What do you make of Benedict Cumberbatch, the actor who missed out this week on a National TV Award for Sherlock?
I like him. I like Sherlock. I don't think it's the best thing that's been on British telly since Brideshead, as some of its extreme fans do, but it's entertaining.
The problem is how gratingly rude Cumberbatch's Sherlock is. For the saddo purists – and there are plenty of us out there – this is sacrilege. Conan Doyle's Sherlock is abrupt and cutting, but minds his manners. Shoehorn him into the 21st century and he becomes arch and cheeky; Holmes was never that.
So who is the quintessential screen Holmes? For said saddo purist, there is only one candidate: Jeremy Brett. Holmes may have been played by some memorable actors, from box-office stars such as Robert Downey Jr, Roger Moore and Michael Caine, to Hammer Horror regulars Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee; some would say Basil Rathbone in his famous cape was the best because he created a template so many others have followed. For my money, Brett stands top-hatted head and tailored shoulders above them all.
He starred in Granada's Holmes between 1984 and 1994 and is still perfect in the role. The richly toned, chocolatey voice, imperious manner and displays of melancholia and energetic mania, made him the definitive Holmes. To inhabit the character so completely, Brett pored over every word Conan Doyle had written about the detective, building up a written log of characteristics and habits he faithfully adhered to. He did away with the outward symbols – deerstalker, cape and magnifying glass – and concentrated on becoming Holmes.
Brett died in 1995, but brought to life the world's most famous detective more vividly than anyone had before – or since.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article