Back in January, having heard the criticisms against 'Sherlock Holmes' (2009) I produced a posting arguing that a lot of people's expectations of what the Holmes stories are about are based on misunderstandings of these stories and often on the misapprehensions or choices of directors and actors who have portrayed the character throughout the 20th century. This posting can be found at: http://rooksmoor.blogspot.com/2010/01/real-sherlock-holmes.html It was really not until the 1970s that the recognition that Holmes was a drug addict was even allowed to be hinted at; 'The Seven Percent Solution' (1976) movie is a turning point in this respect. The key error people make is how old Holmes is. Partly I think they are misled by the Sidney Paget illustrations that appeared when the Holmes stories featured in 'The Strand' periodical. Holmes is tall (this is one element in which Downey Jr. falls down) and lean and naturally wearing clothes that by the 20th century look old fashioned. He is a drug addict and lives an unhealthy life, but he does not really appear to be a man in his fifties, which is right as he does not reach 50 until 1904. As I noted in January at the time of the events shown in of 'A Scandal in Bohemia', the first short story, set in 1888, Holmes is only 34; by 1891 when the current movie is set he is supposedly 37. It has been argued that Robert Downey Jr. was too young to play Holmes, but at 44 in fact he is a touch old. Some commentators, notably Laurie R. King, argue that Holmes was born sometime 1863-8 which would make him even younger, between 23-28 in 1891. However, the standard assumption that he was born 6th January 1854, seems to work.
Anyway, I finally got around to watching 'Sherlock Holmes' (2009) and enjoyed it so much that I viewed it twice within 24 hours. Yes, there is action in it. Again, though, this is something you would expect from a movie honouring the original stories. Holmes often carries and uses a revolver but is also noted to be skilled in singlestick, fencing, bare-knuckle boxing, and bartitsu combat. He is often shown haring around London or rural England in pursuit of the criminal. Possibly the most famous story, 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' (1901/2) which is set before 1891, shows Holmes living rough and charging around Dartmoor suggesting real vigour. So, as in the Conan Doyle stories, this latest movie shows Holmes both as deductive and a man of action, and using the technique from the 'CSI' television series, shows him combining these two traits and constructing events in his mind and then following them through, notably during a bare-knuckle boxing match he is fighting in. This CSI slow motion approach is also used in the way it is in those series, to show how Holmes reconstructs what went on previously using the evidence left behind.
I have likened this movie's relationship to Conan Doyle's stories as being like that between the James Bond movies and the Ian Fleming novels. As the Bond movies do, occurrence from across the canon are referenced. Many incidents from the Holmes stories appear for fans to spot in this movie, such as the scratches around the key hole on the pocket watch, seeking to control flies using notes plucked on his violin and Holmes shooting the initials V.R. (for Victoria Regina) into the wall of his room. Despite being a little short, Downey Jr. seems to combine the switch between Holmes when he is at his sharpest and when he is a wreck very well.
Jude Law who plays Dr. Watson could easily have made an excellent Holmes in this movie. Eddie Marsan, who has long portrayed Londoners on the borderline of legality is now just right to portray Inspector Lestrade. Alongside numerous British actors (notably James Fox and Geraldine James as a rather tall Mrs. Hudson) the viewer is aware of elements that have been included to woo an American audience. Notably the USA is portrayed as being under threat from Lord Blackmoor (played wonderfully by Mark Strong) planning to reclaim the lost British colonies. This leads to one element in the movie which I felt jarred which is his claim that the USA is weak in 1891 from the civil war, despite the fact that the war had ended 26 years earlier. The American ambassador is murdered and the chief female protagonist is Irene Adler (described as 'the woman' by Watson), who appears in 'A Scandal in Bohemia' and is an American (born in New Jersey) as shown in the movie. She is supposedly born in 1858 making her 33 by 1891 (Rachel McAdams who plays her in the movie is 32), but, for example in the 1984 ITV dramatisation of the story she is played by Gayle Hunnicutt who was 41 at the time, though seemed older. Hunnicutt is actually an American but you could not have told it from her portrayal of Irene Adler. These are ways of drawing the American audience into something that might look parochially British, but, in general, they are not too out of step with Holmes stories. Conan Doyle seems to have viewed the USA with suspicion and often in his stories sinister criminals originate from there as in 'A Study in Scarlet' (1887), 'The Adventure of the Dancing Men' (1905) and 'The Adventure of the Mazarin Stone' (1927).
