Top Ten Sherlock Holmes Moments

“How many? I’ll count them for you, Watson.”

I was sifting through some interesting writings out of my past, lovely lurkers, and I came across some drafts of things that either did or were going to be put up on the Deconstruction Workers’ website. I had appeared with the head Worker, Dr. Chris Bell, at Denver Comic Con a few times, and from there kept connected till I appeared on his podcast also a few times. Just before the website companion to the podcast went defunct, he had a bunch of us regular pop scholars construct articles listing the Top Ten coolest things about a myriad of pop culture and media franchises. It was a sort of closing out of the decade type thing, in 2020, as I recall. My Top Ten Star Wars listicle appeared on the website, but the following Sherlockian one never made it to internet print, unfortunately. And so I thought I’d publish it now, a couple years later, only slightly refurbished. Please to enjoy. (Also, do let me know if you’d like me to reprint the Star Wars one, since the DCW is gone where the woodbine twineth…)

So now, without further ado, here’s the Top Ten of Sherlock Holmes [SPOILER ALERT for a few different Sherlock adaptations]:

Lying down on the job again…

Sherlock Holmes is probably the most highly recognizable literary character in the entire world, and as such, beyond the original canon, there’ve been countless pastiches, illustrations, and adaptations in multiple formats (of varying quality), since the originals were still coming out in the late 1800s and early 1900s, all the way till today. 

There’s such a rich Sherlockian world out there that it is rather a challenge to come up with such a short list of highlights. But some of the (especially more recent) adaptations and remakes have kept the good detective squarely in the middle of even contemporary pop culture, and so I thought it would be fun to delve into what has made (and still does make) stories of Sherlock Holmes’ amazing deductive skills so compelling.

The following are only my own (albeit highly educated) opinions as to the top ten moments, characters, scenes, concepts, thingies, etc. in all of pop culture when it comes to Sherlock Holmes. These are the ten that stand out the most to me, with my extensive literary and theatrical knowledge, as well as full-on nerd-out love of Sherlock Holmes. They’re in no particular order. Don’t @ me…

Brett not only stayed faithful to the original text, but also to Sidney Paget’s illustrations.

Jeremy Brett 

Out of all the myriad film interpretations of Sherlock Holmes produced through the years (many of which are excellent), no actor has quite captured the true essence of Holmes like the late great Jeremy Brett.

Brett’s taut, high strung, vibrant portrayal speaks to his (and the Granada team’s) devotion to canon accuracy. His virtuoso performance, coupled with the meticulously reproduced Victorian environment, make the original books come to life in a vivid way that hasn’t been matched before or since. 

The Granada series’ lofty goal of covering all the original stories unfortunately wasn’t reached, on account of Brett’s ill health and untimely demise. In fact, the later episodes are nigh unwatchable; partly because of the screenwriters’ botched attempts to mash several not-so-great original stories into one plodding movie length monstrosity (*cough*”Master Blackmailer”*cough*), but mainly it’s just rough to watch Brett obviously struggling. It’s too bad, too, because if he had been in the pink of health, the Granada Hound of the Baskervilles would be unrivaled.

Also, Moriarty was real…

I Believe in Sherlock Holmes

When Conan Doyle first killed off his creation in an attempt to be allowed to write more serious works, the world famously rebelled. In fact, the Victorian Sherlock fandom was so insistent and outraged, that not only did Conan Doyle publish the famous Hound of the Baskervilles in an attempt to assuage them, but thereafter resumed telling the tales anew, retconning Holmes’ death and carrying on with new stories and novels through the early 1920s.

BBC series Sherlock tackled the death of the great detective in their episode “The Reichenbach Fall,” and, maybe because the Sherlock fandom knew about the comeback in the original canon, or just the mere fact that a fully alive Sherlock is shown just before the final credits, the outcry and fan activity wasn’t outrage at Sherlock’s death, but wild theories as to how he survived his fall. Since the BBC series was structured like many others in the UK, with only three movie-length episodes to a season, and two or more years before the next season’s airing, there was plenty of time between the end of season 2 and beginning of season 3 for fans to spin their wild ideas. In the realm of the show’s world, too, the fandom was similarly obsessed, with catchphrase I Believe In Sherlock Holmes repeated until his public return.

