In-Class Movie: They Might Be Giants (1971)

“From the point of view of the criminal expert,” said Mr. Sherlock Holmes, “London has become a singularly uninteresting city since the death of the late lamented Professor Moriarty.”

--Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, “The Adventure of the Norwood Builder”

Austin: I had never heard of this movie until it popped up on Netflix earlier this year. I'm shocked that being in the mystery community so long I never heard anyone talk about it. Perhaps because it's not entirely a mystery movie but we can get to that soon.

It is the story of Justin Playfair, a respected judge played by the tour-de-force actor George C. Scott. Before the film started Playfair suffered a nervous breakdown and now resides in a mental asylum where he believes he is and has always been the fictional detective Sherlock Holmes. His delusions aren't helped when he is assigned a personal psychiatrist, a woman by the name of Dr. Mildred Watson. 

"I don't care what the fashion section says, Watson, this look is in."

The rest of the film is the two of them going around 1970s New York City as he looks behind shadows and meets lovable strangers as he tries to stop that criminal mastermind Professor Moriarty.

I thought about this film a lot while reading "The Adventure of the Empty House" because as Sherlock was telling his dramatic tales to Watson I couldn't help but wonder.....are we even sure Morairty exists? Our trusting narrator never met him and until we meet Moran in the flesh, this all could have been in the mind of Sherlock Holmes. This movie plays upon that concept and incorporates Don Quixote legend into this delightful tale.

Book Report: "The Adventure of the Norwood Builder" (Doyle, 1903)

Lestrade began to laugh. “You are to many for me when you begin to get on your theories, Mr. Holmes,” said he.

--Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, “The Adventure of the Norwood Builder”

Leigh: This week, in “Norwood Builder”, Sherlock Holmes decides not to waste his skills by sitting around like he used to back in Memoirs and decides to actually get up and do something. That break where he was pretending to be dead didn't deaden his ability to solve a mystery. And boy did he solve a mystery!

A solicitor shows up on Holmes' doorstep one morning, crying and carrying on about how he's going to be arrested for murder. Lestrade turns up shortly after, as he often does, to arrest this poor young man while Holmes promises that he's going to figure out what the problem is. And he does but only after he almost didn't.

Most of the time when there is a bit of doubt from Holmes about figuring out a mystery, it is small and short-lived but in "Norwood Builder", he doubts himself a lot. At one point he says that he knows the solicitor is innocent but doesn't know how yet. That's some heavy stuff coming from the gung ho detective. For any of those worrying that Holmes didn't figure it out, don't worry he did, because of a thumbprint. A random thumbprint in a random spot in the hallway.

We know that Holmes has fantastic detecting abilities and yet something this small seems a bit too convenient. I'm willing to believe a lot in this Sherlock Holmes world where he can deduce anyone's profession just by looking at their sleeve but this thumbprint just seems...lazy almost. I am growing jaded to the detective's abilities or is it a bit silly?

Jinkies, Lestrade! I think I found something! 

And speaking of silly, wasn't that the most ridiculous orchestration of shouting "fire!" that you've ever read?

Austin: We're getting into a new terrain of Sherlock Holmes stories it seems. This collection seems awfully theatrical. The resolutions are more visual with people trying to knock off busts and Watson lighting fire to straw. Are they ridiculous? Yes. But are they fun to read? Absolutely.

It's almost like Doyle knows that they will be adapted one day because his writing style seems different. There is more dialog than there used to be instead of crazy long monologues. They are changing locations and there are characters vocally questioning Sherlock. It makes for a more thrilling story even if they aren't as cerebral as they used to be.

I feel like a Michael Bay fan by writing this, but is it bad that I prefer these stories more than the last collection? When McFarlane stumbled into 221B Baker Street, he felt more like a new character than any of the other clients. The rapid fire desperation in his dialog made him feel fresh and it became all the more dramatic when Lestrade showed up early in the story to literally arrest the man on spot.

I need you to solve something for me. I mean, it's a crime. It's a case. I didn't do it but there are those that think I did. Wouldn't this seem more natural if you were drinking coffee too?

Is it just me? Are these stories turning more into blockbusters instead of quiet PBS dramas? If so are the mysteries suffering to the point where we should be concerned?

