Film Depictions of Sherlock Holmes: The Myth, The Man, The Mental
Sherlock Holmes is one of the most, if not most, recognized mystery-genre characters throughout history. The inquisitive private detective accompanied by his eager sidekick Watson has evolved long past his first appearance in 18th century London literature (A Study in Scarlet). The familiar structure of the character has massively grown in the niche of mystery. In literature, various other mystery books characters rose thereafter: the similar but American Dixon Hill, and in the younger generation, Nancy Drew. Alongside literature, Holmes also traversed the realm of film. Sherlock Holmes renditions through media were a large highlight of the 19th century and continue today. Through this paper, I intend to highlight three popular renditions of the London detective—Basil Rathbone, Jeremy Brett, and Benedict Cumberbatch—analyzing the way Doyle’s beloved character transformed through time and the mark each version left on Holmes’s current characterization. Through their contrasting depictions, Rathbone, Brett, and Cumberbatch depict Holmes as a symbolic icon, literary emotional subject, and a psychological construct respectively, allowing the character to persist and evolve through time.
Basil Rathbone (1939-1949), one of the first popularized portrayers of Holmes, was born in the early 19th century in a pre-WWII era. In The Hound of the Baskervilles (1939), he brings the Victorian-era Holmes to life through the characteristic deerstalker and wooden pipe. This perhaps, was the South African actor’s greatest addition to Holmes: the image. Rathbone existed on the cusp of film noir: the well-coveted, brooding style characterized by high contrast and deep shadows. His Holmes films thus encapsulated these elements to give the dramatic and moody style that merged with the emblem of the detective story. The popularization of movie viewing was in part the reason for the film’s success, as it gave a large audience for Rathbone’s character. Angular features, sleek hair, refined spoken intelligence, clinical logic, confident but aloof demeanor—this was the character that formed one of the first popular images of Holmes to the public. Rathbone represented Sherlock Holmes the myth: the romantic genius with an artistic flair. This image ingrained itself into the public consciousness, finding its way into public perception and even other media; for Star Trek’s character Data, for example, Brent Spiner often ingrained a Rathbone-esque depiction of Holmes in relevant episodes (Elementary, Dear Data). Though perhaps not the most accurate to the book, the duo of Sherlock and Watson portrayed more comedic than deep, Rathbone’s strength was playing Holmes to the public. The filmmakers evidently saw this trend as well, as past the first two films, the following 12 took on a “modern” (1940s) twist. The new films depicted a nation thrust into war, and the media that soon followed pursuit. Though they preserved the character of Holmes, the focus shifted instead to WWII anti-nationalism propaganda style depiction, which utilized their large public reach to promote these views: for example, in Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon (Barnes). This was a unique phenomenon that draws light to how characters of old can be used to promote modern ideals. Though not entirely accurate, Rathbone’s depiction of Holmes held the heart of the public and provided a visual to the character that had only since then lived in books.
Jeremy Brett (1984-1994) was the next and perhaps most lauded depiction of Holmes, known for his accuracy to the original character (Barnes). Depicted in the Granada Television series (Sherlock Holmes), this version of Holmes took advantage of the ever-popular mode of television, which caused film to be less of an exclusionary delight and more an everyday aspect of the household. Therefore, this character was able to have a much farther reach. Brett’s performance is well known to be the “gold standard” of Holmes’ character due to his incredible accuracy to the canon—to the man Sherlock Holmes himself. Physically, the costume remained; however, Brett conveyed Holmes with his body. Manic energy, intense gazes, energetic movement—he depicted the more frantic aspects of Holmes which had been glossed over in the previous romantic and brooding portrayal. Brett “became” Holmes through his use of method acting, a style in which the actor deeply ingrains themselves into the mind and life of the character, known for producing raw and authentic portrayals. Perhaps it was Holmes’ depth of character that so intrigued audiences: the constant oscillation from momentary ennui to frantic emotion depicted a more dynamic Holmes. His darker aspects, such as his depression and substance use, were also brought along through the character, giving the detective a more human persona.
Brett’s genius was how he became his character, so much so the actor reported contracting illness similar to the fictional detective. The accuracy was not only in the character of Holmes; there was also a more accurate depiction of Watson as the competent, intelligent doctor, rather than the endearing, bumbling fool. The pair is an important characterization, as it fully demonstrates the contrast between the frantic energy of Holmes and the steadfastness of Watson, the combination of which allows them to solve their cases. By focusing on mimicking the entirety of Holmes, from his neurotic mannerisms to his emotional states, Brett was able to provide a window into Doyle’s intended character, the humanity of Holmes shown through the complexity of character. This provided the public an almost identical film representation of the vision Doyle portrayed through his literature.
A multitude of Holmes characters erupted in the 21st century. One characteristic depiction was Benedict Cumberbatch in the TV show Sherlock (2010-2017), a modern take on the classic story. This version of Holmes appealed to the modern-day watcher and made way for a revival of the story, preceding many more film productions and actors (Johnny Lee Miller, Ian McKellen, Henry Cavill). Cumberbatch’s Holmes involves much more differences than the change of scenery; rather, it dove past the person and into the psyche of the man—arrogant, cold, and brilliant. Cumberbatch’s depiction focused more on the neurotic mannerisms and reserved aspects of Holmes, shown through his portrayal of emotional detachment, narcissism, and physical restlessness. The same relationship with Watson, as well as the physicality and intensity of movement and mannerisms, are the same as other depictions of Holmes; but seemed to be framed more as natural, uncontrollable needs rather than quirks. Cumberbatch’s Holmes was a more troubled Holmes, his brilliance an effect of his unstable internal workings. All and all, his character placed Holmes in the present world, demonstrating how this brilliant mystical figure would really be seen in the context of our own lives. Cumberbatch’s depiction of Holmes delves more into the mental profile, taking the mannerisms detailed by Doyle and expanding them psychologically. Gone are the romanticized versions of Holmes of the past, stripped away to show the mind the man is so lauded for, brilliance with abrasion. The character is often described as a sociopath, a nod to his darker, more difficult side. However, the majority interprets the character through a different lens; an interpretation of neurodivergence, inferred by his bluntness, hyperfocus on his interests, and difficulties with social conventions. It is an interesting discussion to be had: whether the character of Holmes had such tendencies written off as personality quirks in an era where mental differences were not well understood or seen in a positive light, and whether the characterization of these traits as negative and antisocial was merely ignorance on mental diversity in those times. There was mixed reception of this version of Holmes, many believing that the aloof nature of Holmes was overexaggerated and varied from more “correct” depictions of old. Could the colder, more abrasive take on Holmes be simply a modernization? Perhaps, or perhaps this was always the mind of Holmes, before too clouded by romantic aspects of literature and outdated views on the psyche.
Each version of Holmes evolved the character from his previous literary identity across times. Each Holmes character emulates aspects of the time period from which they come from—the brooding, alluring character of the early 1940s played into the romantic aspects of mystery & noir, in the early 90s shifting to a more humanistic and relatable portrayal, and finally, in the 21st-century version, a stark look at his psyche and inner workings. It is interesting to note the trend: as the character becomes more and more contemporary, the more analytical and less romantic his depictions become. This “zoom in” seems to have a negative aspect to it: from the hero to the troubled man, from mythic intelligence to mental instability caused by such brilliance. The cause of this is up for interpretation. Perhaps the true nature of Holmes’ character was lost through the constant revisions. Or perhaps, the true nature of Holmes comes out once free from the constraints of tradition. Some may believe Rathbone’s version too theatrical, others that Cumberbatch’s an overcorrection and exaggeration of the mental elements. The consensus, however, seems to be that Holmes himself lies in the middle: Brett’s depiction, both capturing his brilliance and personal problems. Despite this consensus, the changing depictions of Holmes through time shed an interesting light on how stories traverse time and cultures, and how creatures of myth evolve through the years. Stories are commonly re-adapted, demonstrated by the 150+ renditions of Romeo and Juliet or the 400+ feature films of Frankenstein. Retellings are how stories and characters survive the test of time, and with every retelling, there is bound to be change. Each version is different yet allows a deeper characterization of the character who was once just words on the page.
Is each version necessarily accurate to canon? No. However, the question becomes important. Adaptation theory, explored by Linda Hutcheon in her novel, highlights how creative adaptation is crucial for the existence of storytelling—not a destruction of creativity, but a necessary aspect of it (A Theory of Adaptation). Every Holmes was a reflection of his era and its purposes: Rathbone in placing the image of Holmes within anti-Nazi propaganda during WWII, Brett in bringing the classics back to life and expanding their reach through newly popularized network TV, and Cumberbatch providing a deep dive into the psyche of the mind the character has always been so lauded for. Instead of identifying a ‘best’ Holmes, the more fruitful discussion is the impact each actor has on the character himself. The examples of the Holmes characters prove this even more, as it is through these retellings that an 18th-century detective was able to survive the passage of time, becoming relatable to so many people and cultures. Thus, the public perception of Holmes grows richer with each adaptation, providing more depth and sustenance to the elusive detective, who will—if trends persist—continue to live on through the generations.
Bibliography
Barnes, Alan, and Steven Moffat. Sherlock Holmes on Screen: The Complete Film and TV
History. Titan Books (UK), 2012.
Doyle, Arthur Conan. A Study in Scarlet. 1887.
“Elementary, Dear Data.” Star Trek: The Next Generation, written by Brian Alan Lane, directed
by Rob Bowman, Paramount Television, 1988.
Hutcheon, Linda. Theory of Adaptation. Taylor and Francis, 2014.
Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat, creators. Sherlock. Performance by Benedict
Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman, Hartswood Films, BBC Wales, WGBH, 2010-2017.
Michael Cox, creator. Sherlock Holmes. Performance by Jeremy Brett, Granada Television,
1984-1994.
The Hound of the Baskervilles. Directed by Sidney Lanfield, performances by Basil Rathbone,
Nigel Bruce, Richard Green, and Wendy Barrie, 20th Century Fox, 1939.
Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon. Directed by Roy William Neill, performances by Basil
Rathbone, Nigel Bruce, and Lionell Atwill, Universal Pictures, 1942.
Nadia Gitau is an undergraduate student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison studying Neurobiology and Philosophy, with a strong passion for film and media. Her work explores themes of translational literature, cultural relativity, and contemporary reinterpretations of historical texts. Outside of academics, she enjoys creative writing, photography, and violin performance. Her interdisciplinary interests demonstrate a commitment to exploring how narrative and interpretation shape the human experience.