It was really neat to see an echo of the original crazed Sherlock fandom going nuts after the character’s death, even if the focus was different. It showed how powerful these stories (and the character) is, even retold today.

Elementary, my dear Joan Watson…

Watson is a Woman

When modern police procedural Elementary was about to premiere and they announced that it would take place in NYC instead of London, I rolled my eyes. At least they weren’t making Sherlock Holmes American, but an English transplant so I thought ehhhhh still doesn’t sound great, but okay. But when they announced that Dr. Watson was going to be Joan, not John, and played by Lucy Liu, I was VERY disappointed. Oh great, I thought, more false romantic innuendoes for the Holmes/Watson dynamic. Ugh.

But then I watched the series.

Having Watson as a woman in the contemporary setting of this Holmes was actually a spot-on choice—they made her a retired surgeon (just like OG Watson in canon), but instead of a random roommate, she’s Holmes’ sober companion. So having her accompany him to crime scenes, etc. was totally organic, and when she becomes a detective in her own right, it actually worked really well to have Holmes and Watson working in tandem as near equals. Lucy Liu was fantastic as Watson: an intelligent and curious character much like the canon’s original narrator. 

And the best part of that strong relationship that evolved and grew as it spanned seven seasons? They never were romantic. That would have been a cheap and easy thing to do with a woman Watson, and the showrunners didn’t do it. Instead, we got to watch Joan Watson and Sherlock Holmes become devoted best friends and business partners, sharing a rich and complex history together and a deep platonic love for each other by the end of the series.

The woman. Also the villain.

Moriarty is Irene Adler (Oh, and is Also a Woman)

I could write an entire top ten just on the excellent Elementary but I’ll spare you—I do want to note, however, this show’s surprising and novel treatment of two beloved one-off characters: Irene Adler and Professor Moriarty.

The thing about both the characters of Irene Adler (the woman), and Moriarty (the Napoleon of crime) is that they’re both quite minor characters, appearing in only one short story each (with brief mentions of the latter in a couple others, but no other appearances), and yet these two are painted with such elaborate backstories by adaptors and pastiche artists alike. Adler nearly always ends up working for Moriarty as well as being Sherlock’s love interest and a minor criminal mastermind in her own right, if not a very capable minion. Moriarty is shoehorned into all sorts of plots he never had anything to do with, and only rarely does this not feel forced (the Granada “Red Headed League” is one that worked out in a subtle and lovely way but it’s the exception). 

Elementary, right there in the first season, just nipped that whole nonsense in the bud. Yes, they made Adler a love interest, but a fraught one and with a demise shrouded in mystery. And their Moriarty was just the right kind of behind-the-scenes sinister presence that evoked Holmes’ canon speech about how he’s the spider in the center of the web that feels every tremor… and then what do they do?

They make Irene Adler and Moriarty the same person! What an insane, over the top choice, and so well executed (and deliciously acted by Natalie Dormer) that I think I might have actually cheered at my screen at the reveal.

“It was a straight left against a slogging ruffian.”

Holmes is a Good Boxer, Remember?

Whatever you may think about the Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes movies, you have to admit they’ve got boatloads of energy and color. I’ve heard many Sherlockian purists rail at the manic, scattered, pugilist of Downey Jr.’s portrayal of Holmes. But to them I’d add: have you read the early canon recently? 

Holmes is described as being quite the accomplished fencer, single-stick fighter, and an almost expert boxer. Seeing the Downey Jr. Holmes in a bare-knuckle match (against prize fighter McMurdo, no less–a character from canon) is not only delightful, but totally faithful to the original character as well. 

