![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ink_n_impSaw Sherlock Holmes Christmas Eve at midnight—you know you're far too invested in a series when you skip Midnight Mass for it.
I do consider myself a Sherlockian. Four years ago the amount of detail I could quote to you about each of the tales, of the "world" of Victorian England, and of the characters' respective backgrounds would probably make you smile, nod, and back away slowly. I could argue how many wives Watson had (I throw down for 3), where his bullet wound was (I say he was kneeling down, and the bullet passed throw his shoulder, hitting him in the leg. THERE. PROBLEM OF CONTINUITY SOLVED.) I am a bit rusty now, but I can still hold my own in "The Game".
However, I've ALWAYS been one for the crackier aspects of Sherlock Holmes canon; like, Rex Stout's 1941 speech upon how Watson, was in fact, a woman, or how Sherlock Holmes was in actuality, a Vulcan ancestor of Mr. Spock, or just the simple notion that Watson DOESN'T HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED A RELIABLE NARRATOR.
SHOCKING, I know.
If you are a tried-and-true purist for the Canon, go back to your sitting room, curl up with your pipe and tantalus and pretend like this movie doesn't exist, because you will HATE IT. You will hate it with the fiery passion of a thousand fistfights at Reichenbach Falls.
If, however, you are like me—who love a good, energetic retelling by people who OBVIOUSLY know their canon well and yet want to gleefully play with it, muss up it's perfectly parted and slicked down hair and blow some shit up in the process--
Well, then, what's stopping you?
I think my years of being corrupted by fandom, there's a lot I've learned to forgive by way of characterization, as long as you make me fall in love with the characters and the setting. People claim RDJ's Holmes is NOT Holmes. But the more I think upon it, the more I think "Wait, wait; he is—in a fashion".
Robert Downey Jr.'s Holmes is the distillation of all those manic, leaping-over-sofas-in-his-excitement moments Jeremy Brett exhibited in his depiction of Holmes, and multiplied. He's the Holmes Watson can snark at as a friend and a doctor. I could ENTIRELY see this Holmes and this Watson arguing over his cocaine use, perhaps more than I could with the other Holmes interpretations. I could easily imagine their first meeting in that chemistry lab, the tip toeing around each other as new flat-mates, and the whirlwind of Holmes dragging Watson on that first adventure.
People argue this isn't Holmes because he's too personably in this movie, too wacky in his eccentricities (too much like RDJ's other characters). I argue he is so personable, so wacky, because we see him not with a client, not with strangers, but with his usual sorts. The people he is comfortable with. Watson, Mrs. Hudson, Lestrade, even Irene Alder (Which I argue is more a flirtation of wits than of romance, at least for him). This is his world, and here he is king. I think if we had more client consultations, more interviews in "respectable" society, we might see that "traditional" Holmes.
In this movie, we see Sherlock in one of his manic highs—even when Watson goes to the apartment, and Sherlock is moping about, that is not one of his true lows. That scene felt more like Holmes' milking the scene so to speak, trying twisting the old emotional knife in Watson's heart—which Watson smartly calls bullshit on. No, the whole movie Sherlock is brimming with manic energy, that need to solve the case, win Watson back, prove his methods etc etc. I think in the sequel we could easily see that more traditional "serious" Holmes, I think we could see a true depression low, but for now, I like the manic high.
I think we've gotten snooty in our Holmes' depictions, thanks to Basil Rathbone. The first time I watched Jeremy Brett, I was FLOORED that he SMILED. Leapt over Furniture. Appeared to HONESTLY REGARD WATSON AS A FRIEND.
MIND BOGGLING.
The movie isn't perfect by any means—far too long, for one; it could have been compressed a bit. But the creation of Victorian London was to die for. I enjoyed the Macguffin, even though the villain was…well, I giggled more than I should have, probably. I think it was because he LOOKED more like a Sherlock Holmes than RDJ ever could.
I approve of the inclusions of Mary and Irene, though I feel that Mary, for all the smallness of her role, complimented the other roles better. Irene had a tinge of a feeling that she didn't quite belong, and perhaps rightly so. I did enjoy her criminal competency, however.
Words can not contain my love for Jude Law in his role as Watson. Spot On, Sir.
You know, people have the gall to claim that the problem with Watson in this movie was that he was too much of an equal to Holmes? Again, I think we've gotten snooty in how we view the characters. Watson was an intelligent, handsome doctor, who only looked dull-minded because he was standing next to Holmes. But in the stories, Holmes does acknowledge at times that Watson is using his intellect and Holmes' methods to good use. Watson may not be able to go theory-for-theory with Holmes--for who can truly keep up with that mind?--but he can hold his own, offer his own insights and experiences, and be side-by-side with Holmes as the solution is reached. Watson is not an equal to Holmes, but a perfect compliment. WHICH HE IS IN THIS MOVIE.
