There was a fair bit of discussion about whether or not it was ‘right’ for Guy “Mockney” Ritchie to join the ‘re-​boot’ fad with a version of the character Sherlock Holmes. This, frankly, scares me. If Guy Ritchie, or Guy Madden, or even Guy Lombardo want to make a new version of the stories – and presuming there aren’t either copyright or other intellectual property concerns – then “go to it” say I. Rumour has it that there are fanatical, self-​appointed ‘fidelity checkers’ who attend any production of the plays of Samuel Beckett, and if the production seems to be less than entirely traditional in its approach, they notify the Beckett estate and the director or production company are then either asked for a justification of the production design, informed they must cease production, or both. This sort of cultural deadening ought to be anathema to any creative person or even those who simply appreciate the creative arts.

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

So, that said, how did Mr. Ritchie do? Brilliantly, in my view.

The essence of the character is that of highly intellectual eccentric with a fountain of knowledge crammed into his brain and available at a moment’s notice. Coupled with that is his constant need for intellectual stimulation which can only be calmed briefly by the world, thus necessitating the injection of opium, consumption of alcohol, or non-​stop experimentation with both. After that, yes, there are a bunch of things that need to be observed, but that’s the basic un-​changeable nature of the thing.

Given the above character specifics, it’s hardly surprising that Robert Downie Jr. is the man in the role of the detective. While one shouldn’t say “he was born to play this”, as it sounds a bit too messianic for one thing, it still seems presumptuous to suggest that the reason for his chemical self-​abuse in the 1990s was so that he would be a perfect actor in this series. None the less, it works.

There were a few reviewers who suggested that Holmes and Watson had more than tinge of “bromance” or possibly even homo-​erotic tone to their friendship. Where this comes from may be a tetchiness about their verbal sparring, plus the certain jealousy when two flat-​mates are separated due to one of them getting married. There is nothing more there, and its most probable piece of evidence pointed to by some would be that we see them initially arguing over the possession of an article of clothing; something which ‘Gay men argue about all the time’, which is ridiculous. the two men simple love each other, as any two close friends do, and not with a love “who dare not speak its name” as the parlance of their time phrased it. I wouldn’t have a problem with the two characters actually being lovers, but there’s insufficient evidence to get on one’s high horse about the possibility here, and that house isn’t about to get more disturbed than merely shifting around on its hooves a bit.

The fight scenes using a combination of ‘Baritsu’ and ‘Wing-​Chun Kung Fu’ (but mostly the latter) are excellent, and aptly add to the story with both action and plot development. The nature of the villains and heroes are demonstrated and broadened, yet mostly the scenes add the thrill of the event more than anything. A huge chunk of the fight in “the Punchbowl Pit” probably could have gone without any perceptible loss, but that’s something that’s subjective; others would want more of it.

The ‘look’ of the thing is excellent, with the digital creation of Victorian-​era London being nigh-​on flawless. The one place where it does seem a tad fiddly is with the complexity of Tower Bridge’s creation: it’s almost too intricate and on our screen had some artifacts around its outline, making it stand out with a “hey look at how cleaver we are!” nature as a result. Given the up-​scaling from a DVD image to an HD monitor, it was probably better in the theatres and could very well look fine on someone else’s screen. It bothered me, however.

What really could have been fixed – and wasn’t a result of various technical aspects – was the singular lack of colour in the image. The poster above is a good indication of the over-​all palate of the presentation: cold, quite blue, and drab. Granted, London in the late 1800s was a damned filthy place, with much of the city covered in inches of coal dust, thus hardly somewhere you go to for the excitement of a riot of colours. Still, it’s a fairly prevalent trend in cinema these days, so the lack of saturation and colour range over-​all is something I’m growing weary of.

Of additional concern is the sheer number of production companies involved in making what might have been a fairly simple film. Six production companies involved in initial creation is insane. Certainly the amount of digital effects – city skylines, ship’s hulls, bridges and so on – was necessary due to the star of the story being the location and time of the tale. It’s impossible to do something from the Sherlock Holmes ‘canon’ without showing as much of the city and its own character as is possible, based on technology available at the time. Still, couldn’t there be a way of doing all that which didn’t demand so much money and so much financial risk that the thing has to be an insanely huge block-​buster in order to begin to cover its own costs?

Sherlock Holmes (2009)
a Warner Bros. Pictures presentation
in association with Village Roadshow Pictures
a Silver Pictures production
a Wigram production in association with
Internationale Filmproduktion Blackbird Dritte GmbH & Co.
and Lin Pictures (uncredited)

Directed by
Guy Ritchie

Writing credits
screenplay by Michael Robert Johnson and Anthony Peckham and Simon Kinberg
with screen story by Lionel Wigram and Michael Robert Johnson
using the characters “Sherlock Holmes” and “Dr. Watson” created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

This year, I’ve been watching DVDs from the library for a number of reasons, mostly to do with a combination of “filling in the gaps in my ‘pop culture’ knowledge”, as well as a concerted effort to better understand story editing by both watching a film and then re-​watching listening to people who have studied that particular movie for years in order to better appreciate the themes, plot construction, symbolism, and so on.

The process would be nothing without the secondary audio tracks. Sometimes it’s like having actually been through the film-​making process with the people involved.