Caffeinated Clint
Guy Richie’s bold new take on ‘Sherlock Holmes’ opens in the middle of an action scene that showcases the director at his very best; it’s a frantic, dirty and breathless chase sequence that introduces Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jnr) and Dr John Watson (Jude Law) as they finally corner a long sought serial killer. We’re immediately engaged with fine actors, interested in new takes on familiar characters, and slightly distracted by the background of a beautifully realized London circa 1890, which thanks to BAFTA award winning Production Designer Sarah Greenwood, is a visual feast for the eyes. Familiar landmarks are seen as they were when newly build (or in some cases still being constructed) and we get a sense that this is a working city on the cusp of the Industrial Revolution, our story just one of many in a teaming mass of humanity. Finally, past attempts to recreate London of this period are laid to rest (‘From Hell’ & ‘League of Extraordinary Gentlemen’ I’m looking at you), and instead of bad CGI or worse, Prague, we have the jewel of the Empire on the big screen at the height of its splendor… and suddenly we’re snapped back to our leads as Holmes and Watson call each other ‘Old Cock” and ‘Mother Hen” and start fretting about who left the stove on. In the words of ‘the kids’ – WFT?! Yes, I’m pleased to say that whilst the film is a well plotted detective fiction with clever twists and amazing leaps of deduction (everything that we’ve come to expect for previous Sherlock Holmes films), perfectly married with edge-of-the-seat action and fight sequences (as we’ve come to expect from producer Joel ‘Die Hard/ Lethal Weapon/ Predator/Matrix’ Silver), it also has the deft character interaction that we saw in Richie’s most recent work. This partnership/friendship is what makes this film work above all else, and for the first time we have a sense of equality between the two characters. Holmes as portrayed by Downey Jnr, is a flawed genius – a peerless detective but not exactly a fully formed human being, almost like he knows how he should act because he’s very observant of other people, but he’s not exactly sure why, or if indeed the rules apply to him. Watson on the other hand is the salt of the earth type, recently returned from the war in Afghanistan and in many ways Sherlock’s tether with the real world. It becomes clear that they are both very fond and need each other, Sherlock needing Watson in order to function; to drag him out of depression, or to eat properly, stay out of danger or to keep a well stocked wardrobe from which Sherlock borrows excessively. Watson in return needs Sherlock to provide that spark of genius and inspiration that nobody else has, to view the world through his eyes and provide a thoroughly unique point of view. Watson would get along just fine without his friend but would he really feel alive?
This is the centre of the film, or at least it was for me. I could write about the plot of villainous toff Lord Blackwood to take over London, the interesting angle the film takes in blurring black magic, the freemasons and industrial gadgetry, or the romantic entanglements, intrigue, action and adventure that the leads find themselves in, and they would all be valid points to celebrate in this film, but the film for me comes down to the casting. Robert Downey Jnr is easy to believe as a genius, in fact we seem to prefer that he play one (with celebrated performances in ‘Iron Man’ and ‘Chaplin’), and its difficult to think of another actor who could have handled the part so well. Obviously intelligence is needed, but also a bravery, almost recklessness is brought to the performance that in other hands could have come off as petulant or dandy. We see Holmes at his shining best as he solves a case and we see him alone and in the pits of depression when his mind is left unstimulated. We see hints of the drug use that gets him through those periods and the brutal Fight Club that he attends so he can switch from cerebral boredom to more manageable physical pain. As an audience we draw parallels between actor and character and believe him in this role entirely. Yes, in his spare time Downey Jnr also practices martial arts.
Jude Law brings a dignity to Dr Watson that is present in the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle stories but became mostly replaced by a bumbling sidekick in the films until now. Gone is the white haired, plump codger of yesteryear, welcomingly re-imagined as a dapper gent in a well fitting suit. Loyal, dependable and a bit tasty in a fight, it is no wonder than the ladies’ love him, and indeed much of the story’s thrust comes in the turn of events that see Watson planning to move out of Holmes quarters and set up home with the lovely Mary (Kelly Reilly), much to Holmes dismay.
As Jude Law explains, “The cut of the story is a domestic drama really”, with Robert Downey Jnr elaborating “It’s a love affair of sorts, but Holmes and Watson are all of us…the movie is about the two of you and the third thing that creates.”
The lengths that Holmes goes to to persuade his friend that he is making a martial mistake, the torn loyalties of Watson and the confusion of his fiancee give the film a welcomingly modern ‘Bromantic Comedy’ feel that is painfully funny and all too true.
Holmes isn’t without female distraction himself, which comes in the form of Irene Adler, played by Rachel McAdams. If you’ve seen Catwoman in ‘Batman Returns’ or Milady in ‘Dogtanian’, then you know the basic character; beautiful, deadly, can’t be trusted. It would be wrong to say that Adler is Holmes’ romantic interest as the infatuation seems to come from the fact that she has bested him (twice) and as the world’s smartest man that is simply not allowed. So what we get is game of mental agility where sex, trust and seduction are mostly tactical maneuvers . Both female characters are as defined as they need to be, but are clearly here to service the plot, if not the male leads.
If the film has one weak point it would be in the villain, Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong). There is just something missing that would certainly raise eyebrows if anybody put him on their cinematical ‘best villains’ list. When it comes down to it, as an audience we’re so enjoying this visceral rebirth of Sherlock Holmes, that we’re also demanding Moriarty. When we caught up with actor Mark Strong the day after watching the film he seemed aware of this complaint and countered that “its way more inventive to not have Moriarty”, that it allowed freedom to have the villain use weaponry and an interest in the black arts that if the filmmakers had assigned to the aforementioned Professor, would have had the Holmes purists up in arms. And he’s right of course, the film is delightful enough to not give us everything that we expect to see, least we leave the theatre merely thinking that it ticked all the boxes but didnt have the balls to try something new. Also missing? The Deerstalker and the phrase “Elementary My Dear Watson”, thus avoiding a film, as Guy Richie sees it, “contaminated with previous symbols” of previous films.
There were rumors that Warner Bros had also felt the lack of Moriarty and demanded reshoots, a point that Richie concedes in as much as for each film he has planned a contingency for such matters, thus reshoots were always planned. He doesn’t elaborate which parts were filmed during the ‘contingency period’ but without giving away too much I’m pleased to say that the matter of Moriarty is taken care of in a way that is handled somewhat better than the Joker at the end of ‘Batman Begins’. Yes, its clear from the film and from listening to Joel Silver that they are confident enough to be thinking “franchise”, whilst keeping their fingers crossed behind their backs, and why not? A case could easily be argued that Warners are positioning the film as a comic book movie, a point echoed by its Downey jnr, “He was probably the first superhero, an intellectual superhero, he was, and probably still is, one of the most recognizable icons on Earth”. Of course, the challenge for the filmmakers is going to be what happens when you strip the trappings of the Sherlock Holmes that we only know from adaptions, head back to the source material and give it all the polish of a blockbuster film instead of a creaky melodrama? Is it the same recognizable icon?
From a character point of view, if they continue to present the ‘Holmes as Superhero’ angle, we have to question what will happen to a superhero that hasn’t had the foresight to adapt a secret identity? In one scene we have Holmes in jail amusing his fellow inmates with tales of brilliance and wit, but worried that violence may break out when he runs out of stories. We have him sitting alone and depressed in his room, taking potshots at the wall when the crimes run dry. Is this what happens to a superhero who cant turn off his power (in this case his intelligence) or slip into a civilian identity and mingle with the public without the pressure to perform? Possibly most importantly, as we accept him wholeheartedly in the role of Sherlock Holmes, Genius; is Robert Downey Jnr telling us something about his life and the pressure of fame?
So, in summarizing, everything that you have probably heard in the lead-up to this film is true. It has been made by a Director and Producer who bring their own reputations to the table which could have been seen as baggage (I was sitting within earshot of one journalist muttering about Kabbalahic symbols hidden in the film), the fear was that Richie would bring either a cockney geezer schtick or Silver would bring something inappropriately American, and starring two leads who are prime tabloid fodder, playing characters that the public are very at ease seeing them play. This could have been seen as lazy casting or given them permission to ‘phone it in’ and it’s to the audience’s great benefit that neither are the case, the casting allows us to believe them in their roles, Richie’s talent in establishing male camaraderie make them mesmerizing to watch, and Joel Silver’s expertise as a huge action producer gives them (in Richie’s words) “American muscle and American pockets”. This Sherlock Holmes re-imagined for a new generation is everything you expect to find or could reasonably hope for, a film that will puzzle, amuse, delight and astonish. The perfect beginning to a new decade in film, and new life granted to the World’s Greatest Detective.
– James Lee Kennett, London
