"For those who pass their lives afloat on boats, or face old age leading horses tight by the bridle, their journeying is life, their journeying is home."
- Matsuo Basho (The Narrow Road To The Deep North, 1702)
It was a dark day when Yahweh (now known as God), passed judgement on and sentenced the three culprits in the apple munching incident at the Tree Of Knowledge (Now known as The Internet), located in Mesopotamian Edin, located in what is now Iraq (now known as The Garden Of Eden). The serpent (now known as Satan) got off the easiest; he was condemned to stay slithering about for eternity, which didn't cramp his style, as snake legs had been ditched during the process of evolution.
Adam was condemned to work the soil for his food, and could no longer just pluck it off trees in Paradise (know known as Man Caves). Menkind later fobbed off most of the food preparation tasks on women to ease the pain of the "thorns and thistles" (Genesis 3:18). Which is why women have to do all the cooking on Super Bowl Sunday (most other days too, actually). It's a holy task that was first referenced in the "Forbidden Gospel Of Murgatroyd" in 1967 AD, the year of the first Super Bowl, though no copies, or even Internet fakes, have survived to verify this [Citation needed, source is unwilling to be cited].
Eve got the worst of it; she lost the relative equality and freedom of Eden, was condemned to suffer pain in childbearing (Genesis 3:16, and Whole Earth Natural Childbirth Manual - 1972 Edition), and to be ruled over by her husband (Genesis 3:16, and How To Pick Up Girls - 1970 Edition).
I'm sure not even God knew that the consequences for many women would be a life filled with blame, servitude, exploitation, bras designed by men and priced really high, and to be bereft of God's love and forgiveness if menkind decided she wasn't worthy.
...a friend in Jesus...
Later on, Jesus bucked the tide and brought women into his inner circle, and even saved an adulteress from a public stoning (from which the male participant was noticably absent). If the New Testament is accurate, then the creed preached by Jesus didn't require women to be blamed or executed for being raped, make sandwiches after sex, or put up with men who leave their dirty underwear and socks on the floor. [citation needed on that last point]
But menkind was patient; that communistic, bad for business party pooper, Jesus, wasn't going to be around forever, and after he was gone, there'd be plenty of time to lock in profits and make sure women didn't get the notion that they could act like men, which is what menkind did after the Son Of God went, came and went, and promised to come again.
Keep in mind that the bible hadn't been written yet, so there was plenty of time for men who couldn't live with women but couldn't live without them, to get the proper procedures in place to make sure they stayed in their lane by the time the first manuals of life appeared.
There were contrary male voices, such as Saint Thomas Aquinas, who wrote in his Summa Theologica, "It was right for woman to be made from a rib of man. First, to signify the social union of man and woman, for the woman should neither use authority over man, and so she was not made from his head; nor was it right for her to be subject to man’s contempt as his slave, and so she was not made from his feet (Given how some men keep reusing the same socks, that's a good thing, right?)."
...as fast as a serpent...
Menkind just finessed whipped men like Aquinas into irrelevancy, with dare I say, the adroitness of a fast talking serpent, and in the case of the Lutherans and Protestants, restored the natural order by rejecting the Catholic Church, which came to it's senses and pioneered the innovation of trying and executing women for witchcraft, which was defined as being in league with the Devil (no longer a serpent, he needed legs after all) or in many cases, being uppity or rebellious in an ungodly manner.
Disclaimer: It should be noted that to quickly cover centuries of religious history, a lot of details had to be left out. In fact, I haven't even reached the actual point of this essay yet, so grand is the design, so I pause to assure the good readers here that a robust effort was made to ensure that the theological scholarship meets the exacting standards of unmoderated Internet research.
"...for the shield may be as important for victory, as the sword or spear."
- Charles Darwin (On The Origin Of Species)
Science joined in the fun and Darwin's book, On the Origin Of Species, became a secular sensation because it was a nicer way to say that men are number one due to being physically larger and able to beat the crap out of any woman who is uppity or rebellious in an ungodly manner.
