MovieChat Forums > The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959) Discussion > Guns? Holmes don't need no stinking guns...

Guns? Holmes don't need no stinking guns!


I may be waaaay off base here, because I have no first-hand knowledge of Holmes except through references from other sources in popular culture. But Did Conan Doyle write Holmes and Watson to have and use guns as they had here? Did Basil Rathbone as Holmes ever use a gun? Because when Watson and Holmes pull out their guns about half a dozen times in the movie, I was taken aback. A gun? Holmes is pure intellect! (Or at least that's what popular culture would have me believe.)

I couldn't believe all the "gunplay" in the movie. Was this accurate to either the novels or the first series of movies?




I asked the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

reply

There are many references in the stories to Watson being told to bring along his service revolver, although it was seldom used.

Rathbone is seen brandishing a pistol on several occassions, and Jeremy Brett did so at least once or twice. There is one publicity shot of Brett as Holmes with a pistol in a rather Bondian pose.

But I agree that intelect was the thing rather than violent action for Holmes. However as a big Holmes fan, I think I'm in a minority who feel that he could be used as the central character in a great Victorian adventure/mystery film. I wonder if the proposed new feature might go that route.

reply

Thanks for the reply and the info. It doesn't change the way I feel though. This guy should not have a gun. It definitely takes away from his character.




I asked the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

reply

You're welcome, and no, I don't disagree with you. The Rathbone films were often set in the 40s with him fighting the Nazis, so that is a very different context, but in the victorian films, having Holmes and Watson regularly run about with guns does somewhat deminish the character. Its been a while since I saw the 1959 Hound though, so I can't really give a fair comment on that specifically.

I still do think Holmes can be set in an action context, but it has to be balanced with mystery elements, which it is here, and really exceptional circumstances, which I'm not so sure about here as you describe it.

As I said though, I think I'm in a minority in feeling this. For most fans I suspect, action always detracts, and Holmes should be pure intelect. In my defence, I would point out that Holmes in the stories is portrayed as a preeminent boxer and fencer, and Watson's service revolver is often close at hand (although very seldom used) so a degree of an action background isn't totally out of character.

But your point that Holmes and Watson shouldn't be routinely running around with guns is well taken. They did always shoot the hound though.

reply

Not to be overly critical about it, but isn't it sort of odd to be declaring what's in or out of character, when the character's creator is the person that put the guns there in the first place?

At any rate, other than that I'm in complete agreement with you (as was Conan Doyle, for the most part, judging from the literature). The Holmes stories were mainly logic- rather than action-driven. The guns were there as a precaution and for defense; they were used only on a few occasions as last resorts. Holmes and Watson never set out to gun someone down, only to prevent someone else (most notably themselves!) from being hurt, and perhaps used as "persuasion." (As to the Hound, specifically, bear in mind that Holmes knew he was facing, not a human to be reasoned with or outsmarted, but a vicious animal...I don't blame him for the gun in this case, at all!)

On the other hand, I'm not so sure you could definitively say that Holmes wasn't a man of action. Sure, in "A Study in Scarlet" (the first Holmes novelette) and a number of others Holmes practically solves the whole thing without leaving his chair, but in plenty of others there comes the time of action, the pregnant time when immediate intervention is needed ("The Speckled Band," "The Red-Headed League," and Hound, among many others). These were, of course, not action stories in the sense of H. Rider Haggard or Talbot Mundy, but they certainly involved more than just another pipeful of tobacco!

reply

"Not to be overly critical about it, but isn't it sort of odd to be declaring what's in or out of character, when the character's creator is the person that put the guns there in the first place?"

Heh, heh, point taken. But I'm glad you agree with me anyway.





I asked the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

reply

Even with the little I know of Sherlock Holmes, I can confirm that yes, in the stories, Sherlock Holmes carried a short barrelled, revolver, chambered in a .45 British pistol round. The British manufactured a variety of revolvers chambered in varying cartridge lengths for .45 and some .44 calibers. The British versions of their .45 rounds were often shorter cased than the later American .45 ACP. That said, it was rare for Sherlock Holmes to fire his revolver. Doctor Watson also carried his British Army service revolver. It was common practice at that time for British officers to purchase and carry their own service pistols.

Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson carried revolvers strictly for last resort self-defense. Both men were realistic and practical enough to accept they were only mortal men and might confront extremely dangerous and well-armed criminals and foes. This was reflected in the later century when modern day detectives carried small to medium frame revolvers and then pocket automatics for typical self-defense when tracking down criminals.

I can't tell anyone in further detail about the physical specifications of Sherlock Holmes' revolver. I'm guessing the barrel was between three and four inches. The revolver must have typically held 6 cartridges, but it's highly possible that it was a 5-cartridge revolver because the books always refer to Holmes slipping the revolver into one of his pockets. Six-cartridge revolvers chambered for .45 diameter bullets are wide in width. That would also encourage a shorter, say, 3-inch barrel. Shorter revolver barrels are almost non-existent in the late 19th century. It's not to say short barrelled revolvers didn't exist in Holmes time of circa, 1888, but I never found photographs or references to any. Every relic and museum photo I've seen in books on late 19th century revolvers shows at least 3 inch barrels and longer. Therefore the most likely revolver desription would be a 3-inch barrel, 5-round capacity, and a small revolver frame, at least the smallest possible for a .45 caliber type revolver of the day.

reply

In the stories Holmes often carried a gun, but he was a master of the oriental fighting art of Baritsu (whatever the heck that was) and a skilled stick fighter, so guns were a last ditch resort. He did have a habit of using the wall of his apartment for target practice.

Watson was a crack shot, as was his second greatest enemy, Colonel Sebastian Moran with his deadly silent air rifle.

reply