Yeah, Icon speaks for itself
Feb. 4th, 2010 03:33 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nessaniel Yeah I know, EVERY fangirl on this planet has already discussed it, but I haven't so... sit down, grab your popcorn and enjoy my thrill ride.
I have to admit, my first contact with Holmes was in 3rd grade, when I watched "Shirley Holmes", one of those children-tv-shows, whose sole purpose was to educate us dense little bastards. And horray, it worked for me. xD After that I dived into the crime-section of our local library and gladfully I came up with some lighthearted child-versions of Holmes's adventures and was soon convinced that Kommissar Rex could fuck off - which is quite a step for a nine-year-old. xDDD
Nevertheless, I let Holmes dwell in my bookshelf for quite some time until I was 13, when I went through my "I have to read as much classical literature as possible because I am SO adult!" - phase and got hold of the original stories of Conan Doyle. Sadly enough, I was too young to appreciate his writing style, I thought it dull, unthrilling, boring and due to my underdeveloped brain I often wasn't able to follow the stories. To make a long story short from this moment on I decided that Sherlock Holmes was a cool metaphor but a boring protagonist, which then led me to avoid most of the films and series that were constantly aired on Kabel 1, ARD and what more. Of course I watched "The hound of Baskerville" from 1959 as I suppose everybody else did xD but that was it. Holmes was way to aloof for my liking, I couldn't quite connect with Watson either since in the movies I saw he was more of a passive bystander rather than an actual help (admittedly he wasn't that active in the books as well but still he was of more use there at least imho) and honestly: for a girl growing up in the 90es with all its cheesy and somewhat blunt crime-series (Kommissar Rex xDDD) it was almost impossible to grasp the elegance and ingeniosity of a Sherlock Holmes.
Therefore (and yeah, now I am going to talk about the movie ^^) Guy Ritchie's buddy--movie-version of good ol' Holmes was an earthshattering revelation. Since I haven't touched the books in a long time I will not elaborate on how close to the books the story stayed (not at all xD ) but will focus entirely on the film and its creation.
Let's start with the setting: London has many faces, in real life as well as in the movies. Every Jack the Ripper, Sweeney Todd and Sherlock Holmes have been granted with their own setting and look of Britain's capital city, so I think it is very hard to establish a surrounding that on the one hand fits the spoiled eyes of an audience accustomed to visual effects of highest standards and that on the other hand creates a world where Sherlock Holmes does not stick out as a sore thumb.
I have to say, it works. The mysterious and infamous fog has been left out completely, showing the London of the industrial revolution in all its dark and dirty glory. Fabric halls, the black, almost slick water of the Thames, the cozyness of Baker Street 221b, the untidyness of Holmes' privat rooms that looked as crazy as the redhead's secret laboratory... all these places are captured perfectly, drawing the viewer into the smally alleys and dark backrooms of a murderous period of time, totally fitted for the nosey Sherlock. Especially the eye-catcher, the unfinished Tower Bridge triggers an almost eerie feeling of unlimited possibilities for the future which is scary and exciting at the same time. Therefore: Thumbs up!
Secondly, the music: Ahh, Hans Zimmer, the master of orchestra sound and musical thrill rides himself was responsible for "Sherlock Holmes" to have a decent score and what can I say? He was, is and stays the fabulous king. The music although being far from subtle underlines the suspense in most of the scenes and is indeed quite enjoyable. One thing to complain: during the final battle on top of the Tower Bridge I was constantly reminded of the score of Pirates of the Carribean... may have been my imagination, but my mother thought the same so... ah screw it, the soundtrack was awesome. xD
The story: The movie had two storylines so to say, one concentrating on the actual case of occultism-loving Lord Blackwood, the other one delving into the relationship between Holmes and Watson. The first one, I have to admit, was overshadowed by the second one since I couldn't follow the scenes when there had been a Holmes/Watson-dialogue before, but nonetheless it was logical, thrilling and well-written which made it totally enjoyable and fun to watch. One of its finest points was, that, although every murder was shown, the conclusion would be drawn at the end therefore allowing the audience to think about their owns solutions, maybe even stick to the magical explanation that was offered all along. In this I think, lies the movie's greatest homage to the books, showing something "magical" and explaining it with cold logic and Holmes as a fighter for enlightment - maybe that's Doyle's plan for him after all? Just my thoughts on this matter really, I will gladly accept any kind of correction. ^_^
The second story line... well that is what I wanted to talk about all along and yes you may expect fangirlish screaming all along the way. xDDD Holy fucking hell. I heard the rumors about the oh-so-ambigous-dialogues of our two heros but I shrugged it off as being some critics getting a bit overexcited at the humor and comic relief those banterings were supposed to bring into the action-packed flick.