Also, where the hell is Watson's wife? I looked it up because the timeline for these stories are silly. This story definitely takes place years after The Sign of Four. What is Watson saying when he moved back into 221B? Is he just referring to his job? If that's true, does that mean he's just hanging out with his best friend all day breathing in second hand opium hoping that maybe a client will show up one day and telling his wife that he's hard at work?

Leigh: Watson's wife is dead. She died sometime between Holmes disappearing and returning. Watson doesn't make a big deal of it because he's British/Victorian. It's mentioned somewhere in “Empty House” albeit very briefly. Watson and Holmes are roommates again in the Norwood Builder. SPOILER: Don't worry, Watson'll marry again.

A face like this can never be a bachelor for too long.

No, I completely agree. There is a new life in these stories. There was a formula, a closely stuck to formula, that Doyle used when writing the last set of stories. It never quite felt that he was sick of the characters or of the universe but you could tell that he was phoning it in on a couple of stories from Memoirs. But with this adventure, it's completely different. We do start off back at Baker Street but instead of Holmes figuring it out all while sitting in his chair or leaving a bit then coming back to tell Watson what he's discovered, Watson (and the audience) get to come along with during the great reveal! This alone adds a new aspect to these stories that I didn't know I wanted but after I read I realized I did, if that makes any sense at all.

There's more excitement and more suspense than there used to be with these stories. As I said earlier, Holmes never really doubted himself before and then in this story, he's full of doubt. That creates a new level to his character that the audience hasn't really seen before. This could be a new found enthusiasm on Doyle's part or it could be that he's altering the very new genre of mystery. Before it was "here is the puzzle so let's solve it." Now it's, "Here's the puzzle but where are the four missing pieces? And why is this one on fire?!" There's definitely some change and I'm voting that it's an evolution of sorts on Doyle's part. Maybe he got bored of sticking to his formula and decided to shake it up a bit!

So we're talking about the change that's taking place and we both agree it's good, but is the heart of the mystery affected by this?

Austin: Mrs. Watson is dead? Christ, now I need to reread "Empty House" and apologize to every single Sherlockian reading this who is violently rolling their eyes at me. Maybe Watson should have been grieving a little? Mention it once or twice to his best friend? Feel the sting of death on a personal level instead of always being the outsider to crime? Whatever, R.I.P. Mary. I felt I never really knew you. Probably because you were pushed to the side in every story except for The SIgn of Four.

Anywho, back to the fire. I really enjoyed that Lestrade showed up right at the beginning because then we were able to examine the dual methods of examination. Once again, I admire that Lestrade is not portrayed as a goof. He is a respected detective who also recognizes that he is not perfect and is grateful for what Sherlock can bring to the investigation. In many ways, he is the voice of reason. Anyone on the case would accuse McFarlane of the crime. It plays like the dumbest version of The Postman Always Rings Twice. Instead of messing with insurance scandal, he's going right for the will. 

By having Lestrade and Sherlock walk through each room together we get to see two mysteries. The normal procedural and the guy who lights shit on fire to make a point. At this point in their friendship, Lestrade has respect for Sherlock to make his wild leaps of logic because he knows that there is a point to be made. Even if it's being withheld simply for the sake of theatrics. 

At certain parts the duality of the situation is too much favored in Sherlock's direction because even the dumbest criminal shouldn't be leaving a bloody thumbprint behind. Just a glance back at the room should point that out to you. And yet such a thing should be considered as a clue because it is literally used as an iconic example of what a clue should look like.

Magna cum Murder will be in Indianapolis this October!

I'm excited to read more into the Return. 

Later this week. (Aka tomorrow) We're going to watch a really awesome Sherlock Holmes movie that is arguably....not even a Sherlock Holmes movie. Even though the main characters are Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. It's They Might Be Giants starring George C. Scott as a judge who has lost his mind and believes that he is Doyle's famous character and is up to him to stop Morarity. It's hilarious and heartfelt and on Netflix. Watch it with us!

And here is Leigh Montano with the last word....

Leigh: FIRE!

In-Class Movie: "The Woman in Green" (1945)

“And you thought the rooms were watched?”