Lord Blackwood is a new invention for Holmes stories. However, I am not one of these people who never wants a story that does not adhere strictly to the original author's stories. In the case of Sherlock Holmes numerous authors including Michael Dibdin, Nicholas Meyer, Bert Coles, Mitch Cullin and June Thompson among others, have produced pastiches of Holmes stories some of which have been filmed or made into radio dramas. In the latest movie, a new story is fixed firmly in a very Conan Doyle setting. Professor Moriarty does appear (in shadow as do all the best villains) and it is likely we will see more of him in the sequel that is apparently underway.
Right, so those are three elements that I enjoyed about the movie: the references to the original canon, the portrayal of Holmes's deductions and the action. I also like that Guy Ritchie is the director. His movie work is erratic (though occasionally, as here, shines) but one thing he truly loves is London, making him ideal for this movie. Of course, much of London portrayed in the movie is computer generated, but the quality of the technology is such that now your mind barely registers that it is not real. It is put to the full with Holmes and Watson charging through a range of locations from the headquarters of a Freemason-like organisation in the West End to a shipyard and a butchery warehouse along the Thames in East London; there is even a visit to a wonderfully gothic High Victorian cemetery. The climax of the movie runs from the Palace of Westminster to the incomplete Tower Bridge (which was built between 1884-94, so was probably at the close to completion stage on the outer structure, as shown in this movie set in 1891).
The other thing I like about the movie is that it touches on themes that fascinated the Victorians themselves, the gothic and rational scientific thought. Though gothic writing had come to the fore in the early 19th century (Jane Austen satirised it in 'Northanger Abbey' (1817, though written originally 1797-8)), it was still a staple of popular fiction in the 1890s. Holmes is often shown as counteracting rather hysterical theories that seem informed by gothic writing notably in 'The Adventure of the Sussex Vampire' (1927), 'The Adventure of the Devil's Foot' (1917) and in 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'. This seems a little ironic given Conan Doyle's later firm beliefs in spiritualism. In the 2009 movie Lord Blackwood makes it appear that he has supernatural powers with the intention of whipping up support for his coup d'etat. His father, the Lord Chancellor, Sir Thomas Rotheram, is part of a secret society which believes in the efficacy of black magic. Blackwood's abilities are in fact enabled through bribery and sophisticated technology, notably poisons and a nerve-gas releasing machine activated by electro-magnetic pulses. Holmes's appreciation of the scientific developments enables him to disprove Blackwood's claims to mystical powers. Holmes is often shown experimenting in his room with chemicals. Thus, in this movie we see two sides of Victorian culture: the gothic horror imaginings and the rational scientific/engineering advances.
This may not be the greatest movie ever, but as a piece of entertainment I found it thoroughly enjoyable, with a wide range of interesting characters and a story which combined both action and mystery. The sign of a good murder mystery is that you want to go back and see it again knowing the outcome. Blackwood appears to be killed in this movie, which countered my expectations that he would escape, so to a good degree my expectations were confounded, which is always refreshing especially from a Hollywood movie. I know I have given away a load about this movie, but I do recommend going out and renting it. I look forward with anticipation to the sequel.
Showing posts with label Jude Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jude Law. Show all posts
Thursday, 3 June 2010
Sunday, 3 January 2010
The 'Real' Sherlock Holmes
Naturally there has been much discussion about the recently released movie 'Sherlock Holmes' (2009) directed by Guy Ritchie, well known for British-set gangster movies notably 'Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels' (1998), 'Snatch' (2000) and 'Revolver' (2005). He does seem to have suffered from diminishing returns and whilst he has a loyal fan base notably among men living in London, he has never recaptured the success that he achieved with his first feature movie in 1998. Moving from contemporary Britain to the 1890s might be a sensible step for him to break away a little from seemingly repeating the same formula over and over. He has managed to keep attracting high profile actors, Brad Pitt appeared in 'Snatch' and for 'Sherlock Holmes' he has Robert Downey Jr. as Holmes and Jude Law as Dr. Watson. Downey Jr.'s comeback which really got going in the mid-2000s has continued and does not seem to have suffered from appearing in Ritchie's movie, there is already talk of a sequel. Unsurprisingly for a Ritchie movie London is the setting and there is a lot of action. Interviews with the leading actors, notably, Law, have emphasised, however, that though the movie has the feel of something very 21st century, in fact in characterisation it is taking steps back to the original stories.
