Attn: Bert! The Strange Case of Sherlock Holmes & Arthur Conan Doyle

Question

I taped "The Strange Case of Sherlock Holmes & Arthur Conan Doyle" the other day. Haven't seen it yet. But I'd be very interested in your take on it, Bert.

Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when
you fall into an open sewer and die.
Mel Brooks

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]I taped "The Strange Case of Sherlock Holmes & Arthur Conan Doyle" the other day. Haven't seen it yet. But I'd be very interested in your take on it, Bert.[/nq]
My views are just a little bit coloured by the fact that I was the original writer and got fired.
It had a curious history, that show.
It started life as a three-part documentary (3 x 60 mins) on the life of Conan Doyle, with a presenter speaking to camera, contributions from various experts, dramatised scenes, and (scripted) interviews with Doyle's contemporaries, played by actors.
Three parts became two, then one (at 90 minutes) and then the onscreen presenter was jettisoned and it became a fully dramatised documentary. But the intention was still to show the amazing range of Doyle's interest and activities, his vast literary output, his deep religious views and his slightly odd relationship with his two wives and his children. "Everything and anything, with Sherlock Holmes placed firmly in context as no more than a tiny fraction of the man's life and work" - that was the brief.

All through this process, I was the writer. I wrote various outlines, culminating in a very detailed treatment. The producer and I talked to the surviving relatives, were granted access to the (previously suppressed) family archives and generally got very excited by the project.

Then came The Lunch. I was flown to Scotland (the show was a BBC Scotland production), taken to a restaurant and the producer and I were joined by a woman who was introduced to me by name but nothing more. I vaguely wondered who she was, but she seemed interested in the show, as the producer and I talked enthusiastically about it through the meal.

Then she said, "There's not much Sherlock Holmes in it, is there?"

And here's what happened next:
ME: Well no, that's rather the point.
HER: But Sherlock Holmes is what the audience know.

ME: After this goes out, they'll know a lot more. They'll understand Doyle's whole attitude to the Holmes stories.
(A long beat)
HER: There's not a lot of Sherlock Holmes in it, is there?

(I look at the producer for a bit of support. He says nothing.)

HER (cont): Look, here's a thought: You've got this young woman journalist who interviews Doyle just before he dies, right?
ME: Right. And they talk about his life and we see key moments in flashback.
HER: Yes, I get that. Suppose instead of the young woman, the interviewer was Sherlock Holmes?
ME: Pardon?
HER: But do tell me if you think it's a really rubbish idea.

ME: I think it's a really rubbish idea.
Next day, I was off the show, It turned out that she was the executive producer.
They brought in someone who'd already written a heavily fictionalised series about a young Conan Doyle teaming up with a professor at his university to solve crimes - a proto Holmes and Watson.
For some strange reason, I didn't care for the resultant programme.

Matthew, please do post again after you've watched it, and then we'll exchange views. I'll try to be unbiased...
Bert

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]ME: I think it's a really rubbish idea. Next day, I was off the show, It turned out that she was the executive producer.[/nq]
Fascinating exchange. The first insult I ever threw at the industry was back when Costco opened in Detroit. I was temping data entry and a video crew from hq came to tape the festivities. I helped them out and commented, "Now if only they can change that annoying music on that video loop they've been playing in the membership tent." The lady director said, "I picked the music for that."
I looked as striped as the tent.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]HER: But do tell me if you think it's a really rubbish idea. ME: I think it's a really rubbish idea. Next day, I was off the show, It turned out that she was the executive producer.[/nq]
You, my friend, were SET UP. They did a nice, professional job of it, but you were brought to Scotland to be bounced off the show.

Which sucks, of course.

Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary
Steven

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]HER: But do tell me if you think it's a really rubbish idea. ME: I think it's a really rubbish idea. Next day, I was off the show, It turned out that she was the executive producer.[/nq]
[nq:1]You, my friend, were SET UP. They did a nice, professional job of it, but you were brought to Scotland to be bounced off the show. Which sucks, of course.[/nq]
That's cruel. To bounce him is bad enough, but to make him come to Scotland just to be bounced? That's inconceivable cruelty.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Matthew, please do post again after you've watched it, and then we'll exchange views. I'll try to be unbiased...[/nq]
I started to watch it last night but I fell asleep - this could take a while!
Loved the story about your association with it. So typical. Grr. Hope the lunch was good and that you got paid for your trouble,

Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when
you fall into an open sewer and die.
Mel Brooks

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Loved the story about your association with it. So typical. Grr. Hope the lunch was good and that you got paid for your trouble,[/nq]
The lunch was fine, and yes, I did get paid - but nothing like as much as I'd have got if my version had gone to full script and filming.

Bert

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Matthew, please do post again after you've watched it, and then we'll exchange views. I'll try to be unbiased...[/nq]
I gave up on it after about 40 minutes. Maybe I just wasn't in the mood. Maybe I'm not as interested in Doyle as I thought. Maybe it was well executed but a BORE.

Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when
you fall into an open sewer and die.
Mel Brooks

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I gave up on it after about 40 minutes. Maybe I just wasn't in the mood. Maybe I'm not as interested in Doyle as I thought. Maybe it was well executed but a BORE.[/nq]
I got irritated with (amongst a lot of other things) the overly arty direction: all the shots through fabric, or plants or smoke.

But above all, I disliked the basic premise: Doyle's decision to kill off Holmes wasn't angst-ridden and didn't bring on a nervous breakdown, and neither did the death of his father. This sort of fiction-presented-as-fact might not be damaging exactly, but why do it when the man's life was packed with genuine incidents which would have been every bit as intriguing and compelling, and probably more so?
I suppose after my earlier post about the conversation with the exec producer, you twigged that the "mysterious" researcher figure was actually Sherlock Holmes, and existed only in Doyle's head? I'd apologise for giving away the twist, only you didn't get that far...
Bert

Attn: Bert! The Strange Case of Sherlock Holmes & Arthur Conan Doyle

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions