in your head: A sort of medley of Kieth Harkin’s new CD :)

last movie watched: The Man with the One Red Shoe :)

last TV show watched: Doctor Who!!!!

what are you wearing right now: baggy leggings, a hoodie, warm knit socks (and my ever present ankle brace)

when did you create your blog: a while ago? I honestly can’t totally remember lol

what kind of stuff do you post: Sherlock Holmes, christian stuff sometimes, Poirot, Hugh Fraser, Harry Potter, (used to do lots of Person of Interest but since it’s over now not so much) Father Brown, my art/characters, stuff about my depression/anxiety, ummm... and lots more XD

do you have any other blogs: I tried having a Jason Whittaker blog, but that died quickly

do you get asks regularly: not really

why did you chose your URL: BASIL RATHBONE MY FAVORITE

hogwarts house: Gryffindor! Though I like to call myself a Gryffindor with Slytherin sympathies and Hufflepuf tendencies lol

pokemon team: no clue

favourite colour: black, gray, white... :) I like purple and dark red/maroon as well :)

average hours of sleep: 7 to 9, depending

lucky number: I don’t really have one

favourite characters: honestly too many to list HAHA

how many blankets do you sleep with: somewhere from 3 to 6 :)

dream job: filmmaker! :D

following: 236 :)

3 notes · View notes

networkingdefinition · 5 years ago

Text

Basil Quotes

Official Website: Basil Quotes

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push();

• A man taking basil from a woman will love her always. – Thomas More • And I did a movie called Basil with Jared Leto and Christian Slater. – Claire Forlani

jQuery(document).ready(function($) var data = action: 'polyxgo_products_search', type: 'Product', keywords: 'Basil', orderby: 'rand', order: 'DESC', template: '1', limit: '68', columns: '4', viewall:'Shop All', ; jQuery.post(spyr_params.ajaxurl,data, function(response) var obj = jQuery.parseJSON(response); jQuery('#thelovesof_basil').html(obj); jQuery('#thelovesof_basil img.swiper-lazy:not(.swiper-lazy-loaded)' ).each(function () var img = jQuery(this); img.attr("src",img.data('src')); img.addClass( 'swiper-lazy-loaded' ); img.removeAttr('data-src'); ); ); ); • Bad Girl!” She chided. “I’m pretty sure Boris is a boy,” I said. “Oh, I know,” Mrs. Basil E. assured me. “I just like to keep him confused,” Then she and Boris headed off with my future. – David Levithan • Basil Fawlty was an easy character for me. For some reason, portraying a mean, uptight, incompetent bully comes naturally to me. – John Cleese • Basil Stag Hare tut-tutted severely as he remarked to Ambrose Spike, ‘Tch, tch. Dreadful table manners. Just look at those three wallahs, kicking up a hullaballoo like that! Eating’s a serious business. – Brian Jacques • Basil..discovered a guild of abortionists, or sagae, that were doing a booming trade in Caesarea, and the surrounding environs. They provided herbal potions, pessaries, and even surgical remedies for women who wished to avoid child-bearing. The bodies of the children were then harvested and sold to cosmetologists in Egypt, who used the collagen for the manufacture of various beauty creams. – Grant George • Conscience and cowardice are really the same things, Basil. Conscience is the trade-name of the firm. That is all. – Oscar Wilde • Ernie Hayes, Jimmy Lewis, and either Belton Evans or Khalil Mahdi on drums [were in Sweet Basil]. All those guys really took care of me. – Jon Gordon • Going to Europe as a budding cook opened my eyes to food in a different way. When I got to Italy, the first thing I did was put my little basil plants in the ground and watch them turn into big, healthy bushes. – Frances Mayes • I believe in the magic of preparation. You can make just about any foods taste wonderful by adding herbs and spices. Experiment with garlic, cilantro, basil and other fresh herbs on vegetables to make them taste great. – Jorge Cruise • I have been right, Basil, haven’t I, to take my love out of poetry, and to find my wife in Shakespeare’s plays? Lips that Shakespeare taught to speak have whispered their secret in my ear. I have had the arms of Rosalind around me, and kissed Juliet on the mouth. – Oscar Wilde • I think you are wrong, Basil, but I won’t argue with you. It is only the intellectually lost who ever argue. – Oscar Wilde • I was also sitting in from the middle of senior year of high school at Sweet Basil, it was a great club in New York. – Jon Gordon • I went in [Sweet Basil band] and played with them, maybe half the gig for almost eight years or more. – Jon Gordon • I would sit in at a jazz brunch [at sweet Basil] with Eddie Chamblee, who was a great tenor player. Really a kind man. The whole band was great. – Jon Gordon • If you’ve got a plot the size of a car or a tiny yard in Italy, you’re going to be growing tomatoes and basil and celery and carrots, and everybody is still connected to the land. – Frances Mayes • Illy [Ray Illingworth] had the man-management skills of Basil Fawlty – Darren Gough • On daughter Apple’s accent: She says Mummy instead of Mommy, I don’t mind that. I will if she starts saying basil and pasta the English way, as that really drives me nuts. – Gwyneth Paltrow • Pounding fragrant things – particularly garlic, basil, parsley – is a tremendous antidote to depression. But it applies also to juniper berries, coriander seeds and the grilled fruits of the chilli pepper. Pounding these things produces an alteration in one’s being – from sighing with fatigue to inhaling with pleasure. The cheering effects of herbs and alliums cannot be too often reiterated. Virgil’s appetite was probably improved equally by pounding garlic as by eating it. – Patience Gray • Savory…that’s a swell word. And Basil and Betel. Capsicum. Curry. All great. But Relish, now, Relish with a capital R. No argument, that’ the best. – Ray Bradbury • That’s definitely true! It was before my father died, so I can’t attribute it to an obsession with death. When I was seven, I loved those old Sherlock Holmes movies with Basil Rathbone. The Scarlet Claw was one of my faves. And I loved all the Halloween’s and that film about the haunted house… Burnt Offerings, with Oliver Reed. Every birthday party was a slumber party and we’d watch horror films. – Cate Blanchett • The repeat run of Fawlty Towers (BBC2) drew bigger audiences than ever and deservedly so. Statistical surveys reveal that only the television critic of the Spectator is incapable of seeing the joke, which is that Basil Fawlty has the wrong temperament to be a hotel proprietor, just as some other people have the wrong temperament to be television critics. – Clive James • The scent organ was playing a delightfully refreshing Herbal Capriccio – rippling arpeggios of thyme and lavender, of rosemary, basil, myrtle, tarragon; a series of daring modulations through the spice keys into ambergris; and a slow return through sandalwood, camphor, cedar and newmown hay (with occasional subtle touches of discord – a whiff of kidney pudding, the faintest suspicion of pig’s dung) back to the simple aromatics with which the piece began. The final blast of thyme died away; there was a round of applause; the lights went up. – Aldous Huxley • Virtues are in the middle, the royal way about which the saintly elder (Saint Basil the Great) said, “Travel on the royal way and count the miles.” As I said, the virtues are at the midpoint between excess and laxness. That is why it is written, “Do not turn to the right or the left” (Prov 4:27) but travel on the “royal way” (Num. 20:17). Saint Basil also says, “The person who does not allow his thoughts to incline towards excess or deprivation but directs it to the midpoint, that of virtue, is upright in heart.” – Dorotheus of Gaza • We’re big fans of the show on BBC, and some of the greatest actors in film and television have done this character, from Basil Rathbone to Nicol Williamson to Michael Caine. (Executive producer) Rob Doherty came in with the pitch last season, it was immediately a show that we gravitated towards. – Nina Tassler • What the English like to do is to face reality with a glass of port and a tear and fade off like Basil Rathbone into the sunset. – Pete Townshend • When I was thinking about what we could do in terms of what production values of Broadway might be able to add to the show, I had this thought that it would be really cool if we had a coup de théâtre. What would they want? And then I was like, an amazing, enormous tuna puppet that was like 30 by 40 feet would be pretty incredible. So I called up Basil Twist, and he got really excited immediately and started sketching out his idea, and I think it’s a real highlight of the show. – Alex Timbers [clickbank-storefront-bestselling]

