cinema, Sherlock Holmes (2009) film
The great detective himself would probably have no trouble or compunction in tumbling this film like a house of cards with a few well-spoken barbs, but I have neither the wit or desire to point up all the film's faults in as few and precise words as he. The main point for me is, as always, how arrogant Hollywood writers are to believe they can write a better story than Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (or many other great authors, in fact). Time and again we see adaptations that don't simply fall short of the original concepts, but deliberately take a different tack, contemporising, simplifying, draining the magic. It must be as simple as "we're not writing a book, we're making a film, so we know better. We make films, we know how to make films, and if we desire to use a legend or an icon, we'll use it as we see fit."
It's not quite fact that they haven't stayed true to aspects of the characters. They have the main protagonists: Holmes, Watson, Watson's wife to be, Mary, Irene Adler... and Gladstone the bulldog. Who could forget him? Watson did get married, and Holmes wasn't happy about it. He did come to admire Irene, but as for romantic inclinations, I'm not so sure about that. Holmes was always a cold character, for the most part, and one who kept his cards close to his chest, amazing those around him when he finally revealed the results of his observations. Robert Downey Jr.'s version is a mad-eyed eccentric, owing more to Doctor Who than Sherlock. He scurries around on all fours, his rooms an absolute tip, no sign of the ordered, meticulous Holmes we know. He's short and lumpen, not the precise, thin figure he should be. There have been many variations, and always something to grouse at, but there seemed to be more than most in this version.
Okay, so they wanted to popularise the characters by dropping some details and concentrating on others. I understand that, but do they not think the books were popular as they were? Do people not still come to adore the detective, the ins and outs of his character? Were there no other candidates for a Disney-fied 21st century makeover? Tarzan, say, or Flash Gordon - less real characters. No, they wanted to make Sherlock Holmes because he is a fascinating persona, and the stories are clever, forming at the very roots of crime fiction. I went in expecting exactly what I got, which was a slapstick, parody version, one that lost much of the charm of the interplay between characters, and filled it in with loud setpieces, as if the audience wasn't intelligent enough to watch a film without such noises and flashes, bangs and crashes.
Look at Lestrade. Eddie Marsan isn't bad, but he doesn't fit the character. Lestrade is there to scoff at Holmes and his methods, before having to eat his words when they prove true, injecting some witty comedy. Not the kind of tongue-twisting or bickering that is supposed to make us chortle - the kind of humour where we're laughing at Holmes, rather than at those around him when he proves his eccentricities were worthwhile. Watson wasn't too bad, but I don't recall quite as much hand to hand combat as there is here. We know Holmes for being a stiff competitor in the realm of physical endurance and attack, but more often than not he uses his brain muscles. Admittedly this is a difficult avenue to put on camera, but one of the best uses of the medium was in this regard: they cleverly show Holmes thinking about a course of action he will take, in slow motion, then at normal speed. It left me wishing the device had been utilised more.
They do the obvious in setting up the sequel by introducing the threat of Moriarty, the most famous villain of Holmes' career, in the same way 'Batman Begins' left us wondering about Batman's best-known villain, The Joker. Unlike that, this film didn't leave me with the desire to see more. I knew what I was watching, and I didn't hate it, but it simply seems that over and over again the same film with the same template of characters and situations, is released. This time it was set in the past. I know it's nitpicking, but words that I felt wouldn't have been invented then, were used, and the production reminded me more of Indiana Jones than The Lord of The Rings. That film showed how to adapt iconic characters and tales in a satisfying way that played to the medium's strengths. This film didn't.
I was waiting for Blackwood to start talking about Holmes' ancestry in the same voiceover Mark Strong does for 'Who Do You Think You Are?'. He wasn't a bad villain, but as most aficionados would probably have guessed, many of the clever plot twists were obvious, such as the fact he wasn't hanged properly, or that it was Holmes as the beggar man who appears at Moriarty's carriage. So they got many aspects right, I suppose, but it didn't stop the film from going on too long, and although it's such an obvious cliche to have the villain and hero take part in a thumping match at the end, I was relieved to have something to wake me up by that point.
It was always going to be a film for those who have a vague cultural knowledge of Holmes, than for people who actually like the stories (much the same as with 'Star Trek' the same year), but these productions always give rise to questions about why they need to take something we like and turn it into something we don't, to give ignorant people something to see. Why didn't you have the skill to go with the characters and situations the way they should be, improving only in visual terms and using the tricks of film to present a new way of seeing this classic, instead of fighting against the qualities, and forcing a Holmes block into a Downey Jr. hole. Why? Because films are made for money, just as books are. The difference is that modern authors seem to find less of their own work worthy of a film, than the authors of the past.
**