In the very hot summer of 1995, for £1.99 I got a complete set of the original Sherlock Holmes stories, published by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle 1887-1927 and set 1875-1904/14. I have also read a couple of the pastiches, possibly the best known 'The Seven Percent Solution' (novel 1974; movie 1976) by Nicholas Meyer and 'The Last Sherlock Holmes Story' (1978) by Michael Dibdin. There were four novels and fifty-six short stories written by Doyle. This is one reason why Holmes is such a good character for television serials. A short story is sufficient for an hour long television drama. As the 'Inspector Morse' (1987-2000) and 'Poirot' (from 1989) series have have shown a short novel generates a decent two-hour programme. Many modern detective novels are far longer and so cannot be as easily made into one-hour programmes. Doyle began the Holmes stories in the era when serialised stories in magazines were incredibly popular and, even as late as the 1920s, this format had not really died away.
Holmes was in fact in a very crowded markeplace. If you read collections of other genuine Victorian and Edwardian detective stories, notably in the collections, 'The Rivals of Sherlock Holmes' (1970), 'More Rivals of Sherlock Holmes: Cosmopolitan Crimes' (1971), 'The Crooked Counties: Further Rivals of Sherlock Holmes' (1973), 'The American Rivals of Sherlock Holmes' (1979) all collected by Sir Hugh Greene and 'Rivals of Sherlock Holmes' (1982) and 'Rivals of Sherlock Holmes: 2' (1980) [this was a US publication hence an explanation for it being published in reverse order in the UK; no doubt there were difficulties in the similarity in title to Greene's books] both by Alan K. Russell and more recently, 'Rivals of Sherlock Holmes' (2008) by Nick Rennison, you can find dozens of fictional detectives from different countries, even a couple of female ones like Loveday Brooke, who have been severely overlooked, but none of them have endured like Holmes.
The reason why Holmes stuck out from the crowd at the time and still does today, is very much due to the elements that Ritchie has brought out in this latest movie. One element is the action. I have been rewatching the Jeremy Brett (1933-95) portrayal of Holmes in the television series that ran 1984-94 and Holmes is often pulling out his revolver (as does Watson) or at least a weighted cane. He also demonstrates knowledge of bare-knuckle boxing and bartitsu, a martial art developed in Britain 1898-1902 based on jujitsu. In the novels he is also described as a singlestick (i.e. staff) fighting specialist, it was overtaken by fencing in the 20th century but was an Olympic sport as late as 1904; Holmes generally uses his cane in this way.
It is unsurprising that Holmes is skilled in combat given his involvement with murderers and thugs of all kinds as well as ferocious dogs. If you read any of the 'rivals' books you see that these other detectives are mainly cerebral and solved crimes simply by thought. In many ways they are the precursors of the more genteel detective stories, notably those of Agatha Christie and Dorothy L. Sayers, that came to the fore in the 1920s and 1930s, presumably as their audience was from the generation who had seen too much of violence first or second hand through the First World War. Of course, though we are in a society, which certainly in the UK, has been seeing war casualties consistently for the past nine years, these days we certainly expect our television and movie characters to be armed and ready to fight physically.
Another element of Holmes which makes him appealing at the time and subsequently, and again is an element that appears relevant in the 2010s, is his moral ambivalence. In sharp contrast to many his 'rivals' and certainly detectives of the first two-thirds of the 20th century, Holmes is not necessarily a force for the status quo or even for the law. Whilst not working for the law per se he is, certainly at times, a force for justice. The Holmes stories establish the assumption of the slow or even bumbling official police (and in Holmes's case, also royal and civil services as many of his cases are political rather than criminal) that appears in so many stories, but Holmes does not always aid authority and at times sits as personal judge and jury on people he captures.
Sometimes Holmes's punishments can be seen as harsh, at other times he is lenient. Consequently, on beginning a Holmes story, in contrast to those of his rivals and most successors, there is no certainty that the status quo ante will be restored and that the 'correct' punishment will be meted out. I have always enjoyed such uncertainty in crime novels which is what drew me to the detective stories of people like Josef Škvorecký and Leonardo Sciascia, though for them the ambivalence usually comes more from the society in which the detective is operating rather than from the detectives themselves.