jQuery(document).ready(function($) var data = action: 'polyxgo_products_search', type: 'Product', keywords: 'a', orderby: 'rand', order: 'DESC', template: '1', limit: '4', columns: '4', viewall:'Shop All', ; jQuery.post(spyr_params.ajaxurl,data, function(response) var obj = jQuery.parseJSON(response); jQuery('#thelovesof_a').html(obj); jQuery('#thelovesof_a img.swiper-lazy:not(.swiper-lazy-loaded)' ).each(function () var img = jQuery(this); img.attr("src",img.data('src')); img.addClass( 'swiper-lazy-loaded' ); img.removeAttr('data-src'); ); ); );

jQuery(document).ready(function($) var data = action: 'polyxgo_products_search', type: 'Product', keywords: 'e', orderby: 'rand', order: 'DESC', template: '1', limit: '4', columns: '4', viewall:'Shop All', ; jQuery.post(spyr_params.ajaxurl,data, function(response) var obj = jQuery.parseJSON(response); jQuery('#thelovesof_e').html(obj); jQuery('#thelovesof_e img.swiper-lazy:not(.swiper-lazy-loaded)' ).each(function () var img = jQuery(this); img.attr("src",img.data('src')); img.addClass( 'swiper-lazy-loaded' ); img.removeAttr('data-src'); ); ); );

jQuery(document).ready(function($) var data = action: 'polyxgo_products_search', type: 'Product', keywords: 'i', orderby: 'rand', order: 'DESC', template: '1', limit: '4', columns: '4', viewall:'Shop All', ; jQuery.post(spyr_params.ajaxurl,data, function(response) var obj = jQuery.parseJSON(response); jQuery('#thelovesof_i').html(obj); jQuery('#thelovesof_i img.swiper-lazy:not(.swiper-lazy-loaded)' ).each(function () var img = jQuery(this); img.attr("src",img.data('src')); img.addClass( 'swiper-lazy-loaded' ); img.removeAttr('data-src'); ); ); );

jQuery(document).ready(function($) var data = action: 'polyxgo_products_search', type: 'Product', keywords: 'o', orderby: 'rand', order: 'DESC', template: '1', limit: '4', columns: '4', viewall:'Shop All', ; jQuery.post(spyr_params.ajaxurl,data, function(response) var obj = jQuery.parseJSON(response); jQuery('#thelovesof_o').html(obj); jQuery('#thelovesof_o img.swiper-lazy:not(.swiper-lazy-loaded)' ).each(function () var img = jQuery(this); img.attr("src",img.data('src')); img.addClass( 'swiper-lazy-loaded' ); img.removeAttr('data-src'); ); ); );

jQuery(document).ready(function($) var data = action: 'polyxgo_products_search', type: 'Product', keywords: 'u', orderby: 'rand', order: 'DESC', template: '1', limit: '4', columns: '4', viewall:'Shop All', ; jQuery.post(spyr_params.ajaxurl,data, function(response) var obj = jQuery.parseJSON(response); jQuery('#thelovesof_u').html(obj); jQuery('#thelovesof_u img.swiper-lazy:not(.swiper-lazy-loaded)' ).each(function () var img = jQuery(this); img.attr("src",img.data('src')); img.addClass( 'swiper-lazy-loaded' ); img.removeAttr('data-src'); ); ); );

0 notes

equitiesstocks · 5 years ago

Text

Basil Quotes

Official Website: Basil Quotes

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push();

