![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wytchcroftRe-reading the Lovecraft biography, Against the World, Against Life – by Michel Houellebecq and I was struck again by the Holmes reference. Houellebecq talks of the pressure put on Doyle to resurrect the Great Detective* after Holmes had become established as a popular myth, he talks primarily in regards to the UK which is a little unfortunate – for Holmes's mythic appeal caught on in the USA and Russia with equal force.
Now I cannot argue with the main idea here, that Holmes was indeed a new myth for the public to embrace. However, the symbolic nature of Holmes resurrection is ignored (perhaps intentionally, the focus is Lovecraft after all). What is that symbolic nature? Well, the concept of the dying and reviving hero is central to heroic tales it seems to me. Holmes like Gandalf, like Buffy, like Odin, like Jesus Christ, falls into the Earth only to be transformed and resurrected.
Indeed this is not so much as a staple as it is now a cliché almost. When Star Trek decided to grab for the mythic they did so by giving a Reichenbach to Spock. There must be a powerful public need for such death defying heroes.
When the Holmes television series had become established, both in the UK and the USSR (as was) both adapted Doyle’s The Final Problem and shifted the tenor of their main actor’s performance. In the Russian Holmes, although some have criticised the melodramatic nature of Moriarty, the length of the sequence – the pure damage inflicted on a Holmes clearly bound to lose is doubly affecting since Livanov is one of the most ironic and ‘untouchable’ of screen Sherlocks, to contemporary Western eyes his portrayal may come across as a fusion of Rathbone and Plummer (although very much his own creation). The moment before the fight when Livanov calls to his Watson is a blow aimed knowingly at an audience obviously hooked by this time.
In the Granada series the Final Problem came as a cliff-hangar (though spoiled for many) – at the end of a season, when it was known that the actor (David Burke) would not be returning and Brett was being enigmatic with the press.
Although the actual fall looks less effective now than in its time – the fight is well staged and the aura of dread manifested by Moriarty’s appearance is tangible. Brett’s Holmes always seemed to have a cloud of tragedy hanging over it and even the irrational sense that THIS Holmes could go to his end was part of the character – like Doyle’s Holmes, the worry that the engine might crack if heroism didn’t do the work first.
I would be interested to know what the reaction in Russia was to the Reichenbach scene in Mortal Fight – because in the UK, after Brett’s plummet, it was (like E.T.) ‘did you cry?’, a question buzzed among crowds of viewers who would never normally mention such a thing.
And so myth. Once Brett returned, the arguments could begin – his performance could be scrutinized and faulted, the new Watson (Edward Hardwicke) faced the challenge of replacing the old. The tone of the new episodes would be compared to the old (as happened to Livanov with Holmes in the 20th Century) – and yet, resurrected from the fall, Brett and Granada’s series was now critic proof and could do as it pleased. What it DID do of course was to go on and become wildly successful in the USA.
This was equally true of the original Holmes for much as the press might carp that 'Holmes was never the same man again', Holmes success only increased – and I often wonder whether some foresight and planning went into the Reichenbach affair beyond the public’s knowledge.
To return finally to Houellebecq, he talks of the passing of Doyle himself and the passage is worth repeating as I feel it sums up the feelings of Holmes fans to this day:
“We would have to make do with the fifty-odd existing ‘Sherlock Holmes’ stories, reading and rereading them tirelessly. We would have to make do with those who continued these stories and with commentators; and we would have to greet the inevitable (and at times amusing) parodies with a resigned smile, while all the while in our hearts we nourished the impossible dream that the central core, the very heart of the myth would continue. An old Indian trunk would turn up somewhere, and magically preserved therein, unpublished ‘Sherlock Holmes’ stories."
What a beautiful passage!
*as shown elsewhere in the play by David Pirie.
Now I cannot argue with the main idea here, that Holmes was indeed a new myth for the public to embrace. However, the symbolic nature of Holmes resurrection is ignored (perhaps intentionally, the focus is Lovecraft after all). What is that symbolic nature? Well, the concept of the dying and reviving hero is central to heroic tales it seems to me. Holmes like Gandalf, like Buffy, like Odin, like Jesus Christ, falls into the Earth only to be transformed and resurrected.
Indeed this is not so much as a staple as it is now a cliché almost. When Star Trek decided to grab for the mythic they did so by giving a Reichenbach to Spock. There must be a powerful public need for such death defying heroes.
