IHOSE header

"there is the long row" [VEIL]

Further to the reports of a Sherlock Holmes movie being developed by Warner Bros. comes the news of a lead actor that will undoubtedly be more acceptable to readers of this blog. The initial reports were that Russell Crowe would be the lead, in a nod to Holmes' more physical side, and many Sherlockians were livid.

But you may be pleased to know that the producers have come to their senses and have instead settled on Nicholas Rowe as their choice. Astute Sherlockians will remember Rowe from the 1985 adventure film Young Sherlock Holmes, directed by Barry Levinson and produced by Steven Spielberg, where he played a school-age Holmes who looked remarkably like Joseph Bell, the medical professor who inspired Conan Doyle.

The producers, who originally were going for toughness, have evidently agreed that Rowe, who stands 6 feet 4 inches tall, will undoubtedly be an imposing figure. And they're being mindful of the Canon as he perfectly fits Watson's description of Holmes from A Study in Scarlet:
"In height he was rather over six feet, and so excessively lean that he seemed to be considerably taller. His eyes were sharp and piercing, save during those intervals of torpor to which I have alluded; and his thin, hawk-like nose gave his whole expression an air of alertness and decision."
Rowe seems to be following in the footsteps of the late Jeremy Brett, as Rowe lost his longtime partner Lou Gish last year to cancer. You may recall that Brett went on with the Granada series shortly after he lost his wife Joan to cancer in the mid-1980s.

This is really welcome news, as Hollywood seems to get casting all wrong many times in Holmes films. It's encouraging to see an actor who can really inhabit the character - especially one who proved himself in his previous Holmes outing.

Background info.



Ann Margaret Lewis said... April 1, 2007 at 6:30 PM

You had me going there, Scott, until I clicked on the "Background Information."


Scott said... April 2, 2007 at 12:01 AM

Glad you enjoyed it - and caught on, Ann.

Anonymous said... April 2, 2007 at 3:33 AM

I should have been prepared, but I so wanted your report to be true, Scott... (You know how to be cruel, don't you?)


Anonymous said... April 2, 2007 at 3:36 AM

There never was any truth to the rumour that Crowe is playing the part, however. So why people continue to believe that and not bother to check the sources or look for Crowe's comment where he said it's not true is even more foolish.

Anonymous said... April 7, 2007 at 7:52 AM

I'm not sure how losing a partner to cancer is something to be 'joked' about. Very intrusive.

Scott said... April 7, 2007 at 1:13 PM

Dear Anonymous,
I'm sorry you feel that way. I didn't joke abot the cancer, and if you take the trouble to look around, it's not intrusive - it's in the public domain.

Now dropping anonymous criticisms on a blog - that's intrusive. It would be nice to know with whom I'm corresponding.

Anonymous said... April 9, 2007 at 5:07 PM

My name's Mark- not sure how that helps you. If you find anonymous criticism on a blog 'intrusive' (and I really don't see how that can be), why do you leave yourself open to it?

I'm just not sure how a personal matter like losing a person to cancer has any part in a public joke like this. It's very distasteful. Leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
Just because something is in the public domain does not mean it has a part to play in a light-hearted gag: especially a matter of private grief. Please have more respect.

Scott said... April 10, 2007 at 3:16 PM

Well, Mark, now I can at least address you by name. Thank you for contributing. I leave the "Anonymous" comment option open so as not to require readers to register with Blogger. Most sign their names within the body of the comment, so their comment isn't anonymous.

As far as your take on the distastefulness of mentioning a disease in the context of a joke, I can only say I'm sorry. I certainly didn't intend to offend anyone nor do I make light of a disease that has claimed more than its fair share of my own family.

Cancer was not the main topic of the original post, nor would I ever make it so. I'm sorry that it created a problem for you.

Ann Margaret Lewis said... April 13, 2007 at 4:00 PM

The cancer was only mentioned as a tangential aside about the actor's life, in which he had something in common with Jeremy Brett, and had no influence on the jest other than that.

Don't worry, Scott. You included it as an element to add realism to the post so we could all be suckered in. I know most people see it that way.

(note: cancer has affected my family great deal, and I wasn't the least bit offended)