• A man taking basil from a woman will love her always. – Thomas More • And I did a movie called Basil with Jared Leto and Christian Slater. – Claire Forlani

0 notes

gabrielholt · 8 years ago

Text

Age, Memory, and Narrative: Older Adults and the Power of Autobiographical Memories

Term paper for PSY402 (Adult Psychology) November 2016

Abstract

This paper discusses the affinity of older adults for long-term memories, specifically autobiographical and flashbulb memories. An interview with the author’s grandparents demonstrates expected memory retrieval errors with names, but also strong autobiographical episodic memories, which are integrated into a semantic timeline of self. These detailed autobiographical and flashbulb memories, perhaps due to their narrative potential, can help older adults to organize their lives into a broader semantic understanding. Research suggests that this understanding is informed partially by the reminiscence bump, landmarks of life experience, and gender. Autobiographical memories can serve as semantic scaffolding surrounding life events, helping older adults to build a more complete sense of personal identity.

Interview Summary

This paper is based on the interview transcribed in Appendix A. The interview was conducted with the author’s maternal grandparents – Murray and Janice – who are 92 and 91 years old, respectively. The author began the interview by stating curiosity about different kinds of memory, both short- and long-term. Murray commented on Janice’s impressive short-term and long-term memory, particularly her long-term memory. He cited her ability to remember specific hotel rooms and names from decades earlier. Murray offered an example of his long-term memory, repeating something his father told him in the 1940s. This prompted the author to mention “flashbulb” memories, which in turn prompted both participants to volunteer examples of flashbulb memories. Murray recalled hearing about the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, and both interviewees recollected where they had been when they heard about John F. Kennedy’s assassination. Janice recalled the death of her father when she was in high school.

The author told the interviewees about autobiographical memory and the “reminiscence bump,” relating both to Janice’s story of her father’s death. Murray then reminisced about the summer of 1955, when he was offered a job at Virginia Theological Seminary and began to play his flute in a local band. Janice told a story of how she, her cousin, and her sister (as young children) walked the railroad tracks to a neighbouring town to visit her aunt. Murray recalled their 1946 wedding as an example of a joint autobiographical memory. The author reviewed that these were compelling examples of long-term episodic memory, and asked about tests their doctor did to assess their short term memory. The author also asked about their semantic memory and ability to remember names, informing them about the “tip of the tongue” phenomenon.

Throughout the interview, Murray frequently referred back to the topic of memory, asking if the author had any more questions. His remarks showed that he was keenly aware of the conversation’s focus, and that his memory allowed him to prompt the author for more information. Both participants volunteered multiple memories, referring to specific dates and events in the distant past, as well as more recent events. According to the best of the author’s knowledge, these dates and events are accurate.

Thesis development

The author had initially begun research on short-term memory in older adults, with the aim of evaluating whether abilities in short-term memory versus long-term memory correlated with what had been taught in class. When the interview started, the author found that the interviewees were interested in the material and were eager to offer examples of their memories. The interviewees spent the majority of the interview time discussing their long-term memory, specifically autobiographical and flashbulb memories. The author also asked about short-term memory testing at their doctor’s appointments and their semantic memory, which the interviewees said were not areas of concern for them. While they did answer these questions about short-term memories, they were more interested in the discussion of long-term memory and sharing stories from their pasts. They were able to give multiple accounts of long-term memories, particularly those that were autobiographical and related to specific events in their lives. These memories had clear narrative components, and the interviewees had a distinct sense of the chronological place of these memories in their lives. They recalled what life events had occurred around the same time as their memory, where they were geographically at the time of each memory, and the people who were around them. Because there is no way to assess the accuracy of Murray and Janice’s flashbulb or autobiographical memories (other than verifying the dates), it is only possible to examine their affinity for these types of recollection.

In the author’s clinical experience with elderly patients, he has noticed that other older adults share this affinity for narratives from long term memory: they are more inclined to tell him stories from their past than younger patients. They frequently refer back to different periods in their lives, and place the memories into a coherent, lifelong, narrative framework. Sometimes these elderly patients have deficits in short-term memory, and sometimes they do not. If deficits are present, however, the deficits do not seem to damage the patient’s long-term memories, especially autobiographical memories. Because the interviewees showed the same patterns in memory retrieval, the author then re-focused research on long-term memory in older adults, specifically autobiographical memory and its meaning in the lives of older adults.

The research used in this paper concerns the constructed meanings of autobiographical memory, the gendered aspects of memory, and the reminiscence bump in long-term memory. The thesis that emerged from this research supports the author’s experience, the textbook material taught in class, and other scholarly articles: While some short- and long-term memory ability in healthy older adults may decline, long-term autobiographical or flashbulb episodic memory remains consistently resilient in healthy older adults, and helps individuals to make meaning of their lives. Because of this maintained strength in long-term memory, older adults may gravitate toward autobiographical memories as semantic narrative devices.

Discussion and Research

When asked about whether their doctor tested their short-term memory, the interviewees confirmed that the doctor does ask them to count backwards, remember lists of words, draw a clock, and write a sentence with a verb and a predicate. The doctor also asks them general orientation questions. They have been able to answer all these questions adequately, indicating that they have remained cognitively intact for their age. In non-autobiographical long-term memory, they perform well with semantic and implicit memory, but show some expected decline in name retrieval. The author questioned them about semantic memory, which they reported was maintained through reading newspapers. Janice’s knack for remembering details from past locations is an example of her keen implicit memory. Janice said that she sometimes had difficulty remembering names, but usually comes up with the right one. Murray said that he had never been good at remembering names. This was demonstrated during the interview when Murray forgot the name of Kennedy’s killer, and Janice reminded him. The author mentioned that these were examples of the “tip of the tongue” phenomenon, a common source of memory decline in older adults.

