The New Beginning: Bartitsu

Showing posts with label Bartitsu. Show all posts

Thursday, January 14, 2010

A Holmes for the MTV generations?

source: Yahoo

It's been a while since I've read Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's stories, and even my memory of the adaptation with Jeremy Brett is hazy, so I shouldn't compare Guy Ritchie's movie to either.

Some may argue that this movie is dumbed down, fast-paced, and frenetic, suffering from the same problems affecting the recent Star Trek movie. Why is SH immune to the criticisms I would have of Star Trek ? Why did I like SH more?Is it just my bias against J.J. Abrams and the new Trek? The difference was that Guy Ritchie's Holmes wasn't trying to maintain some sort of continuity with a previous portrayal or story. The only question is, "Is Ritchie's interpretation faithful to the Holmes of the novels?" This is a question I cannot answer; I read the stories when I was a child, and I'm very hazy as to the details of Holmes's character.

If I re-read the stories now, maybe my opinion of the movie would change. I think though that Ritchie's Holmes is plausible for those who have had little or no exposure to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's stories, or don't remember much from them. Having an older mature actor like Robert Downey Jr. helps the movie -- a younger American probably would not have succeeded. This is not some version of "Young Sherlock Holmes" (and the casting of Chris Pine in Star Trek exemplifies the negatives of the reboot trend). But should Holmes have the manners and mannerisms of a 19th ce British gentleman? From what I recall, Holmes is not as refined and gentlemanly as one would imagine. (Jude Law's Dr. Watson would seem to be fine, in this regard.) This wasn't a problem for me while I was watching the movie since I was absorbed in it, but when reflecting upon it afterwards, I question whether Robert Downey Jr.'s character fell short in this regard. I'll have to watch it a second time with this question in mind. I did laugh at the banter between Holmes and Watson, though it might have been more credible between college chums, rather than bachelors in their 40s, and this too seems to be another modern flourish to the character, something absent from the original stories.

How does the re-imagining of Sherlock Holmes compare to the rebooted James Bond?
Even if Guy Ritchie and Robert Downey Jr. give an acceptable interpretation of Holmes that does not lessen his intellectual prowess, is the result still dumbed down? The story is less of a mystery, and more of an action movie. Like what passes in the typical Bond film, the hero must thwart the villain in a final showdown and prevent him from using some device to bring his plans to fruition. Maybe a mystery would not be satisfying for today's movie audiences, but if this is repeated for the sequel, the disappointment of purists will undoubtedly increase (assuming they bother to watch it).

I didn't think the movie was fast-paced; I'd have to re-watch the other movies in Guy Ritchie's ouevre, but it seems to me that he's calmed down a bit for this movie. Yes, there are action sequences and a lot of fast movement, but the story-telling isn't that fast or noisy. Is it intelligent?

Others have noted that Rachel McAdams is the weakest of the cast; I'm inclined to agree with that assessment. She is too much of the 21st century American girl, and not the 19th century femme fatale. (Michelle Pfeiffer in The Age of Innocence) It is difficult to see how she could have outsmarted Holmes, except by rendering him unable to think by overwhelming him through physical attraction. But she is supposed to bemore of a worthy intellectual match for Holmes.

Are there any holes in the plot? An answer to this question requires a second viewing.

The last action scene, the fight scene on top of a Tower Bridge in the process of being built, did bother me because of the noticeable CGI -- it looked a bit like the poster above--rather fake, especially in comparison with the rest of the movie, in which the CGI, if used, was not apparent.

The sequences in which Holmes is thinking the fight through before he takes action were enjoyable-- I wouldn't have minded another instance of that later in the movie, but perhaps Guy Ritche thought it would be too much. How does the fight choreography for Holmes compare to historical Bartitsu? The fighting was fine, though it still could have been more reality-based, less Hollywood?

(see this post about Bartitsu)

Those who are not fastidious fans of the stories and prone to being pleased by action movies will probably enjoy this. Still, I think the final product might have been better if some changes had been made in casting and in the plot and perhaps Robert Downey Jr.'s acting. But it does make for a fun Winter movie.

The movie almost made me a fan of late 19th-century men's wear. (How much change was there between late Victorian and Edwardian fashion?)

Yahoo movie stills

A note on logic:
While watching Sherlock Holmes at work, the logical structure of his method of "deduction" and inference came to mind. He is good at guessing at causes, and one can make better guesses if one has some familiarity with the possible causes.

If a then b.
B.
Then a.

To avoid the fallacy of affirming the consequent, one cannot characterize the conclusion as certain, but only as "probable." (A discussion of what is "probable" postponed.) The same sort of "deduction" is at work each week on House? House and his team work through the list of possible causes, eliminating each one until they find the one left that explains the symptoms.

His method is closer to "induction" than "deduction."

More:

Roger Ebert's review