This was certainly one the better episodes; containing a beautiful and modest damsel in direst need of male protection from an extraordinary eccentric overbearing brutal villain who is faced up to by Holmes (Jeremy Brett) at his coolest and most urbane. The damsel is, by a mere hair, saved and the villain receives not a hair less than his just desserts. A thrilling, chilling full-blooded and most satisfying rendering of Conan Doyle's story.
But of all the Watsons there have been, from the elderly duffer and comic buffoon (Nigel Bruce in the 1940s' film versions) to younger and smarter ones, I can never reconcile myself to David Burke. A respected actor but as Watson he always gives - or perhaps was asked to give - too broad a performance with an absolute absence of nuance, rather as if in a boistrous stage farce. Holmes was of course a consummate judge of character and that, we must presume, included the person he wished to have as his close companion both at times of highest challenge and at times when he was at his lowest ebb. Holmes was an obsessive and a loner who struggled with his demons. So outstanding were his intellectual powers that he had no need of lesser brains - there were very few indeed he considered his equal - Moriarty, "The Woman" and perhaps in a different way, his brother Mycroft. Foreign royalty, the Prime Minister came to him on questions of ultimate importance. Holmes is under no misapprehension about his own abilities. That is the point of Holmes - at what he does he is the best. David Burke's quirky Watson sometimes tries to outguess Holmes. I do think that Holmes would have found such a Watson both extremely irritating and a liability. Edward Hardwicke in contrast is all those things that Holmes needed: completely predictable, utterly dedicated and loyal, never ever challenging but tactfully doing the decent thing when Holmes' manners and sensitivity to others feelings were lacking. It is in fact a portrayal of a successful marriage where one is brilliant, difficult, histrionic and uncompromising and the other is quiet supportive and understanding. It is the only kind of relationship Holmes would have needed or wanted.
But of all the Watsons there have been, from the elderly duffer and comic buffoon (Nigel Bruce in the 1940s' film versions) to younger and smarter ones, I can never reconcile myself to David Burke. A respected actor but as Watson he always gives - or perhaps was asked to give - too broad a performance with an absolute absence of nuance, rather as if in a boistrous stage farce. Holmes was of course a consummate judge of character and that, we must presume, included the person he wished to have as his close companion both at times of highest challenge and at times when he was at his lowest ebb. Holmes was an obsessive and a loner who struggled with his demons. So outstanding were his intellectual powers that he had no need of lesser brains - there were very few indeed he considered his equal - Moriarty, "The Woman" and perhaps in a different way, his brother Mycroft. Foreign royalty, the Prime Minister came to him on questions of ultimate importance. Holmes is under no misapprehension about his own abilities. That is the point of Holmes - at what he does he is the best. David Burke's quirky Watson sometimes tries to outguess Holmes. I do think that Holmes would have found such a Watson both extremely irritating and a liability. Edward Hardwicke in contrast is all those things that Holmes needed: completely predictable, utterly dedicated and loyal, never ever challenging but tactfully doing the decent thing when Holmes' manners and sensitivity to others feelings were lacking. It is in fact a portrayal of a successful marriage where one is brilliant, difficult, histrionic and uncompromising and the other is quiet supportive and understanding. It is the only kind of relationship Holmes would have needed or wanted.