Sherlock Holmes Review
No double-brimmed cap, no oversized magnifying glass, no trademark pipe, and heaping amounts of explosions. While some may be bothered by the lack of Sherlock Holmes trademarks in the new film based on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s books, this less classically stylized Sherlock Holmes brings out more of the subtle, complex issues of the Sherlock Holmes stories, and of Sherlock himself. As a detective, Holmes, played by Robert Downey Jr., is entirely devoted to getting inside people’s heads, and together, he and director Guy Ritchie quite successfully used [respectively] wild-eyed faces staring off into the great unknown of human hyperlogic, and dark, occasionally disorienting and tight-framed cinematography to show us a glimpse of what goes on in the detective genius’s head, as well as how Sherlock gets into other people’s heads. The audience’s eyes are forced to rely on Holmes’s deductive power to make sense of the largely messy, chaotic and treacherous landscapes that seem to be the very lifeblood of Holmes’s intellect, not only keeping the audience dependent on Holmes to make sense of things, but also letting the viewers simultaneously get inside Holmes’s head as he gets into others’ heads. As a man who thrives on chaos, his obsession with creating order is fascinating. His violin as his main source of meditation and tool for experimenting with chaos, Holmes takes the audience along for a wild, and occasionally drug-addled, ride beyond reason to a perfectly constructed truth at the end.
Like any mystery, the main character holds the audience’s understanding in its hands. Had Sherlock decided to not tell his viewers how he solved the case, chaos of a rather unpleasant sort would ensue. Much like how Sherlock and his incredibly able best friend and assistant John Watson (Jude Law) gingerly walk the line between chaos and order, so too does Ritchie walk the line between action flick and dark drama.
Amidst the punches and gunshots, Ritchie maintains the substance of the story (written for the screen by Anthony Peckham, Michael Robert Johnson and Simon Kinberg) by not making violence the goal, but rather understood obstructions and obstacles for Holmes to conquer in his attempt to solve the case.
Though the action scenes highlight Holmes’s superhero-like reflexes and strength, Ritchie balances these attributes with a romantic subplot that not only highlights a rather predictable and common weakness for a woman, but one that also highlights his very human fear of losing a best friend, and possibly the only friend Holmes ever has had. These weaknesses make way for noticing some of their more tragic effects, namely total seclusion for weeks on end accompanied only by various highly dangerous drugs.
Certainly these tendencies color Sherlock’s reputation to the audience as the pinnacle of mental sharpness and sanity, though they force the audience to ask whether Sherlock would be worth a feature film at all had it not been for the talented support he receives from Watson and to an extent Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams).
Cool review. I like how you picked up on the thematic dichotomy between chaos and sense in the movie. As I never saw the film, however, I'd like a little better idea of the plot in order to follow your comments. Also, several sentences could be broken up for ease of reading. You have a lot of energy and engage the reader from the first line.
ReplyDelete-Elaine
I think you've done a good job in analyzing the film in a way that expresses your personal opinion (subtly) while at the same time informs the reader about the different aspects of the film. I like that you mention the cinematography, too. I agree with Elaine above that you might have wanted to include a plot description so those who haven't seen it know what the movie's about in short (without giving away the ending). You seem to really understand Holmes's character and I like the language you use to describe him. It's not too showy but it's still intelligent. You analyze Holmes's character a lot in the article, but not so much the other characters. But I liked how you incorporated the director Guy Ritchie into the article and how he and Robert Downey Jr. sort of worked together to create the character of Sherlock Holmes. It's always nice to know the director's perspective. Your review sort of reads like a film analysis (more towards the end though) which I think is appropriate to some extent but I think including some plot points would have helped to get more of a film review feel.
ReplyDelete-Emily
Your opening is very catchy and interesting. I'm glad you brought up the violin because although I had watched the film carefully, I failed to notice how much he used his violin until I read this review.
ReplyDeleteYou also touched on two of the most important points of the film, in my opinion: that this Sherlock Holmes is not supposed to be like the original, and that the movie is not simply a mystery film, but incorporates many genres (as you said, it walks the line between action flick and dark drama).
Overall, a very comprehensive reading of the film, but it may be confusing to someone who hasn't seen the movie.
As to your question on my blog, I think you said it perfectly with, "the action scenes highlight Holmes’s superhero-like reflexes." As much as Ritchie changed Holmes for the better to suit more modern audiences, I think he took it too far in the action scenes. Sherlock Holmes is a very intelligent detective with fighting skills, but he is nothing near a super hero. Beyond that, the explosion scene was just silly; there was little point to having all the fire in there except to show off special effects.
I thought your review did a good job of summing up the differences between the original incarnation of Sherlock Holmes and Richie's vision for the character. I also felt you did a good job of concluding the review which I know was hard for me because of the short length that we had. The violin was a good touch too at showing how Richie shows the audience, his conception of the character.
ReplyDelete