On the recommendation of Eric Raymond, I went to see the movie. I do have the entire Canon with all the footnotes - a huge volume from Costco that I've read a few times, not counting the Russian translations before that, plus watching the Russian version of the movie (I still think that one is one of the best versions!) So I am not a total stranger to Holmes. I have to agree that the way Holmes' work looks to the bystanders in the new movie is about right. A lot of snooping about in unsavory places, some fights, avoiding being killed - and complete understanding of everything he sees. The Holmes' study is right too - I wish the Turkish slipper was there! However, I'd give the movie a B- at best. The reason for that is the case Holmes is investigating. Holmes' cases are, almost without exception, very simple. The culprit simply goes about doing his thing - murdering, poisoning, burgling. The complexity is always more apparent than real, and Holmes' magic is to see through it, to the simple explanation. There are exceptions, such as The Speckled Band or The Man with the Twisted Lip, but that's rare. And none of them are exceptional to the degree shown in the movie.
What really gets me is the complete absence of any mentions of another detective - much more suited to the case in the movie. A detective who solved such cases by the dozen. I refer to Father Brown, of course. He deals with "mystic" crimes all the time, and his complete lack of faith in magic (rather, his negative faith - he is perfectly convinced it does not exist) is the linchpin on which the cases revolve. Holmes' cases are very different from this. I wish the director would take an actual case from the Canon and showed it the way he showed his invented one. That would be a real gem...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment