Audiences rediscover the brilliance of Sherlock Holmes
Posted by The Skyliner on January 27th, 2010Jordan Ecarma
Copy Editor
The Holmes portrayed by Robert Downey, Jr. in this new vision of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s immortal character may make purists cringe. Downey’s absurd, unconventional Holmes does smoke a pipe and play the violin, but in many respects is far scruffier and grittier than the traditional inhabitant of 221 Baker Street. But this unabashed indifference towards conventions is not necessarily a bad thing.
Holmes plays out against the backdrop of a grim, grey 1890s London. Its cast of characters includes Dr. John Watson, actress Irene Adler, and, of course, Sherlock Holmes himself. Dr. Watson, played by Jude Law, is shown as a good deal more than a sidekick to Holmes. The two men work together to solve various cases and share a close bond.
The exquisite Rachel McAdams as Irene is the main female element in this film, managing to offer womanly appeal in a single smoldering wink. Far from the delicate flower a woman of the 19th century was expected to be, she outwits men and holds her own in a fight. Downey offers a surprisingly fresh take on Holmes. While not sticking to Doyle’s exact original words, he at least conveys the spirit of the character in dryly delivered dialogue and a classic, analytical way of thinking.
The central plot of Holmes concerns the twisted religion of a cult that practices so-called black magic in the darker parts of London. Their leader is Blackwood, a man who was hanged and pronounced dead by Dr. Watson himself. However, various accounts and incidents later prove Blackwood to be very much alive. This mystery is what Holmes and Watson set out to solve. The complexity of the plot is nicely done, a nod to the intricacy of Holmes’ original cases. Anything less would have been insulting to the great detective.
The characters here differ from those in the books and stories in several respects. One major difference is Holmes’ newfound penchant for a good fight. The action sequences featured in this film will most likely not be found in any of the written accounts of Holmes’ adventures. But the logical approach that Holmes uses fits in with the character. He looks at a fight almost like a mathematical equation, figuring what actions will cause the most damage, and calculating their effects down to the victim’s recovery time.
Another distinction this Holmes holds is the more equal footing found between Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. In Doyle’s various works, Watson was often relegated to a sidekick role, but in this film he is a necessity for Holmes’ genius, not a mere audience member.
Sherlock Holmes manages to be an original take on a story heard many times. It also avoids pitfalls of moviemaking by neither leaning too heavily on action sequences nor relying too much on romance. Adventure, friendship, love, wit and right overcoming wrong are all included in a balanced manner. Overall, Holmes wins as a film. Perhaps Doyle would not have approved, but this new vision of a classic character makes for grand entertainment.
Tags: Spring 2010, Vol. 110 - Issue 1