The interviewees’ autobiographical memory, however, is consistently sound. Class material and articles used for research corroborate the tenacity of autobiographical memory in older adults. This type of memory also tends to have greater meaning in the lives of the adults, especially when the memories are recalled from a reminiscence bump or a flashbulb scenario. Furthermore, gender may play a role in the construction and recollection of such memories, influencing their semantic significance in the lives of the adults who hold them.

Habermas, Diel, and Welzer (2013) describe older adults’ preference for semantic, rather than episodic, autobiographical memory. In part, this is attributed to the increasing tendency of aging individuals to understand their lives and experiences through increasingly broader, more holistic lenses than younger adults do (Habermas, Diel, & Welzer, 2013). Rathbone, Holmes, Murphy, and Ellis (2015) tie this semantic intactness to general well-being. They write that it is not the episodic nature of the autobiographical memories, but rather their emotional valence and contribution to the individual’s sense of self, which correlates with a person’s well-being (Rathbone, Holmes, Murphy, & Ellis, 2015). Murray and Janice identify themselves as generally well, and both have a coherent sense of self which is in part aided by their undamaged autobiographical memories.

Steiner, Pillemar, Kirkegaard Thomsen, and Minigan (2014) write about the “reminiscence bump” in older adults, a period of life from which it is easiest to retrieve memories, particularly if the memories are positive. Most of the autobiographical memories shared by the interviewees occurred during the span of ages defining the bump: between adolescence and early adulthood. Janice’s father’s death and Murray’s hearing about Pearl Harbor both happened during their high school years. Janice and Murray were married at age 21 and 22 respectively. Murray was 31 when he was offered a job at the Seminary. When John F. Kennedy was assassinated, they were 38 and 39 years old. Since Janice and Murray technically did not reach “middle age” until 46 and 47, they could still have been considered in their early adulthood at the time. Steiner et al. (2014) further the discourse on reminiscence bumps by proposing that older adults frequently order time into “life story chapters,” often using life transitions – such as marriage, employment, and relocation – as chronological “landmarks” to demarcate these chapters. Janice and Murray referred more than once to a memory as occurring before or after their wedding, or before or after Murray got a job at the Seminary and they moved to Virginia.

Grysman and Hudson (2013) examine gender differences in the autobiographical memory of adults, and how it relates to their childhood development. They authors convey that some previous studies have found correlation between gender and the way memories are encoded and recollected, while other studies have not (Grysman & Hudson, 2013). This interview showed some differences in the memories shared and the gender of the participants, but these findings may have also been influenced by personality differences between the participants. Grysman and Hudson (2013) report that women often focus more on the emotional and interpersonal aspects of their autobiographical memories. Both of Janice’s non-flashbulb stories were about her family: one about her father’s death and one about an adventure with her cousin and sister. In the first story, she spoke about her reluctance to see her father’s body, and in both stories, she spoke about her family’s response to her feelings and actions. At the end of the interview, Janice asked how the author’s pets were doing, remembering what kind of animals they were. This could be evidence that she was focusing the conversation on familial relationships, such as the author’s familial ties to his animals. Murray’s memories, on the other hand, primarily related to himself and his own cognitive processes. When other people were involved, they often served the purpose of conveying information. Interestingly, the flashbulb memories did not elicit “feeling” words in either participant. Though the flashbulb memories were of negative events (Pearl Harbor and JFK’s assassination), neither interviewee used negative “feeling” words to describe the experiences. They instead used the flashbulb memories as places to tie in aspects of their autobiographical memories, showing that these memories were heavily integrated into a semantic narrative of their overall lives. These events were not isolated, as the “flashbulb” name would suggest, but rather moments that could be discretely remembered within a broadly memorable period of time.

Conclusion

Murray and Janice have excellent cognitive functioning for their age, with no concerns about confusion, absentmindedness, or disorientation. While they exhibit some expected decline in certain types of memory – such as with the “tip of the tongue” phenomenon – their semantic and autobiographical recollection remains strong, as other research with older adults indicates as typical. Their autobiographical episodic memories – and even flashbulb memories – are clearly tied to semantic “chapters” of their lives, thus integrating seemingly episodic occurrences into their lives’ broader semantic contexts. This context is informed by certain landmarks in their lives, especially around their reminiscence bumps, and their memory recollection can be further contextualized in part by their experiences of gender.

In a country of aging people, it is increasingly important for health care providers to understand how the minds and memories of older adults function. As a nursing student, the author is constantly reminded of the therapeutic potential of narratives. This interview and research surrounding autobiographical memory demonstrated the importance of autobiographical narratives for the semantic selves of older adults.

References

Grysman, A., and Hudson, J. A. (2013). Gender differences in autobiographical memory: Developmental and methodological considerations. Developmental Review, 33(2013), 239-272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.07.004

Habermas, T., Diel, V., and Welzer, H. (2013). Lifespan trends of autobiographical remembering: Episodicity and search for meaning. Consciousness and Cognition, 22(3), 1061-1073. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.07.010

Rathbone, C. J., Holmes, E. A., Murphy, S. E., and Ellis, J. A. (2015). Autobiographical memory and well-being in aging: The central role of semantic self-images. Consciousness and Cognition, 33(2015), 422-431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2015.02.017

Steiner, K., Pillemer, D., Kirkegaard Thomsen, D., and Minigan, A. P. (2014). The reminiscence bump in older adults’ life story transitions. Memory, 22(8), 1002-1009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2013.863358

#academic

0 notes

twistedtummies2 · 4 years ago

Text

Ele-May-ntary - NUMBER ONE

Welcome – for the last time – to Ele-May-ntary! All throughout the month of May, I’ve been counting down my Top 31 Favorite Portrayals of Sherlock Holmes. I’ve talked about different versions from movies, television, radio, and even video games! And now, the time has come to unveil my number one choice. Now, we’ve covered a LOT of takes on Sherlock Holmes, obviously. I’ve talked about versions that are very popular, and I’ve talked about versions that are more obscure. Who could possibly top all of the different versions I’ve discussed? For some people, this may be a no-brainer…but to many others, it might seem surprising. NUMBER ONE IS…Jeremy Brett.

