Skip to main content

I regret that the exchange of presents at Christmas time is something about which I am notoriously lax.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes
2.16: The Blue Carbuncle

The final episode of the 1960s BBC Sherlock Holmes series. It ran between 1964 and 1968 across two seasons, first with Douglas Wilmer and then Peter Cushing (Nigel Stock provided a sense of continuity, appearing as Watson throughout). Cushing played Holmes eight years earlier in Hammer’s full-blooded The Hound of the Baskervilles, of course, but this series is a decidedly less atmospheric affair, as might be expected of the less exotically budget BBC. Certainly, if the meagre seven surviving episodes are testaments.

Rather than the lavish location work and film stock of the later ITV Jeremy Brett series, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes was largely studio based and shot on video. Consequently, there’s no disguising that it’s on the cheap side, right down to obvious line fluffs from the leads. Nevertheless, there’s much enjoyment to be had from Cushing’s upbeat, empathic and spirited Holmes and the evident chemistry with his Watson (Stock is perfectly cast as a halfway house between Nigel Bruce’s duffer and the more legitimately Doyle-ian Edward Hardwicke and David Burke). And particularly so in The Blue Carbuncle, where Holmes clearly has no issues with endorsing the Christmas spirit.

Holmes: I know a thing or two about poultry.

Of course, a Holmes seasonal special has become de rigueur in recent years, in the fetid form of Steven Moffat’s increasingly horrendous Sherlock (like everything Moffat touches, it began promisingly and turned to convoluted mush as soon as success went to his head). There’s no grandstanding in this Blue Carbuncle, which is much to its credit but also simply the way literary adaptations were done back then.

Although, lest you assume otherwise, the production of the series – both series – wasn’t to either Holmes player’s favour. Cushing commented that the productions upset him “terribly, because it wasn’t Peter Cushing doing his best Holmes – it was Peter Cushing looking relieved that he had remembered what to say and said it”. Cushing’s doing himself down, of course, as any actor worth their salt is wont to, but there’s definitely a sense here that there’s no time for a second take.

In the script department too, there were issues. Donald Tosh, who previously did a stint script editing William Hartnell Doctor Who, recalled that he had to beef up Stanley Miller’s dramatisation: “If we had done Stanley’s it would have lasted about 25 minutes”. Although he stressed that his version used “…I must admit, great hunks of Stanley”. In keeping with the rather frantic pace of the production, The Blue Carbuncle aired on 23 December, a mere week after recording.

Henry Baker: To wear a Scotch bonnet is fit neither for my years nor my gravity.

There’s no doubt this isn’t as polished a piece of writing as the Brett version sixteen years later, even as one can compare and contrast almost identical scenes with verbatim Doyle dialogue in each. Tosh/Miller opt to have Lady Moycar (Madge Ryan) visit Holmes at the outset, imperiously demanding his services, in contrast to the original story, and the Brett version. There, commissionaire Peterson alerts the sleuth to the case (Peterson is played by Frank Middlemass, who slightly confusingly then played Henry Baker in the Brett version). This has the consequence of Peterson’s subsequent arrival rather too conveniently sparking Holmes’ interest, but the act of denying snooty Moycar is nevertheless an enjoyable one (Holmes brushes her off, telling her not a single aspect of the case is of any interest to him).

And while we’re discussing embellishments that work, having Watson visit Horner (Neil Fitzpatrick), framed for the crime and contemplating suicide, at least makes the character feel less tangential to the main plot. A littleless. Stock’s buoyant Watson also makes several worthwhile contributions. He rightly objects to Holmes’ comment about a large head suggesting a brainy man (he has known “some men with large heads who are congenital idiots”). He also makes much humorous capital from events when it is revealed that Holmes was wrong about the owner of the hat being Henry Baker; it is Harold (Richard Butler) who owns it, as Henry was his late brother. Watson volubly laughs at this error on the detective’s part and Holmes responds, after Baker has departed in a mock censorious tone: “You are developing a certain vein of porky humour, Watson, against which I must learn to guard myself”.

Also notable is James “Private Walker” Beck as hotel attendant James Ryder, a very different presence to Ken Campbell’s rather deflated, desperate presence in the Brett production. Beck, in contrast, plays a character who entirely fails to disguise his lack of sincere remorse for the theft of the carbuncle. Consequently, Holmes rebuke seems far more deserving, and his rationale for withholding official justice – “Oh, I am compounding a felony, no doubt. But I also am saving a soul” – slightly less legitimate. Which isn’t to say that his subsequent dropping of both Ryder and accomplice Catherine Cusack (Diana Chappell) in it when he reunites Morcar with her gem is any less peculiar or off-key as a result (“Your maid has run off with the man who removed it from you room”). It could, after all – and probably would, given her disposition – result in Morcar sending the Plod after the couple, which is hardly an act of leniency on Holmes’ part.

Holmes: My dear Watson, we must return to Baker Street. And undertake another investigation. In which also a bird will also be the chief feature.

The episode deserves demerits too for liberally dropping in references to Irene Adler and Sir Henry Baskerville. Generally, though, The Blue Carbuncle works more overtly as a warm Christmas episode than the Brett one. Holmes is genuinely overcome by Watson giving him some tobacco (and I rather like the way Watson requests to join him in a puff). The final line is also rather cute, as both look forward to tucking in to Christmas dinner.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018) (SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop .

That’s what people call necromancer’s weather.

The Changes (1975) This adaptation of Peter Dickinson’s novel trilogy carries a degree of cult nostalgia cachet due to it being one of those more “adult” 1970s children’s serials (see also The Children of the Stones , The Owl Service ). I was too young to see it on its initial screening – or at any rate, too young to remember it – but it’s easy to see why it lingered in the minds of those who did. Well, the first episode, anyway. Not for nothing is The Changes seen as a precursor to The Survivors in the rural apocalypse sub-genre – see also the decidedly nastier No Blade of Grass – as following a fairly gripping opener, it drifts off into the realm of plodding travelogue.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.