However, Darwin never actually specified what the woman's role was, that is to say, in terms of how it's supposed to be actually lived. The description of a woman's role and duties that has evolved, in the name of natural law, are like the Judeo-Christian justice system, which is theoretically based on or extrapolated from religious doctrine, but ignore the exhortation to honor and treat women like human beings, except where required by law or in cases where a wussy is dominated by a woman.
Darwin's observations have often been extrapolated into the concept that power and money is the equivalent of survival of the fittest, and that the food chain is a linear hierarchy or patriarchal system. Modern interpretations of Darwin's writings have been used to justify sexism, racism, settling arguments by fisticuffs, accumulation of wealth by a small minority, patriarchal social orders, and the payment of enormous sums of money to athletes and attractive actors.
...minor factors...
Darwin noted that natural selection and evolution was dependent on many "minor factors" and conditions. One good example is the invention of crossbows, which helped end the power of individual knights who were the apex males in the social system. The Holy Church tried to restore the natural order by excommunicating anyone who used a crossbow, but gave up trying after gunpowder and firearms were invented. Kings found that infantry armies were cheaper and easier to send to their deaths than Knights, who generally acted like modern celebrities and were pains in the ass.
Darwinism didn't create patriarchies, as those began much earlier when organized warfare and the macho warriors became a thing. Those elite soldiers generally served a dominant alpha (king, emperor, whatever) who assumed demigod status, or had it granted by the Priests of whatever religion was current by divine right or purchase.
Disclaimer: It should be noted that to quickly cover centuries of scientific evolutionary history, a lot of details had to be left out. In fact, I haven't even reached the actual point of this essay yet, so grand is the design, so I pause to assure the good readers here that a robust effort was made to ensure that the scientific Darwinian scholarship meets the exacting standards of unmoderated Internet research.
"It was because the Apocalyptists believed so firmly in this power which they possessed of looking into the deep things of God that they claimed to be able to measure the significance of what had happened in the past and of what was happening in the present; and upon the basis of this knowledge they believed that they also had the power, given them by God, of foreseeing the march of future events."
- W.O.E. Osterley D.D. (The Book Of Enoch, trans. by R.H. Charles - 1917 Edition, quote from introduction)
There was one exception to patriarchal power, at least in ancient times, and that was the important religious function of divination, which was considered to be an ability mainly found in women. The most famous were the Greek Oracles, like Pythia, the Priestess to Apollo at Delphi. Although there's many types of prophesiers, the most revered were the ones like Pythia, who was considered a conduit who transmitted messages from the Gods.
Oracles were important for the same reason that people today examine statistics, data, opinions, and tap into their intuition to try and predict the stock market, figure out what women actually think of them, where sociological trends are headed, and to bet correctly on sports, which is, they don't want to lose money. Some might claim that it's a logical process based on probabilities and trends, which would be true if the forecasts were always correct, but in actual practice, there's a few that have real intuitive abilities, and the rest just guess.
True Oracles were quite rare, as the punishment for making inaccurate predictions and revelations could be quite severe. Pythia could assume a certain level of power from being Apollo's priestess, but in the long run, she had to produce accurate revelation and predictions or possibly be forced into service as a Temple Prostitute. Perhaps then, it wasn't surprising that the messages delivered were generally poetic and cryptic in nature, and could be interpreted in different ways as needed to fit the situation (though to avoid the anger of the Gods, the predictions were rarely questioned).
How women came to dominate this area of divination possibly stems from an earlier era when religions had a stronger matriarchal influence, like the Greek religion in some regions before Zeus became the supreme God. The other main area of prediction, using "seers" who read bird signs, entrails and other physical methods, was dominated by male priests, but the two arts were rarely in conflict. The average female wasn't worth much in ancient times, but even a King had to step carefully around an Oracle.
...a long tradition...
Christianity has a long tradition of prophesy, though it's muted in the present day. One famous psychic in the 60s, Jeane Dixon, a devout Catholic, claimed to have received her powers from God, and was consulted by both Richard Nixon and Nancy Reagan.
Most of those who claimed to be psychics in the early Christian era, especially women, tended to tried and executed as witches who were in league with Satan (who not only needed legs again, but women assistants too), but there was a gray area where those who practiced divination could (sort of) escape the fury of the Church, or society.