I recently saw a report from GQ Magazine, of all things, that claimed Jeremy Brett’s Holmes was “vanilla.” I frankly find this statement to be offensive. People are entitled to their own opinions, and I won’t deride anyone for having different favorites from me, but…“vanilla”? That is about as far from Jeremy Brett as you can GET. Until Benedict Cumberbatch came around, for many people, Jeremy Brett was tied only with Basil Rathbone as perhaps the single most definitive take on Sherlock Holmes. Brett starred as the character in the long-running Granada TV series – initially released under the title of “The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes,” but retitled with every other season to sort of emulate the books. He also played Holmes in a play titled “The Secret of Sherlock Holmes,” in which one of his two Watsons, Edward Hardwicke, also appeared. (Hardwicke, for the record, has played Watson more than any other actor; before him, Brett’s Watson was one David Burke, who I actually personally like a little more, but I digress.) What I love about Jeremy Brett’s Holmes is what I love about nearly every Holmes worth their salt: they capture everything about the character, but they also make it their own. And by Gadfrey, does Jeremy Brett make it his own. Brett had a long standing career on television and in theater before playing the character of Holmes. He appeared in various Shakespeare productions, tackled the role of D’Artagnan in “The Three Musketeers,” and even played the character of the lovesick Freddy in “My Fair Lady!” (Yep. Sherlock Holmes was in that movie. As if it wasn’t good enough.) Interestingly, not long before getting the role of Holmes in the Granada series, Brett actually played Dr. Watson in a stage adaptation of “The Sign of Four,” entitled “The Crucifer of Blood.” He was a highly versatile actor, and no two performances were ever quite the same. As Holmes, Brett does something very, very clever. His Holmes has all the qualities you would want Holmes to have, in all of the right places: all of his virtues and all of his flaws. But there’s a different sort of flair Brett has. He doesn’t MOVE like any other Holmes, doesn’t SPEAK like any other Holmes; there’s a very specific and particular way he does things and says things that is entirely his own. His mood swings are extreme, and there are so many little quirks and nuances to what he does it’s hard to keep track of them all. Even when he’s just standing perfectly still, there’s always something going on in his eyes, and when he’s in motion, he’s a whirlwind. His disguises are a bit more transparent physically than some other takes, but the way he actually PERFORMS in those disguises does allow you to believe that others would be fooled. He was just that great an actor. I really feel that Brett captures the freewheeling thought processes of Holmes in a way that others seldom do; in one episode, he moves around a room methodically, totally silent, picking up hints and clues from all over the place…and when he’s done, addresses the room as if he’s been telling them everything. When Watson says to him, “Holmes, can’t you tell us anything now?” he suddenly realizes he’s been pondering everything to himself the whole while, and then begins to detail his findings and theories to the rest of the characters present. He gets so wrapped up in his hunting and deducing that he forgets everything else. I love seeing Brett’s Holmes work, and I love seeing his relationships with the various other major figures of his canon. Jeremy Brett is both the definitive Holmes and yet not definitive at all; he is one of a kind, taking everything you know and love about the stories, and translating it into a totally unique, fascinating performance that captures your attention thoroughly, stealing every scene he has. He captures both the darkness and the light perfectly, and gives us a portrait of the super sleuth no one has truly managed to match up to, in my opinion: neither before nor since. It is no surprise that he is My Favorite Portrayal of Sherlock Holmes. Thank you for joining me for Ele-May-ntary! I have another countdown planned for October. See you all in a few months on that front! ;)

#ele-may-ntary #top 31 sherlock holmes portrayals #sherlock holmes #granada #the adventures of sherlock holmes #the return of sherlock holmes #the casebook of sherlock holmes #the memoirs of sherlock holmes #the secret of sherlock holmes #jeremy brett #number 1 #number one

44 notes · View notes

twistedtummies2 · 4 years ago

Text

Ele-May-ntary - Number 3

Welcome to Ele-May-ntary! All throughout the month of May, I’ve been counting down my Top 31 Favorite Portrayals of Sherlock Holmes, from movies, television, radio, and video games! We’ve reached the Top 3! The end draws ever nearer! And for those of you who have been wondering about this particularly well-known portrayal, the wait is over. Number 3 is…Basil Rathbone.

There have been many actors who people would call the definitive Sherlock Holmes. This interpretation may or may not be worthy of that specific title, but I think it’s very fair to say that Basil Rathbone is the most ICONIC Sherlock Holmes. So much of what we identify as Holmes today comes more from Rathbone than any other actor before or since. Even to this day, to tons and tons of people, Rathbone just IS Sherlock Holmes, much in the same way Bela Lugosi is Dracula or Boris Karloff is Frankenstein’s Monster. However accurate or inaccurate to the source material these portrayals may be, they’ve just become so synonymous with both the actor and the literary character that it’s hard to separate them. Part of Rathbone’s power as Holmes comes from his longevity in the role. He first played Holmes for two films produce by 20th Century FOX. These pictures – “The Hound of the Baskervilles” and “The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes” – were lavish period pieces. FOX lost the rights to Holmes (at the time, the character was not yet in the public domain, but still controlled by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s estate), and Universal picked up where they left off, creating twelve new films: fourteen movies in all, by the end of their twin runs. The Universal films – like so many screen treatments before – were set in contemporary times, simply due to budgetary issues. These movies were not the end of Rathbone’s tenure – nor that of his Watson, the incomparable Nigel Bruce: both of them played the roles for years on radio both in-between and after the films. These radio programs – a series called “The New Adventures of Sherlock Holmes” – were once again period dramas, since the theater of the mind allowed Holmes to return to his roots without much issue. The radio show lasted eleven years, starting in 1939 (incidentally, the year the “Adventures” film came out) and all the way into 1950…although it should be stated that Rathbone only stayed on till 1946, which was also the year his final Holmes picture, “Dressed to Kill,” came out. Even THIS would not be the end, however, for in later years, Rathbone would go on to play the character a handful of times onstage. “The only mystery I could not solve,” Rathbone once said, “Was the same one Conan Doyle had: how to get rid of the damned man!” While Rathbone may have eventually grown tired of his reputation as Holmes, it was one well-deserved. I often feel that, nowadays, people don’t have enough appreciation for his take on the character. Every time I see a documentary on the subject of Holmes throughout the ages, the people involved are quick to comment on how inaccurate to the source material things are, with the modern day settings and Bruce’s Watson, and often compare Holmes to James Bond…which…is apparently meant to be a NEGATIVE comparison? (I…don’t understand that…then again, after Roger Moore, maybe it makes more sense…) Personally, I’ve never understood this negative backlash, as Rathbone’s Holmes really does capture the character wonderfully. Beyond Sherlock, most of Rathbone’s characters were actually villains, and I think in a way that helps his Holmes out. While Holmes is a heroic figure, there’s something…reptilian about Rathbone’s performance. A sense of something uncanny just under the human skin, if that makes sense. He can be sympathetic and patient, but he can also be condescending and snarly. He has his moments of deep depression, just as he has his moments of energy and intensity. He’s got a sense of humor, and it’s not always clear if he’s mad or just crazy like a fox, with the many eccentric things he gets up to: from experimenting with houseflies to shooting bullet holes in his wall. He’s got his dramatic side – prone to grandiose speeches – and while he’s always right, he’s not always able to pick the best time to BE right. He actually does make mistakes here and there, often due to his own arrogance. Plus, he DOES have a dark side, and it’s tapped upon in a couple of films and radio episodes. He’s even implied to be partial to cocaine! That’s something that was hard to slip past censors of the time! On top of that, alongside Arthur Wontner, Rathbone arguably LOOKS the most like the character drawn by Sidney Paget…perhaps even more so, now that I think about it, simply due to him being closer to the age Doyle describes. Bottom line: sure, there were liberties taken with the material, but I would argue Holmes is actually pretty spot on in Rathbone’s hands. It was, perhaps, the first truly definitive portrayal of the character, and I even have to give credit to Nigel Bruce’s Watson, who is often maligned for his comedic performance. It was something other Watsons later tried to imitate, but not with the same level of success: they almost always felt like they were just “Diet Bruce,” while Bruce made the comedy work with a decent balance. He could certainly be a fool, but he DID help Holmes out, and the chemistry between Rathbone and his ally was absolutely perfect. You never once doubted it when Holmes claimed he needed Watson, no matter how many times Watson made himself look like a clown. Sometimes, it would be Watson who would provide a final solution to a puzzle, or at least an important piece, and sometimes we’d just get these wonderful moments where the strength of the relationship between the characters could shine. Bottom line: inaccurate or not, both these actors deserve a lot more credit than they get, and they remain legendary for a very good reason. They are most assuredly deserving of my Top 3. Tomorrow is the penultimate entry on the list. Who will it be? Check in and find out!

#ele-may-ntary #top 31 sherlock holmes portrayals #sherlock holmes #fox #20th century fox #universal #universal studios #rathbone-bruce series #new adventures of sherlock holmes #new adventures radio #radio #basil rathbone #number 3

24 notes · View notes

twistedtummies2 · 4 years ago

Text

Ele-May-ntary - Number 29

Welcome to Ele-May-ntary! All throughout the month, I’m counting down my Top 31 Favorite Portrayals of Sherlock Holmes, from movies, television, radio, and even a couple of video games! Last time, I discussed Alfred Pennyworth – I mean, Alan Napier, and his one stint as Holmes in the 1949 version of “The Adventure of the Speckled Band.” That was a very obscure version, but today, we’ll be covering a somewhat more well-known portrayal. Number 29 is…Ian Richardson.

Richardson is what I would consider a cult classic Holmes. I say this because, when I see documentaries about different takes on Holmes as a character throughout the years, Richardson is an actor I don’t think I’ve ever seen mentioned. Despite this, the Shakepsearean-trained Richardson gives a portrayal that seems fairly popular among Conan Doyle fans. He first played Holmes in a television film adaptation of “The Hound of the Baskervilles,” which came out in November of 1983. The following month, a sequel came out, also based on a Conan Doyle Novel: “The Sign of Four.” There were plans to make more movies, but due to copyright issues, they were never produced. Later on, Richardson would play the real man who inspired Sherlock Holmes – Dr. Joseph Bell – in the crime series “Murder Rooms,” which told the story of how Sir Arthur Conan Doyle came up with his classic adventures. The late Richardson is and was a fine actor; one of the greatest of his day, with a mellifluous voice and a commanding screen/stage presence. It should also be noted that he is one of the actors who most closely resembles the Holmes drawn by Sidney Paget in the original illustrations for the Conan Doyle classics. His casting was excellent, but for some reason, I’ve never been able to enjoy his Holmes the way so many other people do. Which is not to say he’s a bad Holmes, I should add: Richardson has a sort of ironic, disconnected sort of sensibility in his take on the Master Detective. He’s not as directly discourteous as other Holmes portrayals tend to be, it’s more that he never seems to realize his many oddities ARE oddities: he treats everything he does with a sort of casual flippancy, not seeming to understand why people find him strange. He takes nearly everything in his stride, and goes out of his way to try and save his enemies, even if they by no means deserve it. In a way, he’s one of the most outright heroic takes on Sherlock you can find, without straying too far from the necessary elements of the literary source. Having said that…I’ve just never cared THAT much for Richardson in either of his Holmes outings. Honestly, I found him much, MUCH more interesting in “Murder Rooms,” perhaps because of the fact he’s not TECHNICALLY Sherlock Holmes there, and his take on Dr. Bell is indeed very strong. I think part of the problem with Richardson’s Holmes is a lack of a consistent, strong Watson: in the first film, Watson was played by Donald Churchill. In the second, he’s played by David Healy. Neither of them are bad actors, per say, but I just can’t stand their Watsons: they once again play the character of the good doctor in the vein of Nigel Bruce, but without the gravity or charm Bruce had. Richardson, in turn, feels like a kinder version of Rathbone, but without the proper chemistry required between himself and his partner(s). I don’t hate either movie – “Hound,” in particular, is mostly pretty good – but I’m just not in the crowd that adores Richardson’s Holmes all that much. But don’t be too disappointed: other highly popular Sherlocks will prove more successful on this list. Wait and see. ;) The countdown continues tomorrow! Who will be next? Check in and find out!