“I knew that they were watched.”

“By whom?”

“By my old, enemies, Watson.”

--Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, “The Adventure of the Empty Room

Austin: It's been quite a while but we've returned to one of the most beloved Sherlock Holmes actors, Mr. Basil Rathbone. This time we're checking out one of his later adventures, The Woman in Green. When I first started watching this, it did feel like too long. I love Basil. His intelligence is quiet and he feels like an Errol Flynn kind of hero. (But a British version, meaning he will walk slowly from place to place like a gentleman.)

Ultimately I liked this movie because of how much I liked Basil's constant performance. There's not too much of a mystery going on here. There is a weird crime going on that involves cutting off women's fingertips. (Seriously) This is such a dastardly thing that it could only be one man behind this....

RED HERRING!

 MORIARTY

In this version of events, everyone but Holmes thinks that Morairty is dead after being hung somewhere in Europe, but Sherlock knows that he's out there. Of course he's right so we get another wonderful sit-down chat with the two rivals as the plot goes into weirder directions including one of my least favorite plot devices ever.

Yet the reason that we choose this movie for this week was that we heard that it was going to have some elements of "The Adventure of the Empty House" in it and it sure did have.....one moment. Holmes used a bust of Julius Caeser to stand-in for him during an assassination attempt.

So Leigh, what did you think of this one? It wasn't too much of a whodunnit so did it work as a thriller? 

Book Report: "The Adventure of the Empty House" (Doyle, 1903)

“I am all right, but indeed, Holmes, I can hardly believe my eyes. Good heavens! to think that you – you of all men – should be standing in my study.”

--Dr. John Watson, “The Adventure of the Empty House”

Leigh: I don't mean to alarm you but Sherlock Holmes seems to have come back from the dead. This does indeed make him a zombie since he does not seem to have an affinity for blood or leather trench coats. I can only praise Moran for attempting to take out the zombie Holmes before he tried to kill poor, unsuspecting Watson. Really, when dealing with a zombie it is best not to follow them to a new location. Or is that a hippie? They really are the same things aren't they? Maybe that's why they're called Deadheads. This is all tangential because it is early and Leigh has had too much coffee and not enough food. 

"We need a cornetto."

Back to the story at hand.

Holmes seems to have returned from the dead and giving poor Watson a dead fright. We've seen this scene acted out in a few different films, where Holmes is disguised as someone else, meets up with Watson and then scares the living daylights out of him because I mean, who wouldn't be scared when they see someone who they thought was dead standing in front of him. 

In-Class Movie: "The Slobbery Hound" (Wishbone, 1995)

“Dr. Mortimer looked strangely at us for an instant, and his voice sank almost to a whisper as he answered: ‘Mr. Holmes, they were the footprints of a gigantic hound.’”

--Arthur Conan Doyle, “The Hound of the Baskervilles”

Austin: So we threw an audible this week and we're not covering the Peter Cook version of The Hound of the Baskerville because that link we set up earlier this week....wasn't the full movie. I'm okay with this because now we're reviewing the story from the proper point of view: a dog's.

Sadly, this isn't a parody movie where it's all from the giant hound's POV but instead it's from Wishbone. If you didn't grow up on PBS in the 90s, Wishbone was this short-lived family show where a Jack Russell Terrier recreates classic works of literature. The other half of the show is the same Jack Russell Terrier experiencing something in his warm small town that reminds him of that novel. It's a great way to introduce kids to these books and they always end with recommending the home audience to check out their local library. It's very cute and was a huge influence on me because I would take that to heart and read those classic stories.

This week we're looking at the episode "Slobbery Dog" where Wishbone is accused of knocking over trashcans and chewing on property. So it's up to this wise-cracking dog to clear his name. While that is going on, he takes the place of Sherlock Holmes as he and Watson investigate this crime.

This is a 30 minute kids show where not even that full time is devoted to the Doyle story. And yet they do some impressive things with it. They keep in the structural set-up where Holmes and Watson split up but this time we get it from Sherlock's perspective. They ultimately condense the entire complicated story to "That guy started the legend....that evil guy looks like him. SOLVED IT." And yet they still recreate the big showdown where they confront the hound in the dead of night. Despite this being a kid's show THEY SHOOT THE DOG DEAD.