One example was the practice of "historicism," or the use of bible passages and chapters, such as the apocalyptic Books of Daniel and Revelation, to explain current events and predict the future. One famous interpretation of the bible chapter known as Revelation, was cited by Protestants, Calvinists, and even famous personages as Sir Issac Newton, as proof that the Pope was the anti-Christ. This is disputed today by most Catholics.
...Daniel, the Biblical Oracle...
Another biblical figure, Daniel (Daniel 1:6) was a prototypical Oracle (aka prophet), who received direct messages (not chat messages) from God, as opposed to one who reads signs or observed phenomena to make prophesy (like a modern betting handicapper would). He served as an adviser to the Babylonian King, Nebuchadnezzar, his son and successor Belshazar, and finally Darius the Mede, King Of Persia.
The older Hebrew writings also touched on prophesy. An early work called The Book Of Enoch, which is now only considered canon by the Othodox Ethiopian Christian Church, contained a lot of predictions (and a section that was later incorporated into the New Testament). Early fragments have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and it remains a popular source text for Apocalyptists.
The most famous ancient Christian Prophets were generally men, which isn't surprising as almost all that kind of history was written by males. In recent decades, more women have became historians and writers and reclaimed their history, which is actually full of female prophets.
...Lady Eleanor Davies...
One such prophet was Lady Eleanor Davies, born in 1590, who lived in England and wrote over 60 pamphlets and poetic works of prophesy that were inspired by the Bible Books of Daniel and Revelation.
Like Daniel, Davies claimed to be a conduit for God's messages, but often used bible passages to point out parallels between current events and biblical prophesy. She'd be virtually unknown today if not for the efforts of women researchers who've brought her writings back into print (both in books and the Internet).
If it'd been up to her two husbands, who literally burned her manuscripts, and royal society, which at one point institutionalized her in Bedlam, and imprisoned her in the Tower of London, she'd have simply gone down in history as one of many women of the era who professed to be prophets but were characterized as heretics or lunatics.
Part of the reason that people, mainly men, didn't just try and execute her as a witch (the blanket term for a woman who was uppity or rebellious in an ungodly manner) or some such charge, was due to the fact that she was a propertied Lady, an aristocrat, which gave her a level of protection that a peasant wouldn't have had, and the other was that England didn't have a Spanish style Inquisition.
Although Lady Eleanor couldn't avoid imprisonment, she did eventually get released through the influence of friends and family, and like many nobles, didn't bother to pay any assessed fines. None of that appeared to break the spirit of this very headstrong and intelligent woman.
...a good record of success...
Her record as a prophet, both biblical and secular was pretty good, and she was an excellent poet. Davies also correctly predicted when her first husband would die, and that her second would become unable to function (probably a stroke). Both revelations came after each had burned her manuscripts.
In her words, "...where the book of mine was sacrificed by my first Husbands hand, thrown into the fire, whose Doom I gave him in letters of his own Name (John Davies, Joves Hand) within three years to expect the mortal blow; so put on my mourning garment from that time:when about three days before his sudden decease, before all his Servants and Friends at the table, gave him passé to take his long sleep, by him thus put off (note: phrase means 'he said'), 'I pray weep not when I am alive, and I will give you leave to laugh when I am dead.'" (Source: Prophetic Writings Of Lady Eleanor Davies, Edited by Ester Cope)
Though that may sound like the words of a Jezebel, by most accounts she did try to be a good wife. The conflicts were primarily over the conviction that she was a prophet chosen by God. To be fair, there were males who claimed the same thing and were prosecuted, though mainly for treasonous statements, but received considerably lighter sanctions from the law. Nostradamus, one of the most famous, escaped prosecution because he did his prophesy in France, which in the 1600s was a country that didn't always act as Catholic as the Pope would have liked.
...both husbands did the burn...
Both of Lady Eleanor's husbands knew what the manuscripts meant to her, and burning those works was an act that was only considered OK because the author was a woman. If they had done that to another male, it would have required the use of swords or pistols to settle the matter. A musician would understand; if you took his or her instrument and threw it into a fire, it'd probably inspire a song about your untimely passing.
She lived in an age where men had almost complete power over wives (they couldn't just shoot them so there was a limit), and the men's main reason for burning the manuscripts was due to a perception that the controversial writings affected their chances for advancement. Her feelings were about the matter were irrelevant, and she was dealt with in the same way a man would punish a child who got caught with a copy of Playboy magazine (particularly if the kid stole it from Dad).
However, the idea that strong (and possibly stubborn) women needed to be brought down a notch by emphasizing her lack of power is a sentiment that's survived well into modern times, and has been depicted often in the arts.
...one flew...
One good example is Ken Kesey's 1962 book, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, a modern classic that has anti-feminine overtones. The movie version makes it seem a fight against the "system," type deal, but in the book, it was no accident that the main villain and symbol of power that was a woman. The movie obscures that point, along with the fact that the story was actually told through the eyes of a Native American.
In the climactic scene, the hero named McMurphy forces his way into the office where the villain, Nurse Ratched was, along with other staff including the actual head of the department, the Doctor.
McMurphy knew better than to attack a male authority figure. Even when attacking Nurse Ratched, he couldn't attack authority until he'd first reduced her to a woman's status. So, his first act, was to tear the nurse's blouse open and expose her breasts to the other males in the room. The end result was the power structure remained, as the doctor wasn't touched, but the target of McMurphy's rage had lost any air of authority after being reduced to a beaten, half naked woman. If he'd have pulled the doctor's pants down, then attacked him, it'd have been called what it really was, a sexual assault to humiliate and assert dominance.
That was confirmed in a later passage, which read, "We all left the tub room and came out in the hall to meet her, to ask about McMurphy. She jumped back two steps when we approached, and I thought for a second she might run. Her face was bloated blue and out of shape on one side, closing one eye completely, and she had a heavy bandage around her throat. And a new white uniform. Some of the guys grinned at the front of it; in spite of its being smaller and tighter and more starched than her old uniforms, it could no longer conceal the fact that she was a woman."
...disclosure...
As a matter of disclosure, I was an admirer of the book in the 60s, and still am to a large extent. Ken Kesey's imagery about the oppression and control is brilliant, and the use of a Native American as the narrator was pure genius. However, the book's attitude towards women is basically a parallel to the Biblical Jezebel or Delilah archetypes which does weaken it's larger message about control and conformity.
The book is best read after the reader is alerted to potentially objectionable material, though an intro by an advocate describing the context would be fair. In this day and age, women and minorities do deserve to know ahead of time if a book contains negative stereotypes or language, particularly in a class room situation or if the reader is being asked to pay money for it.
An artist's freedom of expression and duty to the truth also requires having the moral courage to be clear about intent and message.
...a strong undercurrent...
One of the factors that could blunt Lady Eleanor's impact on modern women's literature and history is that her works have a strong religious undercurrent, which doesn't always play well in a secular age like today (except in the New Age movement which embraces divination or with those who admire figures such as Joan of Arc). Many modern Christians wouldn't be likely to approve either, given that fundamentalism is still a significant influence, and is generally hostile to divination (though not to the idea of an apocalypse).
Her poetry and prose, like many other works of that age, can have various literary devices in play, such as anagrams, complex imagery or symbolism, religious references, etc., which was often done to obscure the direct message or person being described (like the King, who might order the arrest of the writer for sedition). The result can be difficult for a modern reader to understand without footnotes but still be enjoyable as a pure reading experience.
Here's an example to illustrate that point; the excerpt is two verses from her "Given To The Elector Prince Charles Of The Rhine" in 1633, which alludes to the deaths of the King and Queen of Scotland, the latter being Mary, Queen Of Scots:
By star-light for device who gave,
as graven on his Shield,
An Eagle mounted on the Crest,
a Hart in silver field.
Extold again his God as high,
blessed him all his days:
Others reputes them as nothing,
alone proclaims his praise.
Whose seven times till served forth,
in vain for rest to crave,
Whom Devils Legions do possess,
a Monarch turn'd a Slave.
Deposed thus, thou knewest well,
Belshazzar, O his Son,
And renown'd so deliverance his
voyced by every one.
(Source: Prophetic Writings Of Lady Eleanor Davies, Edited by Ester Cope)
For comparison, here's a sample from Milton's "Paradise Lost," quoted is a passage that delineates Satan's rationale for his rebellion against God:
"Above his equals. Farewel happy Fields Where Joy for ever dwells: Hail horrours, hail Infernal world, and thou profoundest Hell Receive thy new Possessor: One who brings A mind not to be chang’d by Place or Time. The mind is its own place, and in it self Can make a Heav’n Hell, a Hell of Heav’n."
My point isn't that the two passages are similar in style (because as cryptic as both appear, there's notable differences in Lady Eleanor and Milton's intent and approach), but that her literary skill was on a par with male writers of that age. As far as their relative ranking, that's another matter, and each reader can develop their own opinion.
A modern writer can read both samples, and in my case, discern that Lady Eleanor had talent. I enjoyed reading her verse (and prose), which has a musical quality that was present in the best literature from that age. As with the Sistine Chapel ceiling painted by Michelangelo, one doesn't have to be religious to enjoy it as art.
...from the soul...
Lady Eleanor's works were certainly from the soul, and reflect her idea of truth during a time when people did their best to discourage or suppress it. It's an important window into that era, and the struggle to express herself, like all good writers, is reflected in her work. The poetry and writing created in such a crucible can provide insight on how expression can defy oppression and survive, and give the reader an understanding of how the artistic drive helped protect her self image and identity when so many tried to extinguish it.
Lady Eleanor Davies may or may not have found eternal life in heaven, but as they say, a soul can live forever through art, and that's how she found it on earth.
...Sherlock preferences...
The June 2020 blog entry described how I prefer to read the Sherlock Holmes stories, but didn't talk much about the big and small screen adaptations. The fact is, I stopped watching any about halfway through the excellent PBS series starring Jeremy Brett, which ran for 41 episodes from 1984-1994. Brett was probably the best screen Holmes, and probably the most accurate (at least in the critic's view), and my reasons for getting bored with the series had nothing to do with quality issues. The acting and production values were impeccable, and for many, it was the definitive portrait.
However, Brett had the same fatal flaw that all of the Holmes actors had; he wasn't Basil Rathbone. There were a few that were better actors, others that were more physically perfect for the part, and in the case of Brett, more meticulous in getting all the details right.
The thing about cinema is that it's a different medium than literature. The aesthetic isn't just visual, like with paintings or comic books. The energy is kinetic and at the center of it all is the actor's personality and charisma. Although one of the core principles is that the actor becomes the character, that's only partly true. Marlon Brando, for example, was always himself, no matter the role, and that's not a flaw. It's through his personality that the character is humanized and becomes more than a laundry list of traits and behaviors.
...Hollywood...
That's why Hollywood always tries to bring back the same actors in a sequel. Hollywood's all about money but it's not stupid. They'd bring back a cheaper cast if they could, but in any performance art, whether it's movies or music, if you change the players, it changes the chemistry and the product. People don't mind changes to the scenery and sets, but they want to see the people who brought that story to life.
That's probably an oversimplification of the dramatic aesthetic, but sufficient for the purposes of this blog entry and fits comfortably within internet standards of accuracy, which only requires one person for the citation of any fact, no matter how broad or outrageous the statement.
The reason Basil Rathbone is my ultimate Holmes is because he's the one saw as a kid. I saw the movies and heard rebroadcasts of the old radio shows even before reading the books.
It was said that when the producers at 20th Century Fox discussed filming the first film, The Hound Of The Baskervilles in 1939, there was no question of who'd play Holmes. Basil Rathbone was the first and only choice, though at the time, he was regarded as a good character actor rather than a leading man. That made him cheaper too, and thus even more ideal for the part.
In fact, in that first film, both Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, who played Watson, didn't even have top billing. The two main supporting actors were actually more well known to the movie public, though of course that changed after the success of the film.
...the big move...
After one more big budget production, the series moved to Universal Studios, and began a long run as a series of B films, which on average ran about 60 minutes. The studio had plenty of sets and costumes, so the Holmes series never looked cheaply made, and the shorter run time made for a tighter, faster moving plot with no filler. In fact, take away special effects extravaganzas, second unit scenery, car chases, irrelevant close ups, and the time consuming process of having a leading man seduce the leading lady and having sex, and one finds that most movies are just one hour flicks anyway.
The Sherlock Holmes movies were quite successful, and although a mixed blessing due to typecasting, both actors became household names and until Rathbone quit the series, there was really no question about finding someone else to play Holmes.
I remember articles about the legendary detective in the 70s, which tended to rank Rathbone in the middle of the pack of screen Holmes (and Nigel characterized as a buffoon who mainly provided comedy relief). Part of that was standard Hollywood revisionism, because Holmes movies were still coming out featuring actors such as Nicol Williamson in the "Seven Percent Solution" and due to the ever growing cult audience of Holmesians who put out books and like most experts, managed to drown the appeal of the stories in a morass of micro-detail and consensus-based dogma.
...good harmless fun...
All that canon creation was just good harmless fun, of course, no worse than anointing rock stars who'd just put out one album as living legends or "Bostonais" assuming New York Yankee fans are uncouth cretins, but it did create a feeling that there was such a thing as an accurate Holmes portrayal, which is arguable, but not necessarily in line with the actual stories by Arthur Conan Doyle.
Sherlock Holmes underwent a series of personality changes over the course of the Strand Magazine stories. He started off as a seemingly egotistical man who was eager to find cases to test his abilities, calmed down and became sure of his abilities to the point where he was happy to let Scotland Yard take the credit for the solved cases, went through a high strung, almost paranoid period because of his obsession with arch enemy, Professor Moriarty, and finally ended up as a quiet recluse in the final set of Strand stories.
There were constants that most of us know about; cocaine use, eccentricity, a close and fast friendship with Doctor Watson, who eventually married and only visited on occasion, the occasional flash of humor, and a lack of interest in women (with only one exception, the immortal Irene Adler).
...my dear Watson...
The most common controversy was over how Watson was portrayed, which in the 20th Century Fox and Universal Studio movies was as a man who always made wrong guesses (and corrected by Holmes) and provided almost all of the humorous moments. That was characterized as "bumbling" by critics and writers who were reviewing and discussing the later films that were all over the map in terms of accuracy but generally depicted Watson as a solid, good old English fellow.
Which wasn't the case in the Strand Stories and books. Watson made a lot of wrong guesses because he was supposed to, as a foil to showcase Holmes' genius. In the stories he displayed behavior that ranged from stolid normalcy to hilarious levels of irritation at his roomie's slovenly house keeping. More importantly, he sort of became the Great Detective's Boswell style biographer, who Conan Doyle implied was the actual author of the Strand Stories, and their discussions about those were used to illuminate Holmes' ideas and philosophy about his craft.
In other words, turning Watson into a straight man tended to create a dead spot in later movies, which wasn't the case when Nigel Bruce portrayed him.
...the obvious solution...
The various movies that started with The Seven Percent Solution were, as I've said, were all over the map. The Holmes character in the movie, "They Might Be Giants," was a man who thought he was the detective and may or may not have been insane. Another movie caused a stir when it implied that the Baker Street pair were gay, and it all only came down to earth with the PBS series with Jeremy Brett.
I never took any of that personally (as a Holmes enthusiast). If I didn't like the premise, then I just skipped the film or show. The reason is that, early on, I quit expecting Hollywood to do any written story or book in an accurate manner.
The basic reason a studio buys the movie rights is to tap into a ready made audience, have control of the story (so it can be changed), and to use the characters. There's a common sense reason to not literally interpret the book, as it's not a good idea to have an audience that already knows the ending. Trying to do it exactly like the book is not always practical, as the movie can get nitpicked to death by hard core fans who know every detail.
That wasn't a big deal before the internet, when the film company and movie theatre already had everyone's cash in hand before they could object to the changes, but nowadays a mistake or change in the details can be spotted and go viral. While there's no such thing as bad publicity, a trending complaint about a movie can turn off fans of the book, and getting them to come to the theatre is one of the reasons the producers spent the money on the rights in the first place.
...the last of the Mohican movies...
A good modern day example is the film, "Last Of The Mohicans," which came out in 1992, and starred Daniel Day Lewis. It was a great adventure film, with nice period costumes and sets, and full of charismatic performances by Lewis, Wes Studi, and others. It's a classic I saw once, enjoyed, and have never seen again and have no desire to.
