Sherlock Holmes: A Taste of Sensation

Like a true fan of Conan Doyle, I was horrified when the Sherlock Holmes trailer began to run. Explosions? Nudity? What were they writing about here? What bastard had scrambled together this catastrophe?

Then the unthinkable happened: I laughed.
By the end of the trailer I was sold hook, line and sinker for this film. I saw it on December 26, not thirty hours after it had been released.
My first thought when the credits began to roll was "No one but me will like this film." I cannot explain this sentiment beyond having a certain understanding of what people expected from this film as opposed to what they got. I believe that I expected exactly what I got from this film, but that I am one of few.
Indeed the problems that face it are numerous: apparent ignorance of historical accuracy as well as of the literary canon, sensationalizing of a literary oeuvre, and, the worst crime of all, an element of romance.
How will this film overcome these harsh accusations?

I will not engage these problems in any way other than to dismiss them altogether. There ARE deviances from the canon, and the script is sensationalized, but if you object to them there is no reason that will sway you. Therefore I digress with only one defence, which is essential to anyone's understanding of the spirit of the film:
Arthur Conan Doyle wrote his stories as popular fiction, fiction that was accessible to, and enjoyed by everyone. In this way it was not considered "high" literature. It is comparable to action and adventure movies of today. Are we beginning to see my point? Sherlock Holmes has become a folk hero of literature, but one accessed by few in its original form which, compared to modern literature, can be considered dry or long-winded. The sensational modernization of this character, I believe, is more a testament to its original intent, which was only to entertain. 

Robert Downey Jr.'s stunning portrayal of Holmes is, in its way, unprecedented. While Jeremy Brett remains my favourite when consulting accuracy to the written canon, Downey preserves the spirit that is transcends the modernized sentiment of the film. His arrogance, wit and unconventional madness is the centrepiece that makes the film marvellous. Indeed all of the characters whose origins are within Conan Doyle's stories are portrayed with a modern edge which becomes them excellently. With that in mind, it would surprise most to learn that very little was added to these characters to make them modern entertainers. Even the brazen Irene Adler was not embellished much at all, as she is the only woman to gain Holmes' esteem.

I have heard some objection to the film's apparent fixation with the occult, which is again, more a testament to Conan Doyle than most would recognize. When not writing Holmes' adventures, Doyle was writing books on the subject of parapsychology, that is to say, spirits, seances, automatic writing and other communication with the dead. Doyle was obsessed with the supernatural and in fact his reputation was decidedly ruined later in his career by his stalwart belief in the Cottingley Fairies Photographs, which were later proved to be faked.
In any case, the supernatural elements are in fact proven false by all accounts and therefore these is no reason to cry about it, folks.

I do believe I liked everything about this movie. I loved the elaborately constructed sets. I loved the hysterical dialogue that seems to have been created by a modge-podge collection of writers, only a few of them with more than one Hollywood film under their belt. I loved the courageous but underrated cinematography. I loved the not-so-subtle hint at a sequel which has us all guessing, except that we aren't. I even love that despite the mixed reviews, lack-lustre buzz and very modest box office earnings, this little film is powering through to be still in theatres.

I admit when it comes to films I liked, I am positively boring. I'll hit you with some more negative reviews next week.

Until then...

Liz