Dec 28 2009
A Review of Sherlock Holmes
Sherlock Holmes has always been a favorite fictional character of mine. He is a deeply flawed character, and that is likely part of his appeal and popularity. But mostly, at his core, he is a profoundly rational character, combining impeccable logic, keen observation and attention to detail, and an astounding fund of knowledge.
I doubt there is a fictional character more famous than Holmes for his towering intellect.
Like any fan, I approach a new imagining of a favorite hero with some trepidation – and that is how I approached the new Sherlock Holmes movie starring Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law.
There is simply no way for me to discuss this movie without massive spoilers. So do not read on if you have not seen the movie and are planning to. I do recommend the movie – so go see it, and then come back and read the rest of this post.
If you have read this far, then I can assume you have seen the movie or don’t care,
First, let me say I was pleasantly surprised by the film. The previews made Holmes seem more like an action hero, but that was not the case. Holmes was more brawny than previous incarnations, but except for occasional fisticuffs, Downey’s Holmes was as effete, proper, and pompous as ever. But more importantly, he remained every bit the intellectual the character should be.
I liked the way Watson was portrayed. He was less Holmes lap dog and more his equal, every bit as sharp as Holmes. And it was obvious that Holmes really cared for him. The one small downside to this, however, is that Watson was less in his role of needing everything explained to him. So there was less running commentary on Holmes musings about the case.
This was a factor in my only minor complaint about the movie – the clues were not sufficiently accessible to the audience. Holmes figures things out by applying his rarefied knowledge, which is fine and is certainly part of the character – but there also should be a balance of those clues that can be reasoned out even without knowing ahead of time that a paralytic poison can be made from dehydrated rhododendron.
Perhaps this difference results from the medium – cinema vs book – but I don’t think that entirely explains it. My concern is that it makes scientific knowledge seem inaccessible – almost magical.
I have this quibble, however, because otherwise the movie was awesome and true to the rational icon of Sherlock Holmes. Throughout the movie the villain attempts to take control by using trickery to duplicate paranormal powers. He attempts to use fear and superstition to panic the masses. He even makes an all-out effort to get Holmes to abandon his strict adherence to rationality and “broaden his view” to accept the apparently paranormal happenings around him.
While watching the film I was concerned that the writers had thrust Holmes into a paranormal universe. That would have been a disaster, and I would be writing a very different review if that were the case. But in the end we are rewarded – Holmes did not waver from reason for a moment. And in the end reason wins the day.
And that, of course, is my favorite thing about the character of Sherlock Holmes. He is a celebration of reason, rationality, science, and knowledge in general. I have read that Arthur Conan Doyle (who himself believed in fairies and spiritualism) meant for Holmes to be a caricature of the hyper-rational snob. But Holmes took on a life of his own – it seems the public liked Holmes and his superstar intellect more than Doyle.
Recently we have seen a resurgence of the Holmes archetype in fiction. House is a carbon copy of Holmes, down to his narcotic addiction. The Mentalist, The Eleventh Hour, CSI, and Bones all have characters that channel the great detective.
And now Holmes is brought back to the big screen, with an obvious setup for sequels. I hope we are seeing a cultural backlash against the burgeoning irrationality of the last couple of decades. Let the pendulum swing.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Print This Post
13 Responses to “A Review of Sherlock Holmes”
My issue with the movie was that the whole conspiracy came down to
[SPOILERS]
the noose used in the hanging, yet the noose shown was an American noose not a British one. British nooses did not have a hangman’s knot (where the hook was hidden in the film), but had a single knot. A metal disc that slid below the condemned person’s chin was what broke the neck, not the rope knot.
[/SPOILERS]
Sherlock Holmes is cited as a venerable detective even by Alexander McCall Smith’s Boswana female detective, Mma Ramotswe (TBL) and her assistant, Mma Makutsi. Just finished reading the 10 book series last night!
I definitely found the trailer a bit flashy to be a serious version of Holmes, but after reading your review, I may have to go see it.
I, too approached the movie with trepidation and was pleasantly surprised by it. Walking out of the theater I couldn’t help but think of the Tim Minchin quote: “throughout history, every mystery ever solved has turned out to be… not magic!” So, I figured it would be mentioned somewhere in the Skeptics’ Guide media empire.