In an era when we have a character such as Dexter Morgan, a fictional police forensics specialist who is also a serial killer (novels by Jeff Linday 2004-9; television series 'Dexter' 2006 onwards), moral ambivalence seems to fit with what people are seeking in their detective series. In addition, since the 1970s we have seen even police detectives, let alone private ones, violating laws, breaking and entering and assaulting suspects to the extent that by the late 1980s it was being perceived as rather a cliche.
The element of Holmes which takes the moral ambivalence further is his drug addiction. Holmes is shown as a regular cocaine injector and, at times, a smoker of opium too. Whilst we tend to think of our own time as one in which drugs are the most common the restrictions on things like cocaine were not introduced until after the First World War, partly as a result of frontline troops taking opiates during the war (there are interesting parallels between drug abuse in the trenches of the First World War and drug abuse by US soldiers in the Vietnam War). In addition, there was an increased moral stance after 1918 which saw prohibition of narcotics in the USA follow the prohibition of alcohol. All of this was wrapped up in the sense of the decline of the 'race' and physical weakness that had become apparent in the UK even in the 1910s when up to 40% of volunteers for the Army had to be turned away as being unfit, though usually for malnutrition rather than drug abuse. I once found a play from 1927 which, even then, showed the 'hero' seeking cocaine on a night out in London. This theme appears in some Agatha Christie stories, but by then, drug abuse was seen very much as an activity of the silly rich as it was for many decades that followed, and, to some extent, is today.
Another thing about the 'real' Holmes is his comparative youth. Doyle says that by 1914, in 'His Last Bow' (1927), Holmes is around 60, this means that for the period covered by the main stories we know, he ranges from 21 in 1875 to 50 in 1904. However, given his expertise in so many topics, the usual assumption is that he was middle aged. The latest movie is set in the 1891 when Holmes would be 37. Downey Jr. is 44; Law has just turned 37. Thus, whilst to many commentators they seem too young for the parts they are playing (Brett was 51-61 when playing Holmes, though certainly in the early series looked younger) they are in step with what Doyle envisaged. If you take all these elements togther - lead character: maverick in his late thirties, active, intelligent, skilled in various forms of fighting, ambivalent towards the law, sexually ambiguous, drug addict, mixes with high and low society you can see why Holmes fits perfectly for the kind of movies Ritchie makes.
Watson, played by Law, looks like a young John Steed (from 'The Avengers' series 1961-9; 'The New Avengers' 1976-7) which is probably unsurprising. Like Steed, Watson, though a doctor has military background and has served in India and been wounded which suggests frontline action. He is shown in the novels wielding both a cane and a revolver. In Doyle's stories, any suggestion of anything more than companionship between Holmes and Watson is ruled out. Watson marries Mary Moran after 'The Sign of the Four' (1890) set in 1888, though his wife has died by the time of 'The Mystery of the Empty House' (1903) which is set in 1894 and is the first story after Holmes comes back from his supposed death. To some degree questions about Holmes and Watson's sexuality stem more from later 20th century attitudes rather than those of the 19th century when all kinds of house sharing were common and thus could be a basis for different narrative imperatives.
The final question, then, is why, if Holmes and Watson have always been characters that would be right at home in a Guy Ritchie, gangster-style movie, are we so surprised to see them like this? To a great extent it comes back to the genteelisation of detectives in the post-First World War era. Ironically Doyle was still writing at a time when his ambivalent detective, though still popular, was effectively becoming obsolete. Instead the reading public had a desire for detective stories in which the status quo ante was always firmly re-established and even private detectives were bastions of the law, and, as importantly, of authority (which is not always the same thing).
After Doyle's death in 1930, Holmes was increasingly assimilated into the canon of the more comfortable culture of the 'stately home' detectives like Christie's Poirot, Lord Peter Wimsey (in the series of novels by Dorothy L. Sayers published 1923-42) and Albert Campion (in Margery Allingham's novels published 1929-65; then by Philip Youngman Carter 1968-70). Partly this was through spoofs and the simplification of Holmes into the rather austere but amiable deerstalker-wearing character that most people associate with the name. Of course, we should all know how Holmes should be attired due to the detailed drawings accompanying the original stories, you can buy fully illustrated editions of the stories nowadays.