#ele-may-ntary #top 31 sherlock holmes portrayals #ian richardson #1983 hound #sign of four #sherlock holmes #number 29

11 notes · View notes

twistedtummies2 · 4 years ago

Text

Ele-May-ntary - Number 18

Welcome to Ele-May-ntary! All throughout the month of May, I’m counting down my Top 31 Favorite Portrayals of Sherlock Holmes in movies, television, radio, and video games! Last time, I discussed Christopher Plummer as Sherlock Holmes: one of the more prominent actors to tackle the role. Today, we’ll be talking about a somewhat lesser-known performer. Number 18 is…Ronald Howard.

No, not as in the guy who directed Jim Carrey’s Grinch. (Wouldn’t THAT be interesting…) Ronald Howard is an actor you probably know nothing about…which is fine, because beyond his performance as Sherlock Holmes, I don’t think I know much of anything about him, either. (Unless he’s been in some other shows/movies I’ve seen and just no recognized him in.) Howard played the character in the mid-1950s, in the first American television series based on the character and universe, simply titled “Sherlock Holmes.” The series wanted to present a take on the characters that was more faithful to Doyle’s work than the popular Basil Rathbone films of the late 30s and early-to-mid-40s…despite the fact that only four stories from the Conan Doyle canon were ever actually adapted even semi-faithfully out of almost 40 total episodes. Anyway, keeping this in mind, the first thing I want to say is that I admire the show’s decision to set things in period, during the Victorian era. This may not sound that strange at first, but prior to this, nearly every take on Holmes out there modernized things specifically for the sake of budgetary reasons: period pieces were often expensive, on many levels, so when a studio tackled Holmes and Watson, they usually had the pair solving capers in then-contemporary times. Despite having a shoestring budget, the 50s show bravely decided to bring Holmes back to his Victorian roots, a choice I greatly appreciate and respect. This creative decision is not the only one that I think is admirable: Howard’s portrayal of Holmes is equally delightful. Howard and the producers decided to portray a Holmes early on in his career; not so much a brooding, almost alien figure, but more a childish eccentric. Often distracted by his work, but not yet embittered by the ravages of time and great experience. He’s cocky, cool as a cucumber, dismissive, but also sincere and truly interested in seeking justice. He never lets much faze him, and more often than not, when he seems to be down and out, he’s already coming up with a strategy to get back on top. He’s the sort of Holmes who’ll blast bullet holes in his wall to celebrate the Queen’s birthday, but he’s also the sort of Holmes who will waive the fee for people who need help and can’t properly afford it. He’s the sort of Holmes who will become so excited when he comes across an escape artist cleverer than he is, that he’ll take the case just to figure out how the man keeps evading imprisonment…but he’s also the Holmes who takes things very seriously, and becomes darkly introspective, when going after a bizarre serial killer who leaves flowers at the scenes of his crimes. I also really love the relationship this Holmes has with both Watson and Lestrade. You really do feel the almost brotherly relationship he has with Watson, and the way they get along is really interesting. Howard Marion-Crawford’s Watson is arguably the first truly book-accurate take on the character ever put to the screen; while he can be very funny, he’s NOT a bungler nor a blowhard. He’ll get frustrated with Holmes, but he’ll also joke around with him; he’s highly protective of his detective associate, and admires him greatly, but when Holmes goes too far out of line, he’s quick to stamp his foot down. He’s even able to see past Holmes’ own facades at times, knowing when the master sleuth is lying or simply being evasive about matters. As for Lestrade, while he was often blustery and was NEVER right, and both Holmes and Watson frequently poked fun at him, he was not a clown. Holmes even admitted in one episode that he felt Lestrade would probably be able to solve a certain case on his own, and when Lestrade showed up with his tail between his legs in shame, he was sympathetic in how he helped the good inspector out. This is a very old but by no means dated interpretation. Admittedly, the other actors and performances are hit and miss, and the writing isn’t always top notch…and the fact the budget, again, wasn’t all that great does lead to some humorous moments of clear cheapness…but the way the main character and his closest allies are handled still manages to hold it above the water. This interpretation actually proved to be rather influential, as several other popular versions – most notably Disney’s “The Great Mouse Detective” – actually borrowed elements from the show, or used it to give them pointers along the way in their own renditions. A true “oldie but goldie,” both for Holmes and his world. The countdown continues tomorrow! Who will be next? Check in and find out!

#ele-may-ntary #top 31 sherlock holmes portrayals #sherlock holmes #1950s TV Series #ronald howard #not the grinch #number 18

4 notes · View notes

nightingveilxo · 8 years ago

Photo

Not The Real Molly

First off, I will say part of this was originally an add-on to this post. So, you can read the portions from other contributors, then switch to this one for what I added, as well as newer items.

