"Come, Watson, come. The game is afoot." Predominantly focused on the original works and associated adaptations, we aim to be a community for Sherlockians to share knowledge and encourage discussions of the greatest detective.
Which one?
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
Rathbone very much solidified the public perception of the character for a very long time, even now to an extent, he’s probably the version that most people would fall back to if asked to describe a ‘traditional’ Sherlock Holmes. I personally love his performance and think he made all of his films a lot of fun.
On the other hand, Brett is just the closest we may ever get to a performance that feels like it just jumped from the page to the screen. Everything about his mannerisms and characterisation just is Holmes. It’s not really a slight against Rathbone, Brett just got the character so utterly, more than any actor before or since. He was also complemented by consistently good writing that respected the source material more than anything, which Rathbone didn’t always get.
Thank you for responding!’
I can easily watch Brett , even though at time he is too “John thawish” sometimes , rathole is my Sherlock because that’s who I grew up with , i can totally understand the opposite opinion.
Side note - John Thaw was in the Sign of Four episode of the Brett series.
Yes , I knew I had seen him in one of the episodes
I adore Basil Rathbone. “All through the ages, prominent men have had prominent noses.”
If Jeremy Brett had not taken on the role, there would be no other Holmes to stand beside Rathbone.
But- Brett is Holmes.
Good description
This right here...
Sassy Rathbone at his best.
I think Brett, but it’s a tough choice. Rathbone is the Holmes I grew up with, the one I discovered Holmes through (thanks to my grandfather, who loved the Rathbone movies). His best performance as the character is probably in the ’39 Hound: He’s impish and fun, teasing Watson, and surprising. (By the later movies, he’d lost interest in the character, and while he was always a professional, his late Holmes is just “generic detective.”) He’d be my favorite Holmes if not for Brett.
Brett is staggeringly good in the first season (Adventures) and about half of the second (Return). Around that halfway point, though, he seemed to fall back on what I can only call acting tricks—shouting unexpectedly, for example, or rushing across the room. He always used those “tricks,” but he made them seem more natural, more rooted in Holmes’s character, earlier on. (He especially shows different sides, nuances, to Holmes in the first season.)
That’s not entirely (or maybe even at all) his fault: His health problems obviously had a major effect. But still, I find some of his later performances too broad.
That said, again, his early Holmes performances are staggering.
Thank you for responding
This is one of the best descriptions of Brett's performance. So polished and thought through. Hats off to you.
That’s very kind of you, many thanks.
Basil Rathbone perfectly embodied Sherlock Holmes.
Jeremy Brett WAS Sherlock Holmes.
Two very different portrayals with two very different layers of depth and nuance.
Very nice!
Do they keep their Watsons? Because the Nigel Bruce Bumbling Watson makes me want to bite my necktie.
Bite it in what way?
I loved Bruce Watson , I think the love that basil holmes and Bruce Watson had for each other was one of the best bromances ever , well maybe with the exception of Endeavour and Friday (but that’s another story altogether)
I think they captured the friendship, and Nigel Bruce was a fine actor, but they made Watson so inept I got angry on his behalf.
Definitely , sometimes he’s a bit hard on Watson
Bruce was the perfect Watson for Rathbone's Holmes. It wouldn't have worked if you swapped their Watsons.
Jeremy Brett. Always Jeremy Brett.
Good choice!
Basil all the way. My definitive Holmes
Rathborne is amazing
He indeed is.
I liked Rathbone, but Brett adhered SO closely to the actual stories that he wins overall
Interesting
Brett
Basil
Benedict
Benedict could’ve been so great if Sherlock wasn’t set in modern days… it feels so off seeing Sherlock with an iPhone in hands
We have Rathbone to thank for that. People forget that his films were contemporary, not set in the same period as the canon. Sherlock was meant to bring that back. That said, Cumberbatch’s Sherlock Holmes was great. The item in his hands is no bearing on performance or character. (Though I still prefer Yûko Takeuchi for modern Sherlock Holmes.)
Yeah.
If Rathbone's WW2-era films still qualify him as a 'legitimate' adaptation of Holmes, then so do Cumberbatch's 21st century TV films.
(And yeah I know that Rathbone did two Victorian-set movies as well, but let's not pretend that the WW2 films aren't a major reason why he's remembered today...)
Sort of. The first two "The Hound of the Baskervilles" and "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" were made by Fox and set during the Victorian era. The next twelve they did were all made by Universal and basically turned into B-movie war propaganda films. (Which, they were made during WW2....)
Cool!
I’m a Brett fan, but haven’t watched any Rathbone yet. What do you guys recommend?
Hound of the Baskervilles (adheres reasonably closely to the novel and Bruce's Watson isn't yet his later goofy persona) and The Scarlet Claw (overall the best of the later, more typical period of the series).
Thanks! I’ll see if I can find these on YouTube later
You’ll find them easily , and colourized versions too
My top five would probably be (roughly in order) The Scarlet Claw, The House of Fear, Sherlock Holmes Faces Death, The Hound of the Baskervilles, and The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes.