I also shared the concern about the accessibility of the various clues to the viewer, but as I think about it I realize that from a skeptic’s standpoint the way it was done was one of the best ways to do the movie. It’s often said that magicians become interested in skepticism through their intimate understanding of how people are fooled: in my opinion this movie functions like one of Penn & Teller’s magic acts in which they first show the trick and then reveal how it is done.
The movie lets you believe that “magic” is actually happening, if you want to, by hiding the magician Blackwood’s preparations to achieve his desired effects. Then in the end it shows you that it was really your own incomplete knowledge as well as what people say that (may have) led you to believe something supernatural was occurring. Although I don’t see most people thinking about this movie that much, I do think it is a great non-explicit primer on the principles of skepticism and scientific investigation and that someone somewhere will think a little differently because of it.
I loved this movie!
There was one quote in particular that made my husband and I cheer silently…when he was kind of scolding Watson for saying they should consider the paranormal explanation. He gave a great little quote on why you shouldn’t start with a conclusion and bend the facts to fit that story, but why you should follow the evidence to wherever it leads. I wish I could remember the exact wording.
@LinzeeBinzeeon
The quote is from [i]A Study in Scarlet[/i].
“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
– Sherlock Holmes
Jay Novella used it once as a closing quote on The Skeptic’s Guide, which is how I remembered it when I saw the Sherlock Holmes film.
I disagree about it being to hard for the audience to figure out. I just didn’t find the proof that Holmes did.
I got all the magic effects before they were revealed with one exception.
[MAJOR SPOILERS]
While I didn’t get that it was a poisen made from a flower. I did figure it was a poisen that was in his bath salts.
Similarly I picked that the man who was set on fire by a ‘protective spell’ was coated in a flammable substance ignighted by his gunshot. I didn’t pick the application method.
The only thing I missed completely was the hanging->dead man test. I figured that it was a twin that had actually died. However that would have been revealed by his father.
[/MAJOR SPOILERS]
Anyways.. good movie, go see it. I didn’t feel that it was in any way impossible for the audience to keep up. That is however giving the audience much more credit for not being retards than most US movie studios do.
I agree, a great movie, though the people sitting next to me were thoroughly convinced it was magic, leaving me wondering if they’d ever actually read Sherlock Holmes. Like qyiet, I have deduced at least the basics of the tricks before Holmes’ reveal.
@qyiet – a twin? had you just watched the Prestige?
My only lingering question: in the 1st scene, all the shaking and such of the sacrifice can be explained by some sort of toxin, but why was she about to stab herself? The end the pain?
@Esattezza I thought hypnotism at the time, but then now that I think about it, you can’t hypnotise someone to kill themselves. May be with the help of the drugs though.
Anyway, awesome movie. Can’t wait for Moriarti.
@NyelaniousTour
Actually, the quote is from “A Scandal in Bohemia”.
I was reading it today, because it’s the story that introduces Irene Adler.
I wasn’t going to see the movie until I read up to the 6th paragraph of this entry. I stopped myself, went out and saw the movie, then came back and read the rest.
I have to say, I was very worried throughout the entire movie that they had thrust Holmes into a world of magic, and up until the very end I was concerned that this movie was going to ruin the image of Holmes for a younger generation that has never read one of his stories. Of course, once everything snapped into place, I was pleased as pie that the writers stayed true enough to the original character.
Also, a side note: I’m a fan of both Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, and Snatch, and I didn’t know that Guy Ritchie directed the film. During the boxing scene between Holmes and the big guy, I kept thinking to myself, “Where have I seen this kind of work before?”
Can’t wait for the sequel.
Well, I went to see it.
I have to confess that at first glance I thought “oh no, they’ve turned Sherlock Holmes into Indiana Jones ”
And, while in some ways I was right, they did a much better job than I expected. although I do wish the movies werent so expensive these days. . .
I completely agree about the inaccessibility of the clues from the movie. I think part of the fun is as the reader/watcher of the tale trying to match wits with the great detective to try and figure it out before he does and the movie didn’t really give the audience a chance to do that.
I was glad science won out over trickery. I think that’s a good take home message for the film and I hope people “got” it.