The person wondered why Molly was looking directly at the camera, breaking the fourth wall like John and Sherlock. Mary looking at Molly was an additional item of question. But, if Molly is under Mary’s control or Molly isn’t as she appears to be…?

As stated by others in the first meta, Molly wears the same colors as Eurus (via the sweater she wore as a John mirror in S3), and they have the same bracelet.

There is also the red in her hair, during TLD. Although a different shade than that of “E” or Amanda’s red wig, it’s still a bit different than her norm. Maybe just a mood-changer, since it’s brown at the beginning of T6T, and then darker toward the end of that episode. This isn’t conclusive evidence, just another thing that seems possibly off about her role.

There is also the fact we still never saw the footage where she is wearing the wig to make her look like Sherlock, and a shirt that looks like something John would wear (though in the tweet, she only references Sherlock). Odd, since that was her last day on set. If she posed as Sherlock to John though, and vice versa, then it makes more sense.

Meanwhile, almost everyone else in S4 is wearing blue, but not Molly...

The Woman In Green

Based on Conan Doyle's The Adventure of the Empty House, this "Sherlock Holmes" entry finds Holmes (Basil Rathbone) and Dr. Watson (Nigel Bruce) trying to solve the case of the "Finger Murders"...Though it isn't sporting to reveal Moriarty's nefarious scheme here, it can be noted that The Woman in Green comes to a nailbiting conclusion as a hypnotized Holmes wanders precariously along the ledge of a penthouse! ( x ) (This is the film where water is used as a mirror, and a means to hypnotize people.)

Inside the empty house Watson, looking through the window, believes that he sees a sniper shoot Holmes in his apartment. Holmes then appears at the house and explains that he put a bust of Julius Caesar there because of the bust's resemblance to his own face (Holmes realized that as soon as he sat there, Moriarty would have him killed). Inspector Gregson takes the sniper, a hypnotized ex-soldier, away, but the sniper is later killed on Holmes's doorstep.

Holmes now realizes that Moriarty's plan involves:

1) killing women and cutting off their forefingers, 2) making rich, single men believe they have committed the crime, 3) using this fake information to blackmail them, and 4) counting on the victims being too terrified to expose the scheme.

If we’re still in S2 or Molly is under Mary’s control, until Mary dies in T6T (possibly shot by John), this works. It just means she ends up with a new part.

Moving on...

Molly was aware of everything, when the others in the background weren’t.

She flat out says so in TLD…

Sherlock: Yeah but, to be fair, you work with murder victims. They tend to be quite young. Molly: Not funny. Sherlock: Little bit funny. Molly: If you keep taking what you’re taking at the rate you’re taking it, you’ve got weeks. Sherlock: Exactly, weeks. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Molly: For Christ’s sake, Sherlock, it’s not a game! Sherlock: I’m worried about you, Molly. You seem very stressed. Molly: I’m stressed; you’re dying. Sherlock: Yeah, well, I’m ahead, then. Stress can ruin every day of your life. Dying can only ruin one. John: So this is real? You’ve really lost it. You’re actually out of control. Sherlock: When have I ever been that? John: Since the day I met you. Sherlock: Oh, clever boy. I’ve missed you fumbling ’round the place. John: I thought this was some kind of … Sherlock: What? John: … trick. Sherlock: ’Course it’s not a trick. It’s a plan. (True, but not quite the one Sherlock implies.)

One of the first things that bugged me about the flashbacks in TFP. As a child, Eurus Holmes has brown eyes, except when she is lighting the match. If it’s Molly, it makes more sense than just John’s imagining it all, without a basis. True, Eurus dyes her hair, and could be wearing contacts to make her eyes blue in TFP, but oh wait…She took the brown contacts out during TLD, so it’s not that.

And, Eurus says she wasn’t going to kill her, but look at the way it happens…

Eurus: This is an experiment. There will be rigour. Sherlock, pick up the gun. It’s your turn next.

Rewind briefly, to Sherlock pointing out to Molly in TLD that she works with murder victims. So, it’s that kind of rigour/rigor mortis.

Then, despite what Eurus said about the whole series of events in TFP, Molly says differently…

Sherlock: Molly, this is for a case. It’s … it’s a sort of experiment. Molly: I’m not an experiment, Sherlock.

Fast forward…

Eurus: Saved her? From what? Oh, do be sensible. There were no explosives in her little house. Why would I be so clumsy? You didn’t win. You lost.

So, is it a game or not? I would say no, but it is playing.

I theorized in this piece yesterday, that women of ‘eligible age’ became all one person in S4, because of someone trying to reason out of Sherlock and John being a couple. At least, until the woman in question either fulfills her role in the scenario (then suddenly vanishes) or the mirror of one of the men, does. It never happens to Mrs. Hudson, because she is a mother-figure, and she has her own role to play.

It always puzzled me that a character meant to only be in one episode, made it through all four seasons. Yes, Molly is likeable. But, what appeared to happen to her in TFP, was awful. If it’s not really Molly though, then it’s understandable why at the end of TFP, she is happy as a clam in the montage. Mary is gone, and the ill-fated phone call never actually happened.

Molly or Moriarty...

The Adventures of Shirley Holmes (1997-2000)--the series follows the life of Shirley Holmes, the great-grandniece of Sherlock Holmes who, with the help of ex-gang member Bo Sawchuk, tackles a variety of mysteries in and around the fictional Canadian city of Redington. On some occasions, she found herself matching wits with nemesis Molly Hardy (whose name is a word play on Sherlock Holmes' archenemy Professor Moriarty).

A nod to Rathbone, and possibly The Woman in Green.

52 notes · View notes