Comments on: Not so Elementary

By: neha

neha — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 06:20:14 +0000

Two important points here:
1. My critique stems from the fact that one, the Holmes we knew, the literary Holmes that Doyle created, has not been re-created. This wouldn’t be so problematic if Sherlock didn’t stand for what he does- which is action/ detective work paired with a unique persona. This is the persona in which condescension is reserved for men and women, ie on in which sexuality does not matter. Firstly then, this uniquely asexual persona has not been created (if it did, it would make for such interesting film!)
2. Further from this point, it is tiring and problematic that old Hollywood formulas have been infused in the already alienating rendering of Sherlock- these be Irene as a love interest, other mysterious women (all of whom have to tow Sherlock’s line, etc). While I agree there is a homo-erotic current between Sherlock and Watson, all indications seem to be that Irene will rise again- this time in turn for a proper ‘rescue’, which was also the main focus of the first movie. Why then, call the main character Sherlock Holmes?

By: Danish Sheikh

Danish Sheikh — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 09:49:37 +0000

I think what you’ve failed to appreciate is how the condescension you point out plays against the powerfully homoerotic narrative that Guy Ritchie attempts to spin in the sequel. Holmes doesn’t have a place for women in the movie, primarily with Watson stepping in as the traditional love interest: it is the two of them who engage in the give and take, the constant arguing, and the cold wars so definitive of any real couple. It’s not even an implied kind of narrative: note the scenes of the two of them huddling in a train compartment, or Holmes complaining about Watson’s repressing himself.

And sure, there are the token romantic interests in the story, but they’re dispatched off rather quickly to give proper reign to the real love story. Perhaps there is something misogynistic about Ritchie’s approach to the matter, but locating it in the realms of sexism leaves out some valuable perspectives.

By: neha

neha — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 07:11:31 +0000

Daya: Thanks! The interpretation of Sherlock as a pure action-genre doesn’t irk me as much as infusing it with old Hollywood formulas does. Was Irene Adler ever a romantic interest? No, she wasn’t, so why interpret her as one? Creating a very mainstream, familiar, male (and female) character takes away from my Sherlock experience. Also, ha, I wonder how it would be if they made Poirot with a girlfriend, or Feluda with an item number. What made these detectives more than the average joe/ crime-fighter was the persona, which I feel should be preserved!

By: neha

neha — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 07:03:29 +0000

Arghya: I completely agree, and the lines between Bollywood and Hollywood are so blurry now, especially in the action genre! I think I’m also a bit tired of the whole hold-your-breath-dont-blink action movies that have been shown over end 2011-12. Now if only Scorcese would make Sherlock, though..

By: neha

neha — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 07:01:41 +0000

Bibek: thanks! You are right about Robert’s insouciance carrying the day. He lends himself well to eccentric characters. Having said that, Holmes is much more than eccentric, and I wish we could have a rendition which tries to create the book’s atmospherics.

By: Daya

Daya — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:35:21 +0000

“a little planet in herself within Doyle’s world, a luminous planet which was often remembered”, loved the description. But why is Holmes masochistic? The machismo is evident, I can see. Haven’t watched the second in the series, but I actually found the wrestling and the violin in the first film interesting…..I didn’t see it as out of character with Holmes at all, I simply thought that these were things that the science of deduction lent itself very easily to, in the way Guy Ritchie interpreted them.

By: Arghya

Arghya — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 12:17:31 +0000

I agree almost completely. Would go further to say that it’s hollywood becoming bollywoodised, with the one-on-one fight scenes, machismo from heroes, and of course the essential happy ending. Wouldn’t have complained had it not been for the fact that I was watching what was supposed to be a Sherlock Holmes film! Sits ill with all my happy memories of reading Sherlock.

By: Bibek Bhattacharya

Bibek Bhattacharya — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 08:52:27 +0000

Very perceptive. But the thing is, Guy Ritchie knows his audience, beer drinkers. And I guess that’s what he’s doing, playing to the (very macho) gallery and relying on Robert Downey’s insouciance to carry the day.