The Seven Per Cent Solution
Yesterday I finished re-reading this famous Sherlock Holmes story by Nicholas Meyer, published in 1974, and was feeling rather confused about certain elements. After also re-watching the 1976 film of the same name today, I now understand why!
The basic premise in both versions of The Seven Per Cent Solution is the same: that Professor Moriarty, although a real person, is Napoleon of crime only in Sherlock’s own imagination, created during cocaine-fuelled state. Doctor Watson and brother Mycroft Holmes conspire to lure Sherlock to Vienna, using the coerced Moriarty as bait, in order that Sigmund Freud might employ new methods involving hypnosis to cure the consulting detective of his addiction. Whilst there, a case comes up involving the kidnapping of a woman which all three solve together.
In both versions, Professor Moriarty has been the Holmes brothers’ mathematics tutor. In the original book there was a scandal in which Holmes Senior shoots both his unfaithful wife and her lover. Moriarty is not the cause of the scandal, only the messenger who brings the bad news to the boys - although elder brother Mycroft seems to have some sort of hold over his old tutor, so perhaps Moriarty had been facilitating the infidelity in some way. However, in the film, Moriarty is revealed to have been the actual lover, escaped unscathed - which certainly makes a much stronger case for the hatred Holmes feels for the man. Freud naturally deduces that Sherlock’s general misogyny stems from this incident, also his career choice, reason for turning to cocaine, and subsequent creation of his own imaginary archenemy.
The kidnapping case, and villain(s) committing the offence is/are entirely different from book to film in almost all aspects, and the film ends with the suggestion that Holmes spent at least a part of his hiatus years in the company of the beautiful, red-headed woman whom he has rescued. Even if she is played by Vanessa Redgrave, I found this totally unacceptable! That a Holmes who throughout the film has shown his usual disinterest in the female sex should suddenly welcome the audacious advances of an auburn demi-monde seems improbable at the very least - but then again, perhaps not impossible.))
Both book and film involve an unusual settling of scores by tennis match, and a very exciting train chase with duelling on carriage rooftops and a villain’s lack of backhand being his downfall.
The film is memorable for the physically blonde Sherlock Holmes played with otherwise faithful sensitivity by the late Nicol Williamson; the wonderful Charles Gray as an incisive and canonically correct corpulent Mycroft - a role he of course reprised opposite Jeremy Brett for the Granada series; a mostly meek Moriarty played by Laurence Olivier: the virile but oddly-accented Watson portrayed by Robert Duvall, a small role as a railwayman for the always delightful John Bird, and a strongly endearing Sigmund Freud played by Alan Arkin.
I am pleased to report that in the film, the omission of Freud’s antiquities collection so clear to me in the novel has been rectified, and the carpet-covered consulting couch is also in evidence. My only complaint décor-wise was the over-pink and frilly taste of Mrs John Watson, née Mary Morstan, evident in the early scenes set in the Watsons’ supposed matrimonial home. Only a strong man could live in such surroundings without becoming entirely emasculated. Somehow Robert Duvall manages to maintain the doctor’s dignity, but memories of Robert Downey Jr’s dire warnings to Jude Law of doilies and other detestable dainties of domesticity in the first Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes film spring amusingly to mind. ))
The film version also corrects an inaccuracy from the book, in that Anna Freud was not born until 1895 - four years after this story is supposed to have taken place. In point of fact, Anna was the youngest of six Freud family children, comprising two girls and four boys. In the book, young Anna is instrumental in aiding Sherlock's recovery. In the film the only child seen in the household is one young boy, but he plays no role.
Given the screenplay was adapted by the original author of the book, Nicholas Meyer, I do wonder why the case within was altered so much? From a story about a will, impersonation and the armament of Europe, it was turned into a sexed-up tale involving an actress, a baron with gambling debts and a pasha wanting a redhead for his harem! Doubtless a more glamorous, less politically sensitive adventure was wanted. In any event, both versions are entirely enjoyable in their own way.
The basic premise in both versions of The Seven Per Cent Solution is the same: that Professor Moriarty, although a real person, is Napoleon of crime only in Sherlock’s own imagination, created during cocaine-fuelled state. Doctor Watson and brother Mycroft Holmes conspire to lure Sherlock to Vienna, using the coerced Moriarty as bait, in order that Sigmund Freud might employ new methods involving hypnosis to cure the consulting detective of his addiction. Whilst there, a case comes up involving the kidnapping of a woman which all three solve together.
In both versions, Professor Moriarty has been the Holmes brothers’ mathematics tutor. In the original book there was a scandal in which Holmes Senior shoots both his unfaithful wife and her lover. Moriarty is not the cause of the scandal, only the messenger who brings the bad news to the boys - although elder brother Mycroft seems to have some sort of hold over his old tutor, so perhaps Moriarty had been facilitating the infidelity in some way. However, in the film, Moriarty is revealed to have been the actual lover, escaped unscathed - which certainly makes a much stronger case for the hatred Holmes feels for the man. Freud naturally deduces that Sherlock’s general misogyny stems from this incident, also his career choice, reason for turning to cocaine, and subsequent creation of his own imaginary archenemy.
The kidnapping case, and villain(s) committing the offence is/are entirely different from book to film in almost all aspects, and the film ends with the suggestion that Holmes spent at least a part of his hiatus years in the company of the beautiful, red-headed woman whom he has rescued. Even if she is played by Vanessa Redgrave, I found this totally unacceptable! That a Holmes who throughout the film has shown his usual disinterest in the female sex should suddenly welcome the audacious advances of an auburn demi-monde seems improbable at the very least - but then again, perhaps not impossible.))
Both book and film involve an unusual settling of scores by tennis match, and a very exciting train chase with duelling on carriage rooftops and a villain’s lack of backhand being his downfall.
The film is memorable for the physically blonde Sherlock Holmes played with otherwise faithful sensitivity by the late Nicol Williamson; the wonderful Charles Gray as an incisive and canonically correct corpulent Mycroft - a role he of course reprised opposite Jeremy Brett for the Granada series; a mostly meek Moriarty played by Laurence Olivier: the virile but oddly-accented Watson portrayed by Robert Duvall, a small role as a railwayman for the always delightful John Bird, and a strongly endearing Sigmund Freud played by Alan Arkin.
I am pleased to report that in the film, the omission of Freud’s antiquities collection so clear to me in the novel has been rectified, and the carpet-covered consulting couch is also in evidence. My only complaint décor-wise was the over-pink and frilly taste of Mrs John Watson, née Mary Morstan, evident in the early scenes set in the Watsons’ supposed matrimonial home. Only a strong man could live in such surroundings without becoming entirely emasculated. Somehow Robert Duvall manages to maintain the doctor’s dignity, but memories of Robert Downey Jr’s dire warnings to Jude Law of doilies and other detestable dainties of domesticity in the first Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes film spring amusingly to mind. ))
The film version also corrects an inaccuracy from the book, in that Anna Freud was not born until 1895 - four years after this story is supposed to have taken place. In point of fact, Anna was the youngest of six Freud family children, comprising two girls and four boys. In the book, young Anna is instrumental in aiding Sherlock's recovery. In the film the only child seen in the household is one young boy, but he plays no role.
Given the screenplay was adapted by the original author of the book, Nicholas Meyer, I do wonder why the case within was altered so much? From a story about a will, impersonation and the armament of Europe, it was turned into a sexed-up tale involving an actress, a baron with gambling debts and a pasha wanting a redhead for his harem! Doubtless a more glamorous, less politically sensitive adventure was wanted. In any event, both versions are entirely enjoyable in their own way.