So, last night I watched Sherlock Holmes with Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr. I thought the movie was... ok. I had to keep reminding myself that I shouldn't get mad about changes in plot, characters, or fabricated events that never happened (even though I will begrudgingly admit the books aren't "real" either).
First critique-- Watson. I will admit that Jude Law was a much more "true" visual depiction of Watson than the portly and bumbling Nigel Bruce. It was nice to see that the casting people had actually done some research and consideration to save Watson's reputation from the dungeon of ineffective sidekicks. However I was slightly surprised at the personality in which Law portrayed the doctor. To me, Watson seemed much more aggressive with Holmes than he ever did in the books. He repeatedly makes Holmes the butt of his jokes and seems to take everything in stride as if he has seen it all before. This really upset me because I felt that Watson NEVER took anything Sherlock did for granted. His utter amazement each time that Holmes is able to perform his deductions and disguises is what makes the relation to the reader so wonderful. While they did hint at Watson being Holmes' eventual biographer I thought they tried too hard to portray him almost as superior to Holmes'. To give them a final good remark it was pleasant how Watson was as bullheaded and direct as he was in the books.
Second critique-- Holmes. Downey Jr. was eccentric. He was cocky. He "solved" the crime. But he just wasn't Holmes. I don't blame him however I really blame the screenwriter and the director. They obviously approached the character of Holmes with some knowledge of Doyle's character but they seemed to only want to flash that knowledge in quick moments rather than have it define the character. Holmes is no doubt an extremely complex character. In the book Holmes is always trying to entertain himself with his theatrics and the reader just falls in awe of the man. In the movie Downey Jr. was trying to hard to entertain the audience. Holmes doesn't give a damn about the audience but only crafting the perfect puzzle so the crime is revealed as if by his own slight of hand. Holmes is proactive, Downey Jr. was reactive. Also, I was really annoyed by the mopey depiction of Holmes throughout the whole movie. Holmes does get extremely down and depressed when in need of case (this is when he seems to succumb to his cocaine addiction the most) but he does not ever seem to shed his dignity; he always commands the others respect. In the movie I felt he was like a character who had lost all his dignity and was to be pitied more than revered.
Third critique-- Irene Adler. Hollywood NEEDED love story. They pretended to have found one in Irene Adler so they exploited it exponentially. In the books she is not a perpetual thief but once got away from Holmes' trap and for that becomes known to Holmes as "the woman"-- a title denoting the utmost respect from a misogynistic man. I felt their treatment of Adler was largely off base and by far their most distasteful move of the whole movie.
Overall I would say that they took the focus off of the true anomaly of Holmes and placed the focus too much on his action figure side. Oh well... it is Hollywood after all and what is a good movie anymore without explosions, fights and the like. To sum up, it didn't ruin my perception of the books as much as I thought it would because it just wasn't Sherlock Holmes.
No comments:
Post a Comment