This process of making Holmes genteel was achieved most by the Basil Rathbone movies (1939-46) which also, with Nigel Bruce as Dr. Watson, demoted that character to a far more bumbling role than he had held in the stories (this view had been countered in Meyer's and Dibdin's novels and most visibly in the 1988 movie 'Without A Clue' in which Holmes is simply a figurehead for Watson's detective work). It is against this Rathbone portrayal, often repeated (I remember seeing all the Rathbone Holmes's movies more than once in the 1970s and early 1980s) with Holmes as a bastion of authority, even the US military machine, that so much of what has followed featuring Holmes is set and it has proven difficult to shake off his Rathbone attire let alone that manner, to get back closer to the original, distinctive character.
George Orwell, wrote in 1946, the article 'The Decline of the English Murder' in 'Tribune', you can read it in full here: http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/decline-of-english-murder.htm He argued in the light of the violence of the recently ended Second World War that murder in Britain was becoming more brutal and the coverage of murder cases and the fictional crime stories would become so too. To a great extent it is wrong, as many people do, to see Orwell as arguing that the Christiesque style of detective stories was coming to an end. Christie herself would remain a bestseller for the rest of her life (to her death in 1976) and continues to sell very well today. Orwell, in fact, was marking the point at which 'true crime' stories were coming more to the fore. An audience hardened by wartime experiences could stomach greater detail than would have been reported before.
Yet, as in the post-First World War period after 1945, you can see a desire for fictional murder stories that have the status quo ante restored, sometimes even back to the class structure of the pre-1939 period. Christie's novels of the time reflect some of the post-war social changes but because of that, in fact more firmly re-emphasise the continuing values of stability, especially in rural Britain. Thus, it is not surprising that for so long we were happy to accept a Sherlock Holmes who, whilst looking into Gothic elements of late Victorian life, seemed to be able to shine rational light into the dark corners and restore the civility that we all too often see wedded to the Victorian era. However, hopefully in a time which is more honestly like the late Victorian period in terms of poverty, disease, drug abuse and social division, it seems right that we again engage properly with a fictional character adept in such an environment.
In the very hot summer of 1995, for £1.99 I got a complete set of the original Sherlock Holmes stories, published by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle 1887-1927 and set 1875-1904/14. I have also read a couple of the pastiches, possibly the best known 'The Seven Percent Solution' (novel 1974; movie 1976) by Nicholas Meyer and 'The Last Sherlock Holmes Story' (1978) by Michael Dibdin. There were four novels and fifty-six short stories written by Doyle. This is one reason why Holmes is such a good character for television serials. A short story is sufficient for an hour long television drama. As the 'Inspector Morse' (1987-2000) and 'Poirot' (from 1989) series have have shown a short novel generates a decent two-hour programme. Many modern detective novels are far longer and so cannot be as easily made into one-hour programmes. Doyle began the Holmes stories in the era when serialised stories in magazines were incredibly popular and, even as late as the 1920s, this format had not really died away.
Holmes was in fact in a very crowded markeplace. If you read collections of other genuine Victorian and Edwardian detective stories, notably in the collections, 'The Rivals of Sherlock Holmes' (1970), 'More Rivals of Sherlock Holmes: Cosmopolitan Crimes' (1971), 'The Crooked Counties: Further Rivals of Sherlock Holmes' (1973), 'The American Rivals of Sherlock Holmes' (1979) all collected by Sir Hugh Greene and 'Rivals of Sherlock Holmes' (1982) and 'Rivals of Sherlock Holmes: 2' (1980) [this was a US publication hence an explanation for it being published in reverse order in the UK; no doubt there were difficulties in the similarity in title to Greene's books] both by Alan K. Russell and more recently, 'Rivals of Sherlock Holmes' (2008) by Nick Rennison, you can find dozens of fictional detectives from different countries, even a couple of female ones like Loveday Brooke, who have been severely overlooked, but none of them have endured like Holmes.