Of those, just to let you know, only the last two are set in the proper Victorian setting; the rest are set contemporary with when they came out (’40s).
Hope you enjoy!
I too prefer the non-WW2 spy movies and these are some of my favorites as well.
I don’t hate the spy movies (I think Voice of Terror is a pretty cool little flick, and I may be the only Holmes fan who actually likes SH in Washington), but yeah, I prefer the gothic mysteries (crumbling manors in Scotland with family curses, a secret society of eccentrics who seem to be killing each other one by one—that’s right up my alley).
Brett was best. He actually understood the character (which Rathbone never did). While Basil may have LOOKED perfect, his portrayal was a bland, perfunctory read-through compared to Brett's in-depth character study.
I love this opinion’
Thank you.
I thought Basil was best and then I saw Jeremy.
Fair enough!
Rathbone
I like Brett very much, except for the way he sometimes almost screams out his lines.
Rathbone can express excitement or urgency without being strident.
Well put.
I just gave a presentation on this at 221b Con—the title was, creatively, "Brett vs Rathbone" however I preferred to call it "Basil vs. Brett."
Obviously, Brett gave a nuanced and aesthetic performance. If you like your Holmes florid and artistic (some might say as opposed to stuffy and traditional), he's your man. You'd also probably enjoyed Benedict Cumberbatch's portrayal in the 2010's BBC Sherlock series. In that later series, Martin Freeman was a competent but damaged Watson who didn't fall into the tropes introduced/cemented by Nigel Bruce's comedic portrayal (although Freeman's Watson did have comedic elements, it was more as a foil to Cumberbatch's Sherlock's amazing deductive abilities, which is in line with the original canonical sources of humour, rather than just being a clown or avuncular dolt). Edward Hardwicke or David Burke played Watson opposite Jeremy Brett, and in my opinion they are both pinnacle examples of Canonical Watsons. They are medical men, of average or above average intelligence, and when Holmes' deductions are revealed, they are suitably impressed—to me, that's far more interesting than Nigel Bruce failing to successfully button his trousers and having his pants fall down to his ankles.
I've been listening to the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes Podcast (http://sherlockpodcast.com/index.php/category/full-episodes/) and it's remarkable how much influence Brett himself apparently had as far as bending the scripts to include more quotes lifted directly from the text of the Sherlock Holmes stories. He memorized the soliloquy to the rose in a day and asked the director to give him a shot at it. They got it on the first take.
Brett is certainly a giant among examples of Sherlock Holmes portrayers—one of the certain faces to grace the Mount Rushmore of Sherlock Holmes actors, and many of us think of the scripts as perhaps the most faithful reproductions of the original stories. That's not to say there weren't some missteps and budgetary constraints that led to poorer episodes. That series was great, but it does seem fairly dated, even more than just being set in Victorian times, it reflects the 1980s productions, which were recorded to tape at low-resolution. There's not much upscaling that can be done, although attempts to fix some of the audio and visual quality issues have been made in subsequent physical media releases.
I'm biased—as are we all—in that I loved Brett's performance but I don't think it was definitive or necessarily accurate to the source material. His portrayal injected a lot of nuance, frenetic energy, and auteur personalization based on his own interpretation of the Canon. This has rubbed some viewers the wrong way, particularly traditionalists. (Continued in comments.)
Turning to Rathbone now, the first two films that Fox produced in 1939, featuring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce were set in 1890's England. The first is widely regarded one of the best film or television adaptations of The Hound of the Baskervilles, the second, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes was not Canonical other than featuring Holmes, Watson, and Moriarty (it portrayed a storyline that was not from the original Conan Doyle stories), but it captured the feeling of 1890s London swirling with fog and danger and was a throwback to 40 years earlier's William Gillette play, Sherlock Holmes, upon which it was loosely-based, and which was still THE image of Sherlock Holmes in many older folks' minds. If you're a fan of BBC Sherlock, you can thank these films as the primary inspiration for the show's creators Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat. I'd also be remiss if I didn't point out that the Sherlock Holmes films were created with Basil Rathbone (a well-established Shakespearean actor and rising movie star of the day, a trained Royal Army swordsman who appeared in comedies, dramas, and was known for his swashbuckling antics opposite Tyrol Power and Errol Flynn, both of whom he tutored in swordfighting).
However, this brings us to the last TWELVE Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes films, which were produced by Universal Pictures, several of which featured some of the worst hairstyles ever to be worn by a Sherlock Holmes (don't look it up, just know that it's bad). They were set in contemporaneous London during WWII and were pulpy, heavily-noir influenced non-canonical stories. The best of these were The Scarlet Claw, the Pearl of Death and The Spider Woman. The worst were Sherlock Holmes in Washington and SH and the Voice of Terror (although best and worst are totally subjective, this is just in case anyone wants to dip a toe and watch a couple they haven't seen before).
Rathbone and Bruce went on to play Holmes and Watson to almost certainly a wider audience and cultural awareness on the New Adventures of Sherlock Holmes which ran for almost 400 episodes in the 1940's, many of which have been preserved online and can be found fairly easily. They're good but not great, though personally, I love hearing any period radio adaptations, because it's almost a lost art (newer long-format podcasts notwithstanding).
There's definitely a generational divide, as well. Many of the younger folks (under-50 is young, right!?) may have never seen a full Basil Rathbone film, OR a Jeremy Brett episode. They only make a decision based on production values, and certainly, in most of the examples, the Granada production fares well in that arena. If you grew up loving Nigel Bruce, then you may have an extraordinary fondness for his portrayal and not enjoy the Hardwicke or Burke interpretations.
Two final notes. This question pays a disservice to several of the other acme performers of their day like Peter Cushing (one of my favorites, as you may have guessed), Eille Norwood, Ronald Howard, Robert Downey Jr., William Gillette, and Benedict Cumberbatch. It's a fair question to ask, but it's myopic in its scope as modern audiences will likely not have seen or even been able to see those other wonderful portrayals. (Some folks even loved Matt Frewer, Nicholas Rowe, or Will Ferrell's portrayals, but I gather that they may be in the minority.)
At the conclusion of the panel we took a vote: Raise your right hand if you loved Basil Rathbone as Holmes, and keep them up. Now raise your left if you loved Jeremy Brett as Holmes? (Almost everyone is raising both hands now.)
There, we've solved it. They're both great.
Jeremy Brett is iconic. The best Holmes.
I like the notion that there can be very successful but very different portrayals of Holmes. I am not convinced that Doyle himself was welded to a singular interpretation of the character.
I remain a little wary of the impulse to produce a “ complete” or “definitive” video adaptation of Sherlock Holmes, Poirot, and other long-running series characters.
Rather than to focus on the stronger stories and perhaps some intriguing original productions while the actors and production crews have the energy and focus, the time and the money to do them justice.
ACD's description of Holmes is so inconsistent that no single actor can possibly flesh him out completely. Which is why both Livanov's clean cut version and RDJ's unkempt one make sense and entertain equally.
I too love adaptations that take at least some minor liberties with the original material, while retaining the essence of the characters. I adore The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes for the way they portrayed Holmes in love (and not with Irene Adler).
100% agree! I actually LOVE all the portrayals of Sherlock I've seen, because they all focus on a different version of Sherlock. Example: Robert Downey Jr. is more of the rough and tumble Sherlock the one that boxes and knows how to fight.
Great to meet someone who loves different portrayals without being emotionally beholden to a specific one.
PS: I love the RDJ movies - so energetic, fun and tons of Canonical nods. Wish they would make the third one someday...
Good choice!
Brett, hands down. Brett is Holmes.
Interesting
Both, but Brett.
Rathbone & Brett for me are both how Holmes should be, they’re each the pinnacle.
Brett is the only actor to have filmed most of the Holmes stories, he was about 10 stories shy of completing the whole series but Brett died before they could film another series in 1995
Rathbone was my first Holmes but over the years and multiple times watching the series Jeremy Brett became the version of Holmes I always picture when listening to audio books and reading any Holmes story.
There is this YouTube video where this guy ranks the top 10 Sherlock Holmes. He puts Brett at #2, second to Cumberbatch and Rathbone is somewhere in the middle of the pack. Sheesh.
I consider that a valid opinion.
I love them both! Each had a fine face and a commanding voice that fit the character perfectly. But between the two, Brett just slightly edges Rathbone out due to the faithfulness of the scripts he worked off of.
But personally … I like Ronald Howard. 😏
Who?
He’s the guy from the charming 50’s TV series —
https://www.arthur-conan-doyle.com/index.php/Ronald_Howard
Possibly my favourite series! It was so much fun and Howard did a great job.
For sure! The series had a great theme song as well.
Interesting!
So I’m biased having loved both Cumberbatch and RDJ’s version on Holmes plus not (yet) seeing Rathborne in the role, but Brett just LIVES as Holmes…
And I always hear his laugh when I imagine Holmes being in a good mood! 🤭😁
Brett truly is a popular choice
Jeremy Brett is the Sherlock Holmes for me even when I am reading the books. He absolutely nailed the mannerisms, characteristics and personality of the world's greatest detective.
Rathbone will always be my favorite just for his persona, but Brett was always the most true to the original stories. I often wonder how different the Rathbone films would have been if it wasn't for the war and propaganda that slips into them. They are a great cultural snapshot of the times and how the 2nd world war influenced them. Despite the bumbling Nigel Bruce Watson performance I do enjoy their on screen chemistry.
I think they're two of the absolute best, but I always identify Jeremy Brett so strongly with Sherlock Holmes, he seems to me to be indistinguishable from the character when I watch the show.
Jeremy Brett 100%
Each the best of their eras.
Rathbone!
Personally I lean towards Jeremy Brett, but they're both equally great in terms of their legacy and contribution to Holmes.
I think Doyle's Holmes would be a perfect blend of Rathbone and Brett. Not quiet as neurotic as Brett's Holmes, but not quiet as relaxed and 'normal' as Rathbone's.
You’re doing good with your opinion