Welcome to our second installment of the new filmspiration series. This time Iulia David – our new performing arts & film guest writer – reviews Sherlock Holmes, the latest movie directed by Guy Ritchie. Enjoy and share your opinions in the comments.
The final scenes of this unlucky-unhappy-yet-entertaining meeting between Sherlock Holmes & Guy Ritchie clearly suggests there will be a sequel.
Yeah, there’s always a sequel – especially when you have one of those cool clear-minded, good-looking queer birds whose charm is so confusing that you have to clear it up in the second part. But lets’ hope Mr. Ritchie will take a break from this one!
Not just that Guy Ritchie is still very proud of his cinematic trickery, but he diminishes a great talent, who was very close to perform a splendid character, to an eccentric, almost cartoonish appearance – if still Holmes is not a caricature that’s because Downey has one of those very good artistic instincts and knows exactly how to handle the stuff. Plus: to make an action hero out of a reflective celebrity – that’s totally a miscalculation.
Our Holmes solves murder mysteries and fights stubbornly; he uses his exceptional intuition to be intense as a detective but also to draw up elaborate techniques for his physical encounters with a weird, bad, ugly giant. We know him as a genius, although an arrogant (loyal only to his friendship with Watson) who uses drugs, but still, he lives in our collective subconscious as the mind genius – why would anyone want him to fight like a bull? Wouldn’t his intellectual climaxes be exciting enough for our punch-addicted world?
The film speculates on this visual show led by Holmes and his girl (I mean, look at those CG clouds in the final battle scene on that CG Tower Bridge!) and doesn’t insist much on the construction of a truly interesting personality as Sherlock Holmes. When Conan Doyle created the character, at the end of the 19th century, Holmes was the Detective – the model of the triumphant reason and the infallible logic. All those values were promoted by the Enlightenment thinkers and found the fulfillment, among other means of entertainment, in the detective fiction. Within system, Sherlock Holmes was thus charged to re-establish the social order. He was sophisticated and eccentric because the Victorian era attached much value to strong individuals, not to conformity.
Nowadays, Sherlock Holmes is a superficially updated copy created according to the commercial laws of success. Yup, we do need super-action-heroes, but not at any price.