Book Report: "The Hound of the Baskerville" (Doyle, 1902)

“At the same instant Lestrade gave a yell of terror and threw himself face downwards upon the ground. I sprang to my feet, my inert hand grasping my pistol, my mind paralyzed by the dreadful shape which sprung out upon us from the shadows of the fog. A hound it was, an enormous coal-black hound, but not such a hound as mortal eyes have ever seen.”

--Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, “The Hound of the Baskervilles”

Leigh: We've gone through a lot of Sherlock Holmes stories so far but this time we have to tackle probably the most well known and most loved story, The Hound of the Baskervilles. For those of you who are confused and might live under a rock that doesn't get Wikipedia, Baskervilles was written after Sherlock Holmes fell off of a cliff but takes place chronologically before that. It's really ACD's way of testing the waters to see 1, if there was still an audience for Sherlock Holmes (there was/is) and 2, if he actually still wanted to write Sherlock Holmes stories (he did.)

This one takes the best parts of all of his stories, I think, and makes one really great one. While I do like the short form stories a lot, the longer form ones allow more mystery to be built and more clues thrown out for the audience to try to solve. But a problem with the longer form ones is that the story time seems to exponentially grow like with Study in Scarlet. This one takes all of the mystery bits that we enjoy and seems to keep the story time to a minimum and doesn't try to shove it in random spots like with The Sign of Four. 

What the audience gets then, is a mystery about a centuries old hound from hell that has been sent by the devil to torment and punish the Baskerville family for one bad seed. The mystery comes to Holmes and Watson after Charles Baskerville, the current-ish descendant is found dead of a heart attack caused by being scared to death and clearly it was the Hound that did it. Holmes and Watson hear all about the mystery and the mission to protect the last descendant from this damned dog. But Holmes can't be bothered. He's too busy with other stuff so he sends out Watson to protect the last Baskerville and to collect clues in moors. 

So there is obviously a mystery in this story but Holmes doesn't appear in most of the novel. Most of the clues seem to be found by Watson or told to the audience in the epilogue. We've talked before about having Elementary change the character's names and it becoming an instantly better show because there isn't (weren't) a lot of things connecting it to the original Sherlock Holmes canon. What about this one? Would this story still work if it weren't a Sherlock Holmes story? Could it still be enjoyable if it were a mystery novel starring someone else? And what about that mystery? Confusingly convoluted or delightfully difficult?

In-Class Movie: Elementary Season Finale Part 2

“A few words may suffice to tell the little that remains.”

--Dr. John Watson, “The Final Problem”

Austin: Now we've talked a lot about the story that has happened in these last four episodes of Elementary and often times it disappointed us. However, there is plenty of fascinating decisions they've made with the characters. Not only as modern examples of the Doyle creations but also what they've set-up.

Right away, I want to talk about how they're treating women on the show. From day one, we were very worried about Watson being a woman. At least one season in, I think they are firmly not romantic which is ideal. They respect each other as colleagues and as friends. I'm not sure it was well earned, but I did really enjoy the moment of Sherlock naming a bee after her. Yet that friendship still seems to be defined by what she isn't. It seems like they had that bee scene at the end because Watson was someone close to him that didn't manipulate him on a demented level. 

The most interesting part of the second episode was Gregson (randomly) trying to get Watson as a new job as a sober companion. On one hand I really liked it because early on in the show, they had a problem establishing why she was even helping with cases. So I liked a crossroads where she makes her decision that she wanted to be there. However, it's still up in the air on why she's doing it. Is she doing it because she is such good friends with Sherlock? Is that it? What I really didn't like about this crossroad decision was that it seemed to be to get her out of danger because she's a woman. I know that was brought up as dialog, but there's a difference between acknowledging it and it not being true. 

"This is just like the setting for Kill Bill." "Why do you bring that up?"

But then the really frustrating thing is that I thought that episode was set-up for Watson to be in danger and to solidify her role in this show. THEN SHE DOESN'T DO ANYTHING IN THE FINALE. She basically says "There, there" to Sherlock and has one table scene with Moriarty which really felt underwhelming since they just talked about Sherlock.