When the Holmes television series had become established, both in the UK and the USSR (as was) both adapted Doyle’s The Final Problem and shifted the tenor of their main actor’s performance. In the Russian Holmes, although some have criticised the melodramatic nature of Moriarty, the length of the sequence – the pure damage inflicted on a Holmes clearly bound to lose is doubly affecting since Livanov is one of the most ironic and ‘untouchable’ of screen Sherlocks, to contemporary Western eyes his portrayal may come across as a fusion of Rathbone and Plummer (although very much his own creation). The moment before the fight when Livanov calls to his Watson is a blow aimed knowingly at an audience obviously hooked by this time.
In the Granada series the Final Problem came as a cliff-hangar (though spoiled for many) – at the end of a season, when it was known that the actor (David Burke) would not be returning and Brett was being enigmatic with the press.
Although the actual fall looks less effective now than in its time – the fight is well staged and the aura of dread manifested by Moriarty’s appearance is tangible. Brett’s Holmes always seemed to have a cloud of tragedy hanging over it and even the irrational sense that THIS Holmes could go to his end was part of the character – like Doyle’s Holmes, the worry that the engine might crack if heroism didn’t do the work first.
I would be interested to know what the reaction in Russia was to the Reichenbach scene in Mortal Fight – because in the UK, after Brett’s plummet, it was (like E.T.) ‘did you cry?’, a question buzzed among crowds of viewers who would never normally mention such a thing.
And so myth. Once Brett returned, the arguments could begin – his performance could be scrutinized and faulted, the new Watson (Edward Hardwicke) faced the challenge of replacing the old. The tone of the new episodes would be compared to the old (as happened to Livanov with Holmes in the 20th Century) – and yet, resurrected from the fall, Brett and Granada’s series was now critic proof and could do as it pleased. What it DID do of course was to go on and become wildly successful in the USA.
This was equally true of the original Holmes for much as the press might carp that 'Holmes was never the same man again', Holmes success only increased – and I often wonder whether some foresight and planning went into the Reichenbach affair beyond the public’s knowledge.
To return finally to Houellebecq, he talks of the passing of Doyle himself and the passage is worth repeating as I feel it sums up the feelings of Holmes fans to this day:
“We would have to make do with the fifty-odd existing ‘Sherlock Holmes’ stories, reading and rereading them tirelessly. We would have to make do with those who continued these stories and with commentators; and we would have to greet the inevitable (and at times amusing) parodies with a resigned smile, while all the while in our hearts we nourished the impossible dream that the central core, the very heart of the myth would continue. An old Indian trunk would turn up somewhere, and magically preserved therein, unpublished ‘Sherlock Holmes’ stories."
What a beautiful passage!
*as shown elsewhere in the play by David Pirie.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-02-22 09:08 pm (UTC)And you are right concerning revival.
reaction
Date: 2009-02-22 09:12 pm (UTC)thank you - that's interesting to know.
and cheers for reading this!:)))
no subject
Date: 2009-02-22 09:55 pm (UTC)Anywho, have you ever read Gaiman's short story that mixed Holmes and Chthulu? Made of awesome.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-22 10:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-23 07:05 am (UTC)The first series of the Return has always been my favourite. Granada knew the series was a success by then and it really shows.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-23 07:29 am (UTC)And yes - it's the final shots of the fall that look poor now - but the power of the overall scene (indeed the epsiode) has certainly not diminished. A big plus is the soundtrack of course.
TV premiere of the firsts Livanov/Holmes series...
Date: 2009-02-28 11:51 pm (UTC)So, from The Acquaintance ('The Study' and 'The Specland Band') to The Hunt For the Tiger ('The Empty House')...
It was in March of 1980. I poorly remember this showing (I was 6 old years), but if to judge by the following showings, intially there was no big breaking between of Holmes's struggle against Moriarty and his (Holmes) return in 221b Baker Street.
I think it's initially was perceived as an integrated Myth: Holmes dies/and just Holmes returns.
By the way, the LenFilm filmmakers even cuted a period of The Great Hiatus a bit - from 3 years (as in Conan Doyle's story) to 3 months.
Re: TV premiere of the firsts Livanov/Holmes series...
Date: 2009-03-01 12:01 am (UTC)(incidentally, the obvious character missing from my list above is Dr Who has died and comeback (with a new body) numerous times now.)