The Journal of the Bootmakers of Toronto Volume 32 Number 2
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
W The Journal of the Bootmakers of Toronto Volume 32 Number 2 Winter 2009/10 Canadian Holmes is published by The Bootmakers of Toronto, the Sherlock Holmes Society of Canada. Bootprints (editors) are Mark and JoAnn Alberstat, 46 Kingston Crescent, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, B3A 2M2 Canada ([email protected]), to whom letters and editorial submissions should be addressed. Subscription information and details of Bootmaker membership are available on the society’s web site, www.bootmakers.ca. Business correspondence should be addressed to The Bootmakers of Toronto, PO Box 1157, TDC Postal Station, 77 King Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5K 1P2 Canada. Copyright © 2010 The Bootmakers of Toronto. Copyright in all individual articles is hereby assigned to their respective authors. Canadian Publications Mail Sales Product Agreement Number 40038614, The Bootmakers of Toronto, PO Box 1157, TDC Postal Station, 77 King Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5K 1P2 Canada. Return postage guaranteed. ISSN 0319-4493. Printed in Canada. Cover: A collage of the four major posters for the December 25, 2009, release of the movie Sherlock Holmes. Canadian Holmes Volume 32 Number 2 Winter 2009/10 One hundred and twenty-second issue Contents Canadian Holmes Volume 32 Number 2 Renovating Holmes 2 A review of the movie Sherlock Holmes by Stephen Cooke William Gillette – A model Holmes 5 A look at the life of actor William Gillette by Mark Alberstat Sherlock Holmes Was Wrong 11 A review of a book with a questionable title by Dr. Richard Brown Letters from Lomax 14 A wrap up of some of the new items at the Toronto Library’s Arthur Conan Doyle Collection by Peggy Perdue The Foundations of Sherlockian Scholarship 16 The first part of a short series of articles that examines a few of the early-seminal works that have shaped our Sherlockian world by Doug Wrigglesworth Bootmaker’s Diary 19 A roundup of Bootmaker events by Donald Zaldin RACES OF BOOTPRINTS New Beginnings January 2010. A new year, a new decade and, in some ways, a new beginning. This issue of Canadian Holmes finds two new editors at its helm. My wife, JoAnn, and I took on the challenge of editing this journal after enjoying it from the sidelines for many years and occasionally even being in it with either an article or our News Notes from Halifax. After perusing this journal from a safe distance we dive in the deep-end and hope to emerge with a scholarly and well-considered journal all Sherlockians will be happy with and proud to call their own. As I sit at home in Nova Scotia, I realize that the journal is truly Canadian. Articles and notes from across this country appear between its covers. No longer is the journal edited, formatted and printed solely in Ontario. At least two names appear in this issue that most will not be familiar with but are welcome additions. Stephen Cooke, who wrote the review of the new Sherlock Holmes movie, is an entertainment writer in Halifax and has had a long interest in Holmes. Dr. Richard Brown, who reviewed Sherlock Holmes Was Wrong, has been a member of The Spence Munro’s, Nova Scotia’s Sherlockian society, for over 20 years. In future editions we hope to introduce readers to even more new and emerging Sherlockian writers. They need not be young but will, we hope, have a fresh outlook and spur some new ideas and commentary. As with any publication, a new editorial team brings a new outlook. This journal has been known for quality and consistency in both its scholarship and production; we hope to carry on that tradition. However, we cannot do that without your help. Anyone reading these words has the ability to write an article for a future edition. The topics available to be discussed and analysed are endless. Don’t fear treading on territory that has already been examined. Each writer brings his or her own unique blend of knowledge and experience to the page. The recent publication of Doyle’s letters illustrates how a new light can be shone on the author and his work, allowing new details to emerge that had not been revealed before. As the leader of The Spence Munros, I have seen the membership increase only slightly over the last half-dozen years. With the release of Downey’s movie, a new generation of Sherlockians will be created and others will renew their interest. It is for all of us to reach out to these nascent Sherlockians and welcome them to the fold. Canadian Holmes Winter 2009/10 1 Renovating Holmes A movie review by Stephen Cooke Since the last bow of actor Jeremy Brett from what many feel was the definitive portrayal of Sherlock Holmes in the early '90s, there has