The reason why Holmes stuck out from the crowd at the time and still does today, is very much due to the elements that Ritchie has brought out in this latest movie. One element is the action. I have been rewatching the Jeremy Brett (1933-95) portrayal of Holmes in the television series that ran 1984-94 and Holmes is often pulling out his revolver (as does Watson) or at least a weighted cane. He also demonstrates knowledge of bare-knuckle boxing and bartitsu, a martial art developed in Britain 1898-1902 based on jujitsu. In the novels he is also described as a singlestick (i.e. staff) fighting specialist, it was overtaken by fencing in the 20th century but was an Olympic sport as late as 1904; Holmes generally uses his cane in this way.
It is unsurprising that Holmes is skilled in combat given his involvement with murderers and thugs of all kinds as well as ferocious dogs. If you read any of the 'rivals' books you see that these other detectives are mainly cerebral and solved crimes simply by thought. In many ways they are the precursors of the more genteel detective stories, notably those of Agatha Christie and Dorothy L. Sayers, that came to the fore in the 1920s and 1930s, presumably as their audience was from the generation who had seen too much of violence first or second hand through the First World War. Of course, though we are in a society, which certainly in the UK, has been seeing war casualties consistently for the past nine years, these days we certainly expect our television and movie characters to be armed and ready to fight physically.
Another element of Holmes which makes him appealing at the time and subsequently, and again is an element that appears relevant in the 2010s, is his moral ambivalence. In sharp contrast to many his 'rivals' and certainly detectives of the first two-thirds of the 20th century, Holmes is not necessarily a force for the status quo or even for the law. Whilst not working for the law per se he is, certainly at times, a force for justice. The Holmes stories establish the assumption of the slow or even bumbling official police (and in Holmes's case, also royal and civil services as many of his cases are political rather than criminal) that appears in so many stories, but Holmes does not always aid authority and at times sits as personal judge and jury on people he captures.
Sometimes Holmes's punishments can be seen as harsh, at other times he is lenient. Consequently, on beginning a Holmes story, in contrast to those of his rivals and most successors, there is no certainty that the status quo ante will be restored and that the 'correct' punishment will be meted out. I have always enjoyed such uncertainty in crime novels which is what drew me to the detective stories of people like Josef Škvorecký and Leonardo Sciascia, though for them the ambivalence usually comes more from the society in which the detective is operating rather than from the detectives themselves.
In an era when we have a character such as Dexter Morgan, a fictional police forensics specialist who is also a serial killer (novels by Jeff Linday 2004-9; television series 'Dexter' 2006 onwards), moral ambivalence seems to fit with what people are seeking in their detective series. In addition, since the 1970s we have seen even police detectives, let alone private ones, violating laws, breaking and entering and assaulting suspects to the extent that by the late 1980s it was being perceived as rather a cliche.
The element of Holmes which takes the moral ambivalence further is his drug addiction. Holmes is shown as a regular cocaine injector and, at times, a smoker of opium too. Whilst we tend to think of our own time as one in which drugs are the most common the restrictions on things like cocaine were not introduced until after the First World War, partly as a result of frontline troops taking opiates during the war (there are interesting parallels between drug abuse in the trenches of the First World War and drug abuse by US soldiers in the Vietnam War). In addition, there was an increased moral stance after 1918 which saw prohibition of narcotics in the USA follow the prohibition of alcohol. All of this was wrapped up in the sense of the decline of the 'race' and physical weakness that had become apparent in the UK even in the 1910s when up to 40% of volunteers for the Army had to be turned away as being unfit, though usually for malnutrition rather than drug abuse. I once found a play from 1927 which, even then, showed the 'hero' seeking cocaine on a night out in London. This theme appears in some Agatha Christie stories, but by then, drug abuse was seen very much as an activity of the silly rich as it was for many decades that followed, and, to some extent, is today.
Another thing about the 'real' Holmes is his comparative youth. Doyle says that by 1914, in 'His Last Bow' (1927), Holmes is around 60, this means that for the period covered by the main stories we know, he ranges from 21 in 1875 to 50 in 1904. However, given his expertise in so many topics, the usual assumption is that he was middle aged. The latest movie is set in the 1891 when Holmes would be 37. Downey Jr. is 44; Law has just turned 37. Thus, whilst to many commentators they seem too young for the parts they are playing (Brett was 51-61 when playing Holmes, though certainly in the early series looked younger) they are in step with what Doyle envisaged. If you take all these elements togther - lead character: maverick in his late thirties, active, intelligent, skilled in various forms of fighting, ambivalent towards the law, sexually ambiguous, drug addict, mixes with high and low society you can see why Holmes fits perfectly for the kind of movies Ritchie makes.