How very very wrong I was. Downey Jr. and Law presented Holmes and Watson as, as... well it managed to sent me into fits of squee, giggles and sheer happy outrage within the first thirty seconds of the film. My god, their relationship is so beautiful! Maybe not quite true to the book (I think there they were a bit nicer to each other xD) but it did not lack any depth or credibility, in fact I thought, that despite the hasty character portrayal, even the most insensitive guy (xD) must have gotten the impression that Holmes's and Watson's feelings were at a turning point; that all the years of shared trust and defeated dangers laying behind them couldn't prepare them for the separation they must face now. They trust and protect each other, they care for one another, they know everything about each other and still they stay together...oh come on, that must be love! Yes, I do enjoy my fair share of slash and this movie leaves everything open for interpretation, may it be sexual or not so I for myself will go with both, depending on my mood, enjoying the possibilites the movieverse gives us. The classic slash pairings (to my mind anything from the sixties to eighthies xD aka everything from Kirk/Spock/McCoy over Starksy&Hutch to Michael/Kitt xDD) often derive from deep friendships between two men, so that everyone can read into it what he or she cares for. In terms of slash, this movie provides us therefore with the best one can long for.
Moreover I think the portrayal of a relationship - romantic or not - is always a tricky one to do. For example, not everyone in the audience has been a multiple-times-killer but everyone has a friend or lover so that they must know what it is like to feel for another person. So, in order for Sherlock and John to be a pair of friends or lovers, they must show these emotions everyone has at least once in his life felt
Of course it might be a bit cliché for Holmes to wait at an injured Watson's bedside but honestly, that is what a good friend does! So why depicting it otherwise, when the solution is so clear? To my mind, Law and Downey Jr. managed to open up new perspectives on these two long-loved characters, making them more graspable for a modern audience who might not wish to see a flawless hero (and that is pretty much what Holmes was in the books) but someone with faults who has to take responsibility for his actions. Look at this example: Holmes takes Watson for granted, leading to his jealousy and incapability of being happy for his friend, which threathens their friendship/love. In the end, Holmes has to erase his selfishness when he wants to keep Watson by his side, so he actually learns from his mistakes and draws the right conclusions. To me, this kind or moral is way more precious than any kind of "try to be a good guy all along"-message. Nobody can be good all the times, but all of us can learn from mistakes and adjust our relationships so that they will last even longer.
Ok, I intented to talk about how I think this movie will influence younger people to (re)read Sherlock Holmes's adventures (some sort of Lord-of-the-rings-syndrome xD) but this review is already long enough. So, goodnight everybody and GO SEE THIS MOVIE! =D
I have to admit, my first contact with Holmes was in 3rd grade, when I watched "Shirley Holmes", one of those children-tv-shows, whose sole purpose was to educate us dense little bastards. And horray, it worked for me. xD After that I dived into the crime-section of our local library and gladfully I came up with some lighthearted child-versions of Holmes's adventures and was soon convinced that Kommissar Rex could fuck off - which is quite a step for a nine-year-old. xDDD
Nevertheless, I let Holmes dwell in my bookshelf for quite some time until I was 13, when I went through my "I have to read as much classical literature as possible because I am SO adult!" - phase and got hold of the original stories of Conan Doyle. Sadly enough, I was too young to appreciate his writing style, I thought it dull, unthrilling, boring and due to my underdeveloped brain I often wasn't able to follow the stories. To make a long story short from this moment on I decided that Sherlock Holmes was a cool metaphor but a boring protagonist, which then led me to avoid most of the films and series that were constantly aired on Kabel 1, ARD and what more. Of course I watched "The hound of Baskerville" from 1959 as I suppose everybody else did xD but that was it. Holmes was way to aloof for my liking, I couldn't quite connect with Watson either since in the movies I saw he was more of a passive bystander rather than an actual help (admittedly he wasn't that active in the books as well but still he was of more use there at least imho) and honestly: for a girl growing up in the 90es with all its cheesy and somewhat blunt crime-series (Kommissar Rex xDDD) it was almost impossible to grasp the elegance and ingeniosity of a Sherlock Holmes.
Therefore (and yeah, now I am going to talk about the movie ^^) Guy Ritchie's buddy--movie-version of good ol' Holmes was an earthshattering revelation. Since I haven't touched the books in a long time I will not elaborate on how close to the books the story stayed (
Let's start with the setting: London has many faces, in real life as well as in the movies. Every Jack the Ripper, Sweeney Todd and Sherlock Holmes have been granted with their own setting and look of Britain's capital city, so I think it is very hard to establish a surrounding that on the one hand fits the spoiled eyes of an audience accustomed to visual effects of highest standards and that on the other hand creates a world where Sherlock Holmes does not stick out as a sore thumb.