The reason is simple; they butchered the book. I read Cooper's Last Of The Mohicans every few years, and enjoy parts of it now and then as casual reading. The most enjoyable character, for me, is Hawkeye, the Pathfinder, who was nothing like the Daniel Day Lewis character in the movie.
The book version of the Pathfinder is an older man, eccentric and basically feral, who loves to engage in long conversations that meander and shows a spiritual side that's as close to being a naturist pagan that a Christian can get and still be called devout. One of the characters in the book (who was omitted from the movie) was David, a young evangelist who engages in debates with the Pathfinder about the nature of God, which feature arguments that were surprisingly sophisticated for a book written in the 18th Century.
...the movie version...
The movie version of the Pathfinder was a 20th Century romance novel stud with long hair, who acted like a Scottish Rebel from the the Outlander TV series (which I like), and the two Mohicans were transformed from wise, intellectual warriors into a father and son Tonto team from the Lone Ranger TV show. That's a bit harsh, I admit, but to paraphrase Doctor Watson, when I see stuff like that, I begin to take on righteous airs.
But like I said, the 1992 film is a classic adventure, and deserved to be a hit, and I've always admired Daniel Day Lewis' acting genius. Like many Hollywood products, it's meant to be enjoyed for what it is.
There was one irritating review of the film in particular, which said that the movie brought new life into a "corny old book," and along with some other observations, made it clear to me that he hadn't really read the book, or if so, didn't remember all that much about it.
I remember writing a long rebuttal, but didn't send it because there was no point. The producers of the film knew what the book was about, so pointing out inaccuracies would have been a waste of time. They just wanted the basic story and name recognition, and they wanted it to be a vehicle to appeal to a modern crowd that wanted plenty of romance, action and Daniel Day Lewis. Hollywood does what it does, and it doesn't change the pleasure I get from the book.
...game of thrones...
If Cooper's Last Of The Mohicans had an audience like the Game Of Thrones crowd, then the producers would have made the characters truer to the book (more or less, Hollywood can only do so much), but as we've all seen, trying to please a crowd of nit pickers can be an impossible task. Heck, I'm still pissed about the final episode of Game of Thrones, I was a big Mother of Dragons fan!
But anyway, back to the movie Holmes. The thing about Basil Rathbone was that he seemed right for the part, even if the portrayal wasn't completely accurate. One reason is that, again, movies are a different medium than books; Rathbone's urbane personality, which could ramp up into high gear, thanks to his experience in Swashbuckler films, was perfect for the visual experience. Also, his voice was perfect for the part, which is why the radio version was popular.
Plus both he and Nigel Bruce were likable. Sure, Holmes was more irascible, and tightly wound in the books, but most people don't like to see that over the course of a whole movie. The idea that an entertainment medium has to make the audience uncomfortable isn't a mainstream concept. That's a valid notion for a smaller scale art or indie film, but the Sherlock films were made to entertain, and that's a whole different trip. The film world is big enough for both.
It'd be easy to get too wordy about the Rathbone films, as in my mind, it worked simply because they found the perfect guy. In fact, if you go into the Internet rabbit hole and read about Basil Rathbone, you'll find that decades down the line, a new generation has found him, thanks to the movies being free in YouTube, and while modern actors may be better (or hipper, etc.) than Basil Rathbone, all of them will have to work under the shadow of the one who got it right.
- Al Handa
The Al & Ivy Homeless Literary Journal Archive:
There are earlier blog entries on the Delta Snake Review section of this site that aren't on the On The Road page:
http://deltasnake.blogspot.com
http://deltasnake.blogspot.com
Cover Reveal For Hide In Plain Sight
This is the cover for the upcoming book, Hide In Plain Sight, hopefully out sometime in 2021.
-Al Handa
The American Primitive Acoustic Collection by Handa-McGraw International can be streamed on all of the major services, including Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon, and dozens of others.
The Music Of Handa-McGraw International can also be heard on the Electric Fog Factory on YouTube. You can hear the album, and dozens of unreleased cuts and demos, plus exclusive video ,of Ivy.
