#in a way that is not the same to the sholto comic i did

[lindalofbroome]

...he slid the bell tree stick from his belt and raised it high. He lifted his other hand too, fingers spread, making himself as large as he could. The silver beast recoiled, very slightly. Yes, Rye thought with grim satisfaction. This is not how prey behaves, is it, serpent? THE THREE DOORS The Golden Door Ch 25 Now or Never

probably the most confused serpent in the world

[bakerstreetbabble]

Granada TV Series Review: "The Sign of Four"

Finally, here it is! My review of the 1987 Granada TV adaptation of The Sign of Four...enjoy!

First of all, one could give this installment in the series a two-word review: mostly faithful. That is, the adaptation follows very closely all the main plot points of its source material, with a few little tweaks here and there. I shall mention some of the most obvious changes as I go along. It may be best to begin with the title: Arthur Conan Doyle's novella was originally published in Lippincott's Monthly Magazine as The Sign of the Four (1890), but many subsequent editions omitted the second definite article and were released as The Sign of Four. Granada chose to go with the latter. In the novella, of course, Jonathan Small's calling card reads, "the sign of the four." 

As I said, the adaptation is nothing if not faithful to its source. This can be a bit problematic, as it means the last twenty minutes or so of the film are told in flashback by Jonathan Small, which strikes me as a bit anticlimactic for the flow of the story. However, if one were to place the past events told in flashback at the beginning of the film, one would be faced with a Sherlock Holmes story in which the detective doesn't show up until well into the story. Either way, it's a difficult problem for the writers. Overall, I think they did a very good job, despite some of the inherent problem of somewhat slow pacing.

Jeremy Brett is in excellent form throughout the film, despite the fact that he was beginning to struggle with his bipolar disorder around this same time. Perhaps this explains the unusual decision towards the beginning of the film, in which Holmes displays some rather unusual behavior as Mary Morstan tells her story. He complains of the messiness of the flat at 221B and begins to brush lint from his suit as she talks. His reaction ends up coming off as boorish and eccentric. Holmes in the book shows no such odd behavior. Still, Brett is mostly excellent in the adaptation, and Edward Hardwicke had clearly become quite comfortable in the role by this time, so the chemistry between Holmes and Watson works quite well.

I'm afraid Jenny Seagrove's portrayal of Mary Morstan struck me as a bit bland and uninteresting. I was at a loss to understand exactly why Watson seemed so charmed by her (apart from the fact that it's a fairly major subplot point in the book). She's adequate in the role, but I found her quite unimpressive. In contrast, I thought Ronald Lacey (better known as the creepy Toht in Raiders of the Lost Ark) was delightful as Thaddeus and Bartholomew Sholto. He's eccentric, funny, and just a bit unsettling at times. Really, an almost perfect portrayal of the unusual character. Emrys James as Inspector Athelney Jones was also quite entertaining, serving as a pompous, comical foil to Holmes's far more intelligent investigation. Brett and James do a fabulous job in the scene in which Jones is presenting his theory of the murder of Bartholomew Sholto, with Holmes wryly responding, "On which the dead man very considerately got up and locked the door on the inside." (A marvelous line, straight from the original novella.)

As often happens in some of the Granada adaptations, the director makes several unusual visual choices, displaying a fondness for shots that show Holmes in mirrors or shots that are obscured by objects in the foreground. A few of those choices work fairly well, though. A couple that I thought were interesting: shortly after Holmes climbs down from the roof of Pondicherry Lodge, there's a brief segment of dialogue in which the camera focuses on the characters' shadows on the brick wall; a particularly effective shot is when Holmes is reading about "the aborigines of the Andaman Islands," and the camera slowly zooms in on him as he smokes, surrounded by stacks of books. Less successful were several shots during the river chase scene, where the view of the steamboats was obscured by various objects in the foreground. Very odd.

Of course, what would a Sherlock Holmes adaptation be without at least one scene where Holmes remains in disguise just to mess with Watson? Jeremy Brett always seemed to take a special delight in such scenes, as displayed in this film, when he shows up at 221B dressed as an old mariner and completely fools both Watson and Inspector Jones. It does require a bit of suspension of disbelief to accept that neither man would see through such an obvious disguise. Still, it's quite entertaining.

One unpleasant detail that I can't help finding cringe-inducing is, of course, the portrayal of Tonga. There's really no way to get around the inherent racism of Doyle's portrayal of other races, which was not at all unusual for the late 19th century English culture. But it is particularly uncomfortable in this day and age to see the obvious blackface makeup applied to actor Kiran Shah, who would later do quite notable work in The Lord of the Rings and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. And the prosthetic teeth are just badly done. It also doesn't help that, right towards the end of the film, we're given a really tacky shot of Tonga sinking into the Thames as gold coins splash around him (another Jonathan Small flashback, telling how he disposed of the Agra treasure).

A good decision made by the writers was the decision to move the revelation of the empty treasure box to occur after Jonathan Small's story has been told. I've always been confused by Doyle's decision to have that moment (as well as Watson's profession of love to Mary) happen before Small is allowed to recount his entire story. I still find myself wondering, however, how no one who lugged that treasure chest all the way across town (to Mary's employer's house in the book, and to 221B in the film) could tell that it was empty! I imagine many viewers have been disappointed that Watson's declaration of love and his subsequent proposal to Mary have been omitted. I can only guess that the writers for the Granada series were not interested in having Mary become a recurring character, and that they preferred to keep Watson and Holmes a couple of bachelors. Thus, we are only given a few longing looks from Watson as Mary goes her merry way. (See what I did there?)

I mustn't forget one of the most enjoyable moments in the film: the appearance of the famous Baker Street Irregulars. Although these little ragamuffins don't appear all that often in the canon, they certainly have earned the affection of Sherlock Holmes fans that probably ranks right up there with Sherlockians' fascination with Irene Adler (another fairly minor character who has achieved great fame). The scene where the Irregulars arrive at 221B, much to Mrs. Hudson's consternation, is done perfectly, and Jeremy Brett seems to be having a lot of fun at this point.

I have to say, overall, I enjoyed this particular adaptation of The Sign of Four. I found it engaging, despite just a bit of slow pacing here and there. Faithful to its source material, the film is a credit to its production team and cast. Brett and Hardwicke were quite comfortable in their roles, and the level of production value was still quite high at this point in the Granada series. As their first attempt at more long-form storytelling, it seems to have been a success, one that was not repeated with their adaptation of the most popular Holmes tale, The Hound of the Baskervilles. Ah, but that's a story for another time...