I have to say, it works. The mysterious and infamous fog has been left out completely, showing the London of the industrial revolution in all its dark and dirty glory. Fabric halls, the black, almost slick water of the Thames, the cozyness of Baker Street 221b, the untidyness of Holmes' privat rooms that looked as crazy as the redhead's secret laboratory... all these places are captured perfectly, drawing the viewer into the smally alleys and dark backrooms of a murderous period of time, totally fitted for the nosey Sherlock. Especially the eye-catcher, the unfinished Tower Bridge triggers an almost eerie feeling of unlimited possibilities for the future which is scary and exciting at the same time. Therefore: Thumbs up!
Secondly, the music: Ahh, Hans Zimmer, the master of orchestra sound and musical thrill rides himself was responsible for "Sherlock Holmes" to have a decent score and what can I say? He was, is and stays the fabulous king. The music although being far from subtle underlines the suspense in most of the scenes and is indeed quite enjoyable. One thing to complain: during the final battle on top of the Tower Bridge I was constantly reminded of the score of Pirates of the Carribean... may have been my imagination, but my mother thought the same so... ah screw it, the soundtrack was awesome. xD
The story: The movie had two storylines so to say, one concentrating on the actual case of occultism-loving Lord Blackwood, the other one delving into the relationship between Holmes and Watson. The first one, I have to admit, was overshadowed by the second one since I couldn't follow the scenes when there had been a Holmes/Watson-dialogue before, but nonetheless it was logical, thrilling and well-written which made it totally enjoyable and fun to watch. One of its finest points was, that, although every murder was shown, the conclusion would be drawn at the end therefore allowing the audience to think about their owns solutions, maybe even stick to the magical explanation that was offered all along. In this I think, lies the movie's greatest homage to the books, showing something "magical" and explaining it with cold logic and Holmes as a fighter for enlightment - maybe that's Doyle's plan for him after all? Just my thoughts on this matter really, I will gladly accept any kind of correction. ^_^
The second story line... well that is what I wanted to talk about all along and yes you may expect fangirlish screaming all along the way. xDDD Holy fucking hell. I heard the rumors about the oh-so-ambigous-dialogues of our two heros but I shrugged it off as being some critics getting a bit overexcited at the humor and comic relief those banterings were supposed to bring into the action-packed flick.
How very very wrong I was. Downey Jr. and Law presented Holmes and Watson as, as... well it managed to sent me into fits of squee, giggles and sheer happy outrage within the first thirty seconds of the film. My god, their relationship is so beautiful! Maybe not quite true to the book (I think there they were a bit nicer to each other xD) but it did not lack any depth or credibility, in fact I thought, that despite the hasty character portrayal, even the most insensitive guy (xD) must have gotten the impression that Holmes's and Watson's feelings were at a turning point; that all the years of shared trust and defeated dangers laying behind them couldn't prepare them for the separation they must face now. They trust and protect each other, they care for one another, they know everything about each other and still they stay together...oh come on, that must be love! Yes, I do enjoy my fair share of slash and this movie leaves everything open for interpretation, may it be sexual or not so I for myself will go with both, depending on my mood, enjoying the possibilites the movieverse gives us. The classic slash pairings (to my mind anything from the sixties to eighthies xD aka everything from Kirk/Spock/McCoy over Starksy&Hutch to Michael/Kitt xDD) often derive from deep friendships between two men, so that everyone can read into it what he or she cares for. In terms of slash, this movie provides us therefore with the best one can long for.
Moreover I think the portrayal of a relationship - romantic or not - is always a tricky one to do. For example, not everyone in the audience has been a multiple-times-killer but everyone has a friend or lover so that they must know what it is like to feel for another person. So, in order for Sherlock and John to be a pair of friends or lovers, they must show these emotions everyone has at least once in his life felt
Of course it might be a bit cliché for Holmes to wait at an injured Watson's bedside but honestly, that is what a good friend does! So why depicting it otherwise, when the solution is so clear? To my mind, Law and Downey Jr. managed to open up new perspectives on these two long-loved characters, making them more graspable for a modern audience who might not wish to see a flawless hero (and that is pretty much what Holmes was in the books) but someone with faults who has to take responsibility for his actions. Look at this example: Holmes takes Watson for granted, leading to his jealousy and incapability of being happy for his friend, which threathens their friendship/love. In the end, Holmes has to erase his selfishness when he wants to keep Watson by his side, so he actually learns from his mistakes and draws the right conclusions. To me, this kind or moral is way more precious than any kind of "try to be a good guy all along"-message. Nobody can be good all the times, but all of us can learn from mistakes and adjust our relationships so that they will last even longer.
Ok, I intented to talk about how I think this movie will influence younger people to (re)read Sherlock Holmes's adventures (some sort of Lord-of-the-rings-syndrome xD) but this review is already long enough. So, goodnight everybody and GO SEE THIS MOVIE! =D