Or maybe that’s just me as a stage fight expert, enjoying a good theatrical fight scene or three. I’m not saying the Ritchie movies are great in general, but they’re one of the only adaptations that nails that particular aspect of Holmes right.

Tim Roth is an absolute genius of an actor.

Lie To Me

You might hear Sherlock Holmes lovers touting medical mystery show House as being the ultimate modern Holmes adaptation that isn’t actually Holmes. I’ve heard the same said of the first iteration of CSI. These are okay, but neither holds a candle to the ultimate modern Holmes-not-Holmes of TV: Cal Lightman of Lie to Me.

Based on Dr. Paul Ekman’s scientific studies on micro-expressions and the subtleties of deciphering body language, Lie to Me stars the brilliant Tim Roth as the Sherlockian Lightman, and the mysteries are as fun and the deductions as astonishing as the best of Conan Doyle. 

You can get this series on DVD or stream it on Hulu, and it’s easy to binge—there are only 3 seasons, and every episode is super watchable.

Now where’s the chronologist, Watson? He’s late.

The Grand Game

This is a widespread brainiac fan-game that has been going on a long time amongst people like the Deconstruction Workers (scholars at play in the field of pop culture): it’s a shared willing suspension of disbelief that centers around the premise that Sherlock Holmes was not an invention of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, but was actually a real person. 

This delightful intellectual game was begun decades ago officially by the Baker Street Irregulars organization, whose scions span the globe. The meticulously researched, peer-reviewed essays that attempt to prove Holmes’ historicity are immensely fun and very creative. And woe betide the n00b that suggests it’s all a lark—this is a serious anthropological, if not historical, study, ya whippersnapper. Now let’s talk about the several proofs that exist of how many wives Dr. Watson had…

One Victorian symbol of feminist power: the bicycle.

Strong female characters 

I noticed how strong the women are in the original Sherlockian canon a lot more since rereading the stories as bedtime soothers during the quarantine. Which is funny (though perhaps not surprising), when you contrast the spunk and real strength of a character like Violet Smith, Violet Hunter, or Helen Stoner with some of the rather falsely forced additions of strength to modern adaptations. Like, did we need Irene Adler to be a dominatrix? Isn’t that just a bit… I dunno, unnecessary? Let alone the “oops I’m not gay” problem with her portrayal. I mean, Kitty Winter is already a badass in the original story, we don’t need to really alter her at all (but in fact Elementary did a great job with her).

It’s also the old sexy, but hey who’s counting…

Brainy is the New Sexy

It’s something I’ve heard called The Spock conundrum, and it’s absolutely true for Holmes, too—something about those characters’ emotional distance, and scintillating intellect, particularly in the realm of deduction and problem-solving, makes those characters hella sexy.

Dax wasn’t wrong (see DS9 episode “Trials and Tribble-ations” for context) when she noticed how dreamy Spock was, and the hordes of squee-ing fanfolx swooning over Benedict Cumberbatch are testaments to this as well. “Brainy is the new sexy,” as the BBC Irene Adler said, and isn’t it nice to have a popular protagonist and hero whose superpower is more in his brains than his brawn? What a refreshing break from widespread toxic masculinity.

Holmes, Sherlock Holmes.

Original Bond (hear me out)

Here’s another thing about the original canon I’ve been noticing in each canon reread—there’s an energy and a deliciousness about the travel and the foreign action we get in so many Sherlock Holmes stories that it evokes the starry delirium of a Bond flick (and certainly of a Bond novel, particularly the Fleming ones). 

Now I realize this should probably be a whole ‘nother article (stay tuned); and please understand that I acknowledge that what I’m talking about manifests mostly in exoticism and (particularly in Victorian Holmes but also in the early days of Bond) flat-out racism. But the strange locales, the colorful characters, the tropical passions…all with a supernaturally capable hero jetting about and solving the mystery…Holmes paved the way for the Bonds and the Bournes (and the CSI brains too) to entertain us with the outlandish and the intellectual solutions and the quelling of violence wherever it may pop up.

