Sherlock (the BBC character)

[Arcadia]

Found this on Tumblr and thought it was pretty neat. Maybe it should be in the BC thread, but hey. It's about the theatrical tricks he uses to make the most of The Coat...

 

http://penelope1730.tumblr.com/post/168194976684/pagimag-gingerbbatch-the-coat-was-actually

 

 

[J.P.]

:D
I bet BC learned all about it.
But maybe it's just Bestaff's personality. A coat that has its (his?) own Twitter account, could be expected to know how to move around a beautiful owner.

[Arcadia]

Are you sure you're not thinking of The Cape? ;)

[Hikari]

Are you sure you're not thinking of The Cape? ;)

 

The Coat is Sherlock's superhero cape, n'est pas?  Like any superhero, he is never on the job without it.  Even in the middle of August.  The Scarf is a must-have accessory too, like the goggles that go with the cape.

 

When I looked up the retail value of that 100% wool gentleman's Belstaff greatcoat (around $2000 USD in 2010), this is what convinced me that Sherlock has a trust fund (administered by Mycroft, naturally) which makes it possible to afford a flat in central London & multiple coats at $2000 a pop (or roughly my monthly salary) without any but the most sporadic employment, and he doesn't even collect a fee from Scotland Yard. When Sherl isn't out on a case, what is he doing but playing around with expensive science equipment at the kitchen table or else reading a book (doubtless a first edition of George Herbert).  And, except for the memorable shooting-the-wall Eeyore day at the top of TGG, he is always attired in impeccably tailored expensive clothing.  Oh, and the Scarf retailed for $450.  Few people without hereditary wealth would pay as much for a scarf as some working folk pay for their first cars.

 

In fact, I have never believed that Sherlock Holmes actually needed a flatmate to help pay the rent on Baker Street, then or now.  Sherlock advertised (to Stamford) that he was in the market for a flatmate because he needed an audience for his deductions (and Skully was a dull conversationalist).  Sherlock Holmes craved company, in a word.  Money doesn't really appear to have been any significant problem, even when he didn't get paid for months on end.

 

[J.P.]

IT'S A CLOAK!!!!

[Arcadia]

Yipe! :o
 
Okay, okay, I stand corrected. It's a cloaking device. Got it. :p

[Carol the Dabbler]

What a relief -- now we know that Sherlock is safe from Klingons!

[Arcadia]

But not, apparently, from genetically enhanced supervillains. Why, they had a whole movie where he'd been taken over by one named Khan and made to do all sorts of violent things.

[Pseudonym]

At risk of being superficial (perish the thought ;)) is canon Sherlock supposed to be handsome? It's been a long time since I read the books, and since they are supposed to be written by Watson I can't imagine him being overly taken with Sherlock's appearance other than describing him as sharp and, I vaguely remember, hawk-like (maybe?).

 

If he's not particularly described as handsome, do we imagine he is?

[Carol the Dabbler]

I think you're right, Watson's descriptions of Holmes don't tend to go beyond his general build, his general attire, and of course his attentive gaze. So we are free to imagine him as we like. (Jeremy Brett does it for me.)

[T.o.b.y]

I think if Holmes were handsome, Watson would let us know. He certainly isn't sparing of praise otherwise and he notices and describes personal beauty in both male and female clients.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Good point.  He doesn't describe Holmes as hideous either, so I suppose we can assume that his face is not remarkable in any way, at least not by Watson's standards.  We might disagree -- or not.  (I'm still going with Jeremy Brett.)

[Pseudonym]

'Holmes was sharp of mind and eye, but his countenance was grotesque and truly frightening to gaze upon.'

[Carol the Dabbler]

'Holmes was sharp of mind and eye, but his countenance was grotesque and truly frightening to gaze upon.'

 

I take it that's a little-known quote that you just made up?

[Pseudonym]

Why yes, yes it is. 

[Artemis]

In a documentary I was watching, they said that ACD never intended to characterize Holmes as handsome, but he was interpreted to be handsome by the general population of readers because of Sidney Paget's illustrations (which I don't think make him appear particularly handsome myself, but I guess they thought so back then).

 

 

[Arcadia]

At risk of being superficial (perish the thought ;)) is canon Sherlock supposed to be handsome? It's been a long time since I read the books, and since they are supposed to be written by Watson I can't imagine him being overly taken with Sherlock's appearance other than describing him as sharp and, I vaguely remember, hawk-like (maybe?).

 

If he's not particularly described as handsome, do we imagine he is?

I've always imagined he looked exactly like Basil Rathbone. Is Basil handsome? Hmmm ... I think I tend to go with "striking" and "imposing" more than "handsome."

[Artemis]

I heard they chose Basil Rathbone for the role in large part because they thought he resembled what Holmes was described as looking like.

[Hikari]

I think Sherlock Holmes's face and build were depicted by Dr. Watson as 'singular and compelling', rather than handsome in any conventional sense. 

 

David Marcum has selected a portrait for Sherlock Holmes by artist Mark Gagen to adorn the covers of his MX New Sherlock Holmes anthology that close to the mark, I'd say.  Reminiscent of some of Paget's Strand drawings but more real.  You'd swear it was a real person.  The proud profile which we see is austere, a bit forbidding . . but also finely featured and memorable, if not cinema-god handsome.  It's a compelling face--decidedly ectomorphic.  It's become my default Holmes.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Is it online anywhere?

[Hikari]

Is it online anywhere?

 

Carol,

 

I tried to find it in Google images.  The best I could do was a screenshot of the back of one of the book jackets, which has small portraits of both Holmes and Dr. Watson.  It doesn't get very large, but you can get the idea.  If you ever have an opportunity to look at one of the volumes, in the front of each David M. presents these portraits, along with the 'biographies of our duo.  One thing you can't help but notice:  while the portrait of Sherlock Holmes is sharp, clear and very specific, the opposite one featuring Watson is very muzzy and soft-focus.  We see a pleasant-looking, dark-haired young man with a Victorian mustache but there is nothing memorable about that face.  It looks like a bog-standard sketch of any Victorian gent that might adorn the pages of some popular advertisement.  The eyes are particularly unfocused, as if this portrait had been done in pastels.  This guy looks like a banker; far too wispy to be 'Three Continents', JHW, lately of the Army Medical Department.  He looks like some fop working in Daddy's investment firm after coming down from Cambridge.  I am not satisfied that it's Watson, but he'd make a decent model for the unfortunate client in "The Engineer's Thumb".

 

I'm still having my cut-n-paste issues.  If you go to Google Images and type in MX New Sherlock Holmes portrait, you will bring up this back shot of the book covers.  Along with a lot of extraneous photos of Basil Rathbone, Benedict, RDJ and others.  Bit of a cr*pshoot, is Google Images.

[Artemis]

Is this it?

 

 

I quite like that.

[Hikari]

Yep, that's it!  What did I say--the artist got Sherlock Holmes to a tee.  The Watson could be anybody, and in fact, this guy looks like he's addled in the eyes, like he might have been hitting the laudanum a bit.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I think my main problem with that Watson is that he looks like neither Edward Hardwicke nor Martin Freeman (who have utterly spoiled me).

[Artemis]

I think he looks a bit like Jude Law's Watson, which is alright with me since he's one of my favorite Watsons.