In Conclusion: Please sir, I'd like some more.
I do consider myself a Sherlockian. Four years ago the amount of detail I could quote to you about each of the tales, of the "world" of Victorian England, and of the characters' respective backgrounds would probably make you smile, nod, and back away slowly. I could argue how many wives Watson had (I throw down for 3), where his bullet wound was (I say he was kneeling down, and the bullet passed throw his shoulder, hitting him in the leg. THERE. PROBLEM OF CONTINUITY SOLVED.) I am a bit rusty now, but I can still hold my own in "The Game".
However, I've ALWAYS been one for the crackier aspects of Sherlock Holmes canon; like, Rex Stout's 1941 speech upon how Watson, was in fact, a woman, or how Sherlock Holmes was in actuality, a Vulcan ancestor of Mr. Spock, or just the simple notion that Watson DOESN'T HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED A RELIABLE NARRATOR.
SHOCKING, I know.
If you are a tried-and-true purist for the Canon, go back to your sitting room, curl up with your pipe and tantalus and pretend like this movie doesn't exist, because you will HATE IT. You will hate it with the fiery passion of a thousand fistfights at Reichenbach Falls.
If, however, you are like me—who love a good, energetic retelling by people who OBVIOUSLY know their canon well and yet want to gleefully play with it, muss up it's perfectly parted and slicked down hair and blow some shit up in the process--
Well, then, what's stopping you?
I think my years of being corrupted by fandom, there's a lot I've learned to forgive by way of characterization, as long as you make me fall in love with the characters and the setting. People claim RDJ's Holmes is NOT Holmes. But the more I think upon it, the more I think "Wait, wait; he is—in a fashion".
Robert Downey Jr.'s Holmes is the distillation of all those manic, leaping-over-sofas-in-his-excitement moments Jeremy Brett exhibited in his depiction of Holmes, and multiplied. He's the Holmes Watson can snark at as a friend and a doctor. I could ENTIRELY see this Holmes and this Watson arguing over his cocaine use, perhaps more than I could with the other Holmes interpretations. I could easily imagine their first meeting in that chemistry lab, the tip toeing around each other as new flat-mates, and the whirlwind of Holmes dragging Watson on that first adventure.
People argue this isn't Holmes because he's too personably in this movie, too wacky in his eccentricities (too much like RDJ's other characters). I argue he is so personable, so wacky, because we see him not with a client, not with strangers, but with his usual sorts. The people he is comfortable with. Watson, Mrs. Hudson, Lestrade, even Irene Alder (Which I argue is more a flirtation of wits than of romance, at least for him). This is his world, and here he is king. I think if we had more client consultations, more interviews in "respectable" society, we might see that "traditional" Holmes.
In this movie, we see Sherlock in one of his manic highs—even when Watson goes to the apartment, and Sherlock is moping about, that is not one of his true lows. That scene felt more like Holmes' milking the scene so to speak, trying twisting the old emotional knife in Watson's heart—which Watson smartly calls bullshit on. No, the whole movie Sherlock is brimming with manic energy, that need to solve the case, win Watson back, prove his methods etc etc. I think in the sequel we could easily see that more traditional "serious" Holmes, I think we could see a true depression low, but for now, I like the manic high.
I think we've gotten snooty in our Holmes' depictions, thanks to Basil Rathbone. The first time I watched Jeremy Brett, I was FLOORED that he SMILED. Leapt over Furniture. Appeared to HONESTLY REGARD WATSON AS A FRIEND.
MIND BOGGLING.
The movie isn't perfect by any means—far too long, for one; it could have been compressed a bit. But the creation of Victorian London was to die for. I enjoyed the Macguffin, even though the villain was…well, I giggled more than I should have, probably. I think it was because he LOOKED more like a Sherlock Holmes than RDJ ever could.
I approve of the inclusions of Mary and Irene, though I feel that Mary, for all the smallness of her role, complimented the other roles better. Irene had a tinge of a feeling that she didn't quite belong, and perhaps rightly so. I did enjoy her criminal competency, however.
Words can not contain my love for Jude Law in his role as Watson. Spot On, Sir.
You know, people have the gall to claim that the problem with Watson in this movie was that he was too much of an equal to Holmes? Again, I think we've gotten snooty in how we view the characters. Watson was an intelligent, handsome doctor, who only looked dull-minded because he was standing next to Holmes. But in the stories, Holmes does acknowledge at times that Watson is using his intellect and Holmes' methods to good use. Watson may not be able to go theory-for-theory with Holmes--for who can truly keep up with that mind?--but he can hold his own, offer his own insights and experiences, and be side-by-side with Holmes as the solution is reached. Watson is not an equal to Holmes, but a perfect compliment. WHICH HE IS IN THIS MOVIE.
In Conclusion: Please sir, I'd like some more.