What are your top ten aspects of Sherlock Holmes? List ’em in the comments.

A retrospective

…and a wise fool keepeth it in only a couple of days.

Well, lovely lurkers, I’ve been back for a few days and have just now managed to begin to settle back in. As you may or may not recall, before my departure I had a big move residence-wise as well as work-wise, so the settling-in isn’t exactly the snug comfy thing you might imagine. But I am very happy to be back in the “bosom of my family,” as one of the scariest villains in the Sherlock Holmes canon once put it. I’m also in a place finally, where I can take a moment to reflect on my 6 week trip to the Pacific Northwest on my quest to produce epic foolery.

Observation 1: the weather was never once gray, and it rained a very negligible amount (so negligible, in fact, that my Washingtonian friends insisted it didn’t count as rain), so. There goes that stereotype.

Observation 2: the cast I worked with was so very good at what they do. They were perfectly cast in their roles, all had fantastic chemistry onstage and off, and the show overall was so very high quality. But you don’t have to take my word for it: the audiences for the run of 12 shows (12 nights of 12th Night—get it?) were the biggest in that company’s history. I believe it was from two factors: one is that they had been on a 3 year hiatus from performing live, and Olympians missed them terribly. The other is that I could tell how much a Shakespeare in the park experience was a craving for all those hundreds of picnic blanketed, camp-chair toting patrons. And of course it’s a very great pleasure to perform for audiences that are that big and boisterous and into it.

Observation 3: I made some good new friends as well as caught up with a couple very old ones. Both experiences were lovely, and as much as I’m glad I’m home, I will miss those strange and beautiful players I had the privilege to work and fool with. Let alone the excellent pub I quickly made into a Third Place, whose Handsome Paul beer and jovial ‘tenders Donnie and Jess especially made my working pub time as well as cast meetups a pleasure. I’ll miss my walks to Well80 Brewery and the bourbon and pints within, muchly.

Will I / would I do such a thing again? I’ve been asked this question more than once since my return, and I honestly don’t know. Of course, best to ask me that question a bit later, when I’m back fully into home mode, but. Yeah, I don’t know. This role was so important to me, such a dream role, and circumstances of timing and whatnot just all fell into place in a particular way this trip. It would have to be something else equally serendipitous and important, which I’m not sure exists. I know all those at Animal Fire Theatre would love to welcome me back, though, and I’d like to finally get over to the cafe that was recommended to me. There’s certainly more to experience up there. But when or for what? No idea.

All I know is, I couldn’t have played this dream part with a better crew of crazy thespians, and I will hold this experience as a pivotal one in my artistic and personal journey ever after. Thanks to everybody who made this happen for doing just that, and I hope that everyone who got a chance to see this show walked away with a touch of the magic that it was.

And now? “Fill for me a parting glass. / Good night! and joy be to you all…”🎶

“Foolery, sir, does walk about the orb like the sun. It shines everywhere.”

Week 6: Oly, we hardly knew ye

Since I did last week’s entry a day early, I thought I’d do the same today and then maybe have a concluding post wherein I talk about the last weekend of the show, and my visit with Friend Andy, and my post-travel musings, etc. Not sure why I’m telling you all this, lovely lurkers, but I guess I’m thinking aloud?

Last week’s show kicked butt, and I find I’m making some interesting observations in this production, maybe because I don’t do full plays very often at all anymore, and so I’m noticing things more. Back, say, in college and just after, when I was in at least one show pretty much all the time, the process of playmaking was second nature, and as much a part of my normal daily labor as any day job I happened to have at the time. But then I took a long theatre hiatus, during which I only took fight direction gigs. (I did this for many reasons; ask me sometime and I’ll attempt to elaborate.) So for about 12 years there, I wasn’t in full rehearsal, full play mode, though my art often appeared on stages. Even lately, the only performing I’m really doing regularly is Blue Dime Cabaret, which involves no rehearsals, only solo acts performed separately. Though our next public show in October boasts a trio with me. But I digress.

