& a blog

he's still pale and pasty, but sherlock 2.0 boxes, parkours, and takes his shirt off.

scholarship on sherlock holmes has always been preoccupied with two themes: the question of the sleuth sexuality (or, what’s all this about Watson then?) and the idea of Holmes as a rational, modern individual who is frequently made to deduce (and thus digest) what appear to be irrational, supernatural, and terrifyingly pre-modern cases. in guy ritchie’s adaptation of the legendary british detective, both themes are pursued with the kind of clever cinematographic zeal and speed that one has come to expect from man who gave us snatch and lock, stock, & two smoking barrels.

it is exciting to see sherlock holmes receive the 21st century upgrade that characters like James Bond received with Casino Royale, and Batman received with The Dark Knight. Re-inventing character-driven franchises has indeed been a major movement in cinema right now, with studios eager to have stagnant cultural empires reawoken with an introduction to a new generation. in shaking hands, the millenials meet a character who they have already heard of, but in a form that is just for their ideas of heroism, cunning, skill, and honor. the millenial moviegoer finds an ‘avatar’ of these lingering cultural signs which has shifted and reformed itself to become more compelling and complete for a world at a societal inflection point.

robert downey jr.’s sherlock holmes is as curmudgeony and irrate as holmes as always been. he is as wise and brilliant as holmes as always been. he is as aloof and insular as he has always been. but, he also a capable fighter, boxing in london’s underground when he is feeling down and he knows parkour, scrambling through london’s victorian urban environment with the adroit skill that one would expect from a nike commercial. holmes is clever and heroic in that he represents a superman- an individual of superior skill and intellect. which is not to say he’s perfect, for indeed, he suffers a childish psychology, which prevents him from knowing the bounds of society. he is rude and selfish, centering the world around him and expecting the orbit of friends, clients, and even his enemies. it is this selfishness that approaches homosexuality when holmes positively pouts over dr. watson’s (jude law) impending marriage and move out from 221b Baker Street. one could almost suggest that in ritchie’s vision 221b is the romping gay days of watson and holmes, a relationship of deep intimacy and caring. when holmes shrugs off a long time love interest (rachel mcadams) at the end of the film, doubts about his sexuality re-emerge. what is it that holmes wants? watson. with no doubts.

is the storyline original? yes and no. yes, in that it doesn’t make use of any of a hundred plus available holmes adventures, but no in that it doesn’t break new ground. instead, the film uses plot material taken from a host of contemporary popular entertainments; this is sherlock holmes unraveling the pop culture mystery of harry potter and twilight.

this film is outstanding because everything is done well, and some things are even done exceptionally. the acting is superb, the writing fun and fast, and the plot not too j.j. abrams-y to require intense speculation and confusion. the narrative runs straight and true- tension pushing the film forward, a climax bringing us to our feet, and a conclusion resolving our doubts and disbeliefs. the conclusion is a holmes tradition, a detective tradition even more broadly. you simply cannot have a mystery without its complete intellectual deconstruction. in this film, like in all holmes stories, we are brought to unmask mystery and superstition with logic and reason.

and holmes’ conclusion in this film is the moviegoer’s own: there is no magic needed to create the greatness, only intelligent tricks, artistic flair, and masterful delievery.