Watson, played by Law, looks like a young John Steed (from 'The Avengers' series 1961-9; 'The New Avengers' 1976-7) which is probably unsurprising. Like Steed, Watson, though a doctor has military background and has served in India and been wounded which suggests frontline action. He is shown in the novels wielding both a cane and a revolver. In Doyle's stories, any suggestion of anything more than companionship between Holmes and Watson is ruled out. Watson marries Mary Moran after 'The Sign of the Four' (1890) set in 1888, though his wife has died by the time of 'The Mystery of the Empty House' (1903) which is set in 1894 and is the first story after Holmes comes back from his supposed death. To some degree questions about Holmes and Watson's sexuality stem more from later 20th century attitudes rather than those of the 19th century when all kinds of house sharing were common and thus could be a basis for different narrative imperatives.
The final question, then, is why, if Holmes and Watson have always been characters that would be right at home in a Guy Ritchie, gangster-style movie, are we so surprised to see them like this? To a great extent it comes back to the genteelisation of detectives in the post-First World War era. Ironically Doyle was still writing at a time when his ambivalent detective, though still popular, was effectively becoming obsolete. Instead the reading public had a desire for detective stories in which the status quo ante was always firmly re-established and even private detectives were bastions of the law, and, as importantly, of authority (which is not always the same thing).
After Doyle's death in 1930, Holmes was increasingly assimilated into the canon of the more comfortable culture of the 'stately home' detectives like Christie's Poirot, Lord Peter Wimsey (in the series of novels by Dorothy L. Sayers published 1923-42) and Albert Campion (in Margery Allingham's novels published 1929-65; then by Philip Youngman Carter 1968-70). Partly this was through spoofs and the simplification of Holmes into the rather austere but amiable deerstalker-wearing character that most people associate with the name. Of course, we should all know how Holmes should be attired due to the detailed drawings accompanying the original stories, you can buy fully illustrated editions of the stories nowadays.
This process of making Holmes genteel was achieved most by the Basil Rathbone movies (1939-46) which also, with Nigel Bruce as Dr. Watson, demoted that character to a far more bumbling role than he had held in the stories (this view had been countered in Meyer's and Dibdin's novels and most visibly in the 1988 movie 'Without A Clue' in which Holmes is simply a figurehead for Watson's detective work). It is against this Rathbone portrayal, often repeated (I remember seeing all the Rathbone Holmes's movies more than once in the 1970s and early 1980s) with Holmes as a bastion of authority, even the US military machine, that so much of what has followed featuring Holmes is set and it has proven difficult to shake off his Rathbone attire let alone that manner, to get back closer to the original, distinctive character.
George Orwell, wrote in 1946, the article 'The Decline of the English Murder' in 'Tribune', you can read it in full here: http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/decline-of-english-murder.htm He argued in the light of the violence of the recently ended Second World War that murder in Britain was becoming more brutal and the coverage of murder cases and the fictional crime stories would become so too. To a great extent it is wrong, as many people do, to see Orwell as arguing that the Christiesque style of detective stories was coming to an end. Christie herself would remain a bestseller for the rest of her life (to her death in 1976) and continues to sell very well today. Orwell, in fact, was marking the point at which 'true crime' stories were coming more to the fore. An audience hardened by wartime experiences could stomach greater detail than would have been reported before.
Yet, as in the post-First World War period after 1945, you can see a desire for fictional murder stories that have the status quo ante restored, sometimes even back to the class structure of the pre-1939 period. Christie's novels of the time reflect some of the post-war social changes but because of that, in fact more firmly re-emphasise the continuing values of stability, especially in rural Britain. Thus, it is not surprising that for so long we were happy to accept a Sherlock Holmes who, whilst looking into Gothic elements of late Victorian life, seemed to be able to shine rational light into the dark corners and restore the civility that we all too often see wedded to the Victorian era. However, hopefully in a time which is more honestly like the late Victorian period in terms of poverty, disease, drug abuse and social division, it seems right that we again engage properly with a fictional character adept in such an environment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
