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.



Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

They say if we go with them, we'll live forever. And that's good.

Cocoon (1985) Anyone coming across Cocoon cold might reasonably assume the involvement of Steven Spielberg in some capacity. This is a sugary, well-meaning tale of age triumphing over adversity. All thanks to the power of aliens. Substitute the elderly for children and you pretty much have the manner and Spielberg for Ron Howard and you pretty much have the approach taken to Cocoon . Howard is so damn nice, he ends up pulling his punches even on the few occasions where he attempts to introduce conflict to up the stakes. Pauline Kael began her review by expressing the view that consciously life-affirming movies are to be consciously avoided. I wouldn’t go quite that far, but you’re definitely wise to steel yourself for the worst (which, more often than not, transpires). Cocoon is as dramatically inert as the not wholly dissimilar (but much more disagreeable, which is saying something) segment of Twilight Zone: The Movie directed by Spielberg ( Kick the Can ). There