Directed by Guy Richie
There have been many incarnations of Sherlock Holmes on film, dating back to a 1905 movie presumed lost to the ages. He has been played infamously by the likes of Basil Rathbone and Peter Cushing, and has always been a reflection of the times, even if all of his adventures were written for the 19th century. During World War Two, Holmes became a reflection of allied sentiment, literally being updated to take on the Nazis. In 1970, filmmaking giant Billy (The Apartment, Some Like it Hot) Wilder showed us “The Secret Life of Sherlock Holmes” imbuing the film with an anti-government skew and the character with a drug addled side that existed in the source material but had been washed over in cinematic adaptations.
Guy Richie, along with his cast and crew, has brought us the 21st century’s Holmes in the form of Robert Downey, Jr., himself infamous for addictions and redemptions through his talent and craft. It is precisely this which makes Downey believable in the role, a bit more “pipe” than “deerskin cap”. In fact, a hat has been mostly forgotten all together, something that was quite a faux pas during this time but fits with Holmes being the slovenly man removed from the world that he is. Also adapted is Holmes’ trusty sidekick Dr. Watson (Jude Law), who along with his partner has been de-aged, a move that somewhat indicates a shift from an era of “wisdom of the elders” to a dominating youth culture (thankfully this isn’t ‘Young Sherlock Holmes’, though). Watson, who has traditionally been portrayed as bumbling, portly, or both, also follows the Billy Wilder route by being a much more respectable and able person (something that this reviewer had always observed in the novels as well). He is a veteran of colonial wars, a talented doctor, and a scholar of Holmes’ adventures out of psychological curiosity and allegiance.
The film leans heavily on the brotherly allegiance of Watson and Holmes rather than coming from a place of Watson’s infinite curiosity. In fact, the film is set during a “prequel” moment of sorts where their mutual bachelorhood comes to an end as Watson moves out of Baker Street and gets engaged. That is, we assume he does, because the ring gets left at the scene of a battle and the issue is never once mentioned again. This is one of many proofs that instead of being from Watson’s recollections on paper as the adventures are in the books, this film makes quite an effort to make us live in Holmes’ head, not Watson’s (though several references are made to Watson keeping notes and journals). Watson personal feelings are very much disregarded by Holmes on many occasions, a petty competition he has to keep Watson at his side because of Holmes’ infinite loneliness and the individualistic face he has to put on for the world. The film does include the one female Holmes finds himself drawn to, Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), but you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to see that they can never be together and she will never provide the companionship that someone like Watson provides (non-sexually, of course).
As we are now living in Holmes’ head, we get a peek into his thought processes, mostly in the form of his fighting strategies. Though there is textual support for Holmes’ combative abilities, I would only imagine that he would be the type to be frustrated by his physical body not being able to keep up with his mind, but this is not the case here. The film shows us twice how he plans out his series of moves in slow motion and then implements them in rapid succession, a chance for director Richie to combine Holmes with his Pikey boxer Mickey O’Neil (Brad Pitt) from Snatch. I would assume we are only shown this breaking down of the world around him from inside his mind in regards to battle simply because as an audience we are already aware of his ability to do this with other problems, but perhaps that is giving this film too much credit.
The pace that the film sets in its first act is astonishingly brisk and captivating, something which they try to sustain through the two hour-plus running time, thought it falls somewhat in the final act. That is not to mention that the whole experience is itself a clever ruse, meant to make us believe we have seen a more exciting plot than what is actually on screen (the world’s first chemical bomb?). The film tries so hard to pride itself on tying up loose ends, to the point where keeping track mentally of the explanations for Lord Blackwood’s (Mark Strong) nefarious deeds leaves only one aspect (literally) dangling, and the film tacks on a dénouement to cover that. However, it doesn’t explain the woman writhing at the outset of the film, who we are led to believe is under some spell of possession nor the five other murders which presumably happened in much the same way. Eddie Marsan’s Inspector Lestrade also goes against character and his orders to help Holmes in the end for some reason as well and of course there is the matter of Watson’s relationship, but the film seems to throw up a big “who cares?” and tacks that issue on as well in the end.
The film is so confident in a sequel that it is set to launch into another adventure when the credits go up. I can only hope that despite the film’s flaws that it does in fact materialize. Much like recent comic book-based films, the first film takes its time to set up the world we now inhabit and the sequel gives the breathing room to enjoy the characters that have endeared themselves to us. One cannot fault Holmes’ newfound fighting skills, again making more comic book than novel, because he is as stated ever again a reflection of our times.
*** Three Stars – Take it or leave it
Sherlock Holmes is in theaters now. Robert Downey Jr. won the Golden Globe for Best Actor - Comedy/Musical for his performance.
No comments:
Post a Comment