Re-Inventing ACD's Holmes

[cimorene]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/movies/25lyal.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

The new Holmes is rougher, more emotionally multilayered, more inclined to run with his clothing askew, covered in bruises and smudges of dirt and blood. This Holmes falls into modern-style funks between cases, lying on the sofa, suffused with anomie, unshaven and unkempt, surrounded by a pile of debris. He keeps his bills pinned to the wall with a bowie knife.

Wow! You know, this almost reminds me of some ground-breaking character from literature! You might have heard of him, Guy Ritchie and Lionel Wigram! He's by Arthur Conan Doyle! They act like they invented a characterisation which not only is straight from the text (the text goes completely unmentioned in the article), but which is hardly unrepresented onscreen (in an episode of the Brett Holmes - not coincidentally widely considered the definitive one! - Holmes sets the newspaper on fire with a chemical experiment).

Meanwhile you have such baffling claims as

Lionel Wigram, who conceived the story and is also a producer of the film, said that reinventing Holmes as an action hero made perfect sense. “I never agreed with the idea of the fairly stuffy Edwardian-type gentleman,” Mr. Wigram said. “It wasn’t my idea of Sherlock Holmes.”

Oh yes, how strange that an Edwardian would be Edwardian!

Susan Downey, a producer on the film and Mr. Downey’s wife, said Holmes is “a bit of a ladies’ man, a bit of a brawler,” adding: “He has a gambling problem. If you’re a Sherlock Holmes fan who is in love with the original stories, then you’ll appreciate him.”

Especially if you didn't notice how he hates women in them and you think that "gambling" and "cocaine" are the same thing.

Comments

[saint-sorrows.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure the whole like, point of Holmes was his battle with like, drugs and gambling and stuff in the later years. What the fuck is wrong with people.

Still, I am looking forward to RDJ's performance. Not just because he's like, beautiful or whatever either. I genuinely think he'll bring something to the table, like in his portrayal of Charlie Chaplin. But yeah, dude, this totally hacked me off.

Huh. Hey there, Cim. I never usually comment, sorry. Hope you're well.(: xo.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

Hi! Actually Holmes's drug problem is worse in the earlier stories, and has nearly vanished in the later ones. I'm pretty sure there is no explicit reference to a problem with gambling, although I've no doubt that it could be, er, presented so as to make me buy it. Holmes strikes me as very much not the type, offhand - although he is, of course, a confirmed risk-taker.

[dreamnnightmare.livejournal.com]

you know, it could be that they are just saying whatever they think will get people to go to the movie. They might not be quite as ignorant of the subject matter as they pretend. Then again, maybe they never read the stories and all. Maybe everything they know about Holmes is from the BBC and other movies. in some ways Holmes is a very modern character, but in other ways he's very much at odds with our world. Not paying the bills and being bipolar is cool. Hating women seems a little out of step with today. Also, because Holmes was inventing crime scene investigation he does a lot of experimenting which today just seems silly. I guess you could pull that off if you set the movie in Edwardian time.

For me making him a ladies man is perhaps the most objectionable change. Why does every British detective have to be James Bond?

[cimness.livejournal.com]

Well, he's actually even quite good at seducing the wimmins, in character and costume, if necessary. But he has no interest in them afterward - that's the part that's unlike Bond, who has been known to show a twinge of regret every now and then for the beauties he seduces in the line of duty. Kirk does a lot of that too - seduction entirely in the line of duty - and how emotionally affected he is is a bit ambiguous, between canon H. and Bond, I mean: because a few times he's DEFINITELY affected, but most of the time while he focuses on them at the time, and I have no doubt sympathises with them and perceives them as Whole Individual People with rights and interests - his priorities never waver, and he's always calculating and quick and RUTHLESS when it comes to his ship, his people, his mission, and his sense of right.

[dreamnnightmare.livejournal.com]

wouldn't be a good captain if ship, crew, etc didn't always come 1st. Holmes had choices but was eccentric, 2 say da least. asexual. Craig's bond, at least in C. Royale, is a bit more 3D & likable than, say, Moore's.

[brownbetty]

I like how they first insult the widely accepted characterization, and then act like it's something screamingly original which they just came up with.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

exACTly.

[msilverstar]

Just wandered over and all I can say is, WORD.

Well, and one other thing: Why bother? Jeremy Brett was fantastic, even (or especially) as he got sicker. This is a movie that just didn't need to be made.