Some things I’m noticing during this run of 12th Night. The first is: each audience laughs differently, and at different times. Some are more hooting at the broader stuff (though to be fair, all do this). Some are quietly chuckling for the most part, and will whisper among themselves. Others are obviously more versed in the, well, verse, and laugh at the subtler wordplay and satire, etc. Size doesn’t really correlate to which kind of audience we’ve got, though of course, being herd animals, humans are more likely to laugh oftener and louder when there are more people there. And, theatre being the interactive art that it is, our show will morph to match these reactions.

Another thing I’m noticing is my show-day rituals. Where I place my things, when and where I do various prep actions, and the like. I notice some of my castmates’ rites as well, but not everyone’s. What I’ve been doing is, placing my script open to the cue for my next scene coming up, with a flyer bookmark at the next. I don’t need to look at my lines anymore, but this is an anchor point for me, and it’s something I’m tethered to. I’ll have my iced coffee or my water there at my script, and sometimes I’ll place a prop there too if I know I’ll need to grab it quickly. There’s a string of 2,3 scenes in a row where I don’t have any real pause in between, so there’ll be a moment towards the end of the show where I’ll be flipping a bunch of pages to get to where we are. It’s a solidifying thing for me, and it feels good to do.

Another this-show tradition is the music and fight calls. These are casual yet absolute, and I’m so happy with “my” fighting actors that they began and continue their own fight call without me having to set anything up formally. Which is why it’s looking great. And all I need to do when I’m ready to sing through the songs I have in the show, is chant, “Capo 3! Capo 3!” at the actor playing the minstrel, and we’re raring to go.

I usually despise group warmups in a show. I went through so much formal (and other) acting training that a cast warmup is usually 1) useless to me and makes me more tense not more warm, 2) encroaches on my own warmup needs. This play though? I feel quite differently.

Maybe it’s the disjointed and scattered format that rehearsals took, with so many actors (not just me) in and out and absent, that the bonding process of these exercises are actually doing something for me. All the cast, too, are adults with families and jobs and other shit they’re doing in their lives and so the group rituals (they surely look that way to anyone who might overhear them) are a way to allow all of us to leave behind our busy, critical, adult lives and come into the work we’re there at the park to do. It is all quite ritualistic, religious even, though that term has too much negative baggage hanging on it that I don’t want to associate with this sacred process. But it is that—it’s sacred work, it’s god’s work. Seriously—even though it’s all dick jokes and silliness. Maybe especially because it’s dick jokes and silliness.

Well, here I go, into the final weekend of this extraordinary adventure. We’re streaming closing night, too, so my peeps at home (and other fam elsewhere) can see it if they’d like. It’s not going to have the same caliber of magic as the live experience, by a long shot, but I’m glad for the option all the same. I don’t honestly know whether to encourage people to tune into it or no. It’s a conundrum. I shall think on’t.

For now, farewell as I plunge into this final magic three shows. I’ll post again on the other side, after the labor and the Labor Day is done. In the meantime, “as the blind hermit of Prague, who never saw pen and ink, said to a niece of King Gorboduc: ‘that that is, is.’”*

🎶“No nay never no more / will I playyyyyyy the wild rover / no neveeeerrrrrrr nooooo mooooooorrrrrrre…”🎶

*I did lots of research as I memorized all my lines, knowing that Feste, as a pro fool, would be spouting all kinds of elaborate satire and wordplay and digs into all manner of hot button topics of his time. This is the only reference I could not find an explanation for, not with my schoolbooks which are the Shakespeare Lexicon, not online even. I am baffled, and fascinated. One annotated copy of the play translated this passage as: “the Fool is speaking gibberish.” Yeah, I really, really don’t think so. All his other nonsense isn’t. There is method to his madness, except this passage. I can’t find an explanation. What do you think this refers to? Anyone actually know?