Last week, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows was released on DVD and Blu-ray, so I am going to give my two cents (even though the penny is disappearing soon) on both movies and the original source material they are based on. I don’t claim to be an expert on Sherlock Holmes, as I’ve only seen about a dozen movies, three different tv shows, and own the books in about six different versions, plus additional books like The Sherlock Holmes Handbook (a training guide on the methods of the great fictional detective). If you haven’t read the books they are great, despite being published about one hundred and twenty-five years ago. The Robert Downing Jr. and Jude Law movies are great, as are the other ones made in the last five years (yes, there are more). I am not going to worry too much about spoilers as the stories are over a hundred years old, and the movie is now available outside of theatres.
So first let’s talk a bit about Sherlock Holmes. Most people will know that Holmes was created by Sir Arthur Canon Doyle, and first appeared in the novel ‘A Study in Scarlet’ in the 1887 Beeton’s Christmas Annual. Since that initial appearance Doyle wrote an additional three novels and fifty-six short stories. In most cases the stories take the form of the journals of Holmes’ friend Dr. John H. Watson, a retired army doctor who shares an apartment with Holmes because both are looking for comfortable living arrangements with someone who isn’t too annoying but will pay half of the bill. I’m not kidding, that really is how one of the greatest literary teams in history met. The character of Holmes, and his amazing attention to detail, is said to be based on one of Doyle’s professors in his training as a doctor. The professor had a talent for identifying where a cadaver had lived, worked, and died based on the wrinkles around their eyes, the way they wore their watch, and many other items that were unbelievable at the time but are now commonplace in forensic science.
Some people have complained that the Robert Downing Jr. version of Holmes is too action oriented, making quick remarks under his breath and generally acting differently than the ‘classic’ portrayals we have seen in the 50s through the 90s. But this is just another portrayal, among many. The character of Sherlock Holmes currently holds the Guinness World Record for most portrayed movie character, with 75 actors playing the part in over 211 films – the first in 1900. So who can really say which is the ‘right’ portrayal, should Holmes be played the way he has for the last 112 years, or were these ‘wrong’?
I also want to talk about in this article are some of the other aspects of Holmes’ character that are in the stories, but have rarely been replicated in film, and are now the main complaints people had about the two most recent films. The three main points will be thinking forward, combat and weaponry, and the Woman.
“Thinking forward” is what I am choosing to describe as the Guy Ritchie movie sequences of slow motion where Holmes plans out the entire fight before him based on his observations of his opponents. A slight twist of the head tells Holmes the enemy has a hearing loss – hit him on that side to further disctract, a limp on one side – target that knee for increased effect, hit the windpipe in a specific spot to instantly silence the enemy without permanent damage. These effects made a lot of people complain about how the movies were too action oriented and unrealistic, but I totally disagree. This is the exact kind of thing a person like Holmes would do. If he could identify a person’s occupation by the way they wind their watch, I think he is going to apply the same care and attention when the person is trying to kill him. I also think it makes the movies more believable rather than less, especially since the default fight scene is one where the hero and villain pummel each other till one gets shot thirty times. Having Holmes plan out his attacks shows how an ordinary man could be an effective combatant using skill and knowledge rather than brute force.
In “A Study in Scarlet,” Holmes talks about how many people can think forward (knowing that if A takes place, B will follow) but that very few people can reason backwards (What caused A?). Holmes’ fighting technique is a form of that thinking, with the final result being the successful incapacitation of the enemy, but by an unknown path. This comes into effect when Holmes and Moriarty are facing off at the edge of Reichenbach Falls, and we see the way that they are both trying to out think the other and figure out the path of the battle that is going to ensue. It is a great scene, and although the way the narration is played out it gets a little surreal, it’s an awesome way of building up to what was a very simple battle in the end.
That brings us to combat rather nicely; another thing people complained about. Many people felt that Holmes was too much of a fighter instead of a thinker, but this is more the fault of previous adaptations failing to accurately portray the character. Throughout the stories Holmes is described as a champion of boxing, often getting into matches for gambling purposes. He is also an accomplished master of Baritsu martial arts, a mixture of jujitsu, boxing, and fencing (which Holmes is also skilled at). Holmes and Watson were often required to carry pistols with them, with Watson being the better shot of the two men. It should be noted that in both movies Holmes regularly sets up scenarios using complicated deduction and planting tools to give Watson the opportunity to make the necessary shot.
So the final point I want to mention is the inclusion of Irene Adler, or “The Woman” as she is sometimes called in the stories. She is the only person who has ever outwitted Holmes and he has a deep respect for her, and was portrayed perfectly in the movies by Rachel McAdams. Adler is a character who stole from and blackmailed powerful men despite being a woman in Victorian England. I expect her to make a return in the next movie, or at least be shown to have escaped, because killing her is not a smart strategy for Moriarty. If you have a valuable hostage that your enemy finds valuable, would you really kill them? Or would you lie about it (Irene’s dead body is never shown onscreen) and keep her as an ace up your sleeve? That’s just my hope for the next movie, which is already in development for an expected 2014 release.
Another great use of the original stories was using the plot of ‘The Final Problem’ where Holmes and Watson travel to Reichenbach after having put the final piece in the puzzle of defeating Professor James Moriarty. The story ends with Holmes and Moriarty evenly matched in battle and plummeting into the falls, where Watson presumes them both dead. This story was then followed by ‘The Adventure of the Empty House’ where Watson learns that Holmes actually survived, with many stories happening after this point. I was great to see the use of these pieces in the larger story that they created in the second movie, and I hope they use more pieces in the next movie.
If you are interested in the original stories check them out, and definitely look into the other movies and mediums. There is currently a TV show on BBC (“Sherlock”) with a modern retelling of some of the stories, and I will admit I really enjoyed watching the animated ‘Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century’ series back when it was on TV. Another recent television movie adaptation is ‘Sherlock Holmes and the Baker Street Irregulars’, a slightly more traditional adaptation from 2007 starring Jonathan Pryce as Holmes. Good luck with the last of your midterms and remember to relax with a good book or a movie.
Leave a Reply