been a certain amount of trepidation when it comes to presenting the great detective on the big and small screens. Aside from a string of TV movies with a miscast Matt Frewer (the actor formerly known as Max Headroom) and a pair of fair-to-middling BBC adaptations ― The Hound of the Baskervilles with Richard Roxburgh and The Case of the Silk Stocking with Rupert Everett ― there hasn't been much for fans of the cinematic Holmes to chew on. I haven't seen 2002's Sherlock: A Case of Evil, a Romanian-shot production with James D'Arcy battling Vincent D'Onofrio's Moriarty over the dawn of the heroin trade, but from what I've read of it, the less said the better. But now we have the dynamic duo of director Guy Ritchie and star Robert Downey Jr. rushing in to fill the gap and bring Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's creation back to theatres for the first time since 1988's Without a Clue, a clever spoof in which Ben Kingsley's Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law in Dr. Watson was the real genius Sherlock Holmes and Michael Caine's Holmes merely a dimwitted actor hired to play the part as described in the doctor's published accounts. Ritchie's version is obviously more faithful to the idea of Holmes than Without a Clue or its immediate predecessor, Young Sherlock Holmes, which featured a battle with a computer-animated stained glass knight, but it's also a far cry from the traditional portrayal of the Victorian crimestopper. With a mandate to deliver a big-budget action hero Holmes, with all the requisite hair-breadth escapes and CGI set pieces, Ritchie is certainly the right director to amplify the energy quotient, working with a script that passed through the hands of four writers: Lionel Wigram, Michael Robert Johnson, Anthony Peckham and Simon Kinberg. My initial hope for Sherlock Holmes was that Ritchie would place the character in the same kind of complex London underworld milieu that he made his name with in films like Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch. The film isn't entirely bereft of that atmosphere, but the bulk of the film is spent dealing with a high-concept plot involving the sinister Lord Blackwood and his mystical Temple of the Four Orders in an attempt to take over England, and 2 Canadian Holmes Winter 2009/10 ultimately the world. There's a subplot involving a shadowy "professor" (gee, who could that be?) who wants Blackwood's secrets and enlists "The Woman," Irene Adler, to turn Holmes into a pawn in a much larger game that will presumably continue in a sequel. Although not canon, it's still not the most original story, with the Temple coming from a fusing of the Egyptian death cult of Young Sherlock Holmes and the Freemasons from Bob Clark's admirable 1979 Holmes outing with Christopher Plummer, Murder By Decree. But this film isn't overly concerned with pleasing the hardcore Holmes fan, instead looking for converts with its emphasis on forward momentum and Downey's performance as a most eccentric detective. There's much to admire about his take on the role. Ritchie uses his cinematic elan to highlight Holmes's thought processes, whether he's analyzing a crime scene or quickly determining how to take down an opponent with a series of strategically placed blows, in zooms, Kelly Reilly as Mary Morstan and Jude flash cuts, slow motion and Law as Dr. John Watson instant replay. It seems to match Holmes's hyperactive mind, which sometimes works at a pace that drives him to distraction. His violin appears as merely something to pluck at as the wheels turn, and while he does enjoy his pipe ― amusingly keeping it lit while jumping into the Thames at one point ― the deerstalker and cape of old are nowhere to be seen. The best parts of the film come from the interplay of Holmes and Watson, ably played by Jude Law as an intelligent and capable cohort, as befitting his status as a doctor and his military past. Their verbal jousting arises naturally, out of Watson's desire to be more focused on his practice and upcoming marriage to Mary Morstan (the fetching and fiery Kelly Reilly). Holmes, of course, is self- centred and obsessed, but Downey takes him a bit further into the realm of manic depression, although there isn't time to follow that thread to the same extent that Brett did in his decade with the character. Strong, who played a likeable London hood in Ritchie's last outing RocknRolla, is suitably malicious as Blackwood, cheating the hangman at the outset to create a panic among the populace over dark forces at work. With his noble profile and hair combed back, Strong looks more like the part of Sherlock Holmes than Downey, who is generally disheveled and distracted in his portrayal of a man out of step with his time, eyes focused on the world of tomorrow.