I think Guy Ritchie's interpretation of Sherlock Holmes is really interesting. In the stories, Sherlock is portrayed as a socially uncomfortable detective with some autistic tendencies that show up in the BBC series. He isn't much of a tough guy, but he's practically a savant when it comes to solving mysteries. Ritchie seems to have taken this unassuming character and turned him into a superhero. He fights crime both mentally and physically, and he's somewhat of a "macho man". I get the sense that Doyle's vision of Sherlock didn't include a 6-pack. Ritchie's Sherlock is borderline Batman. He's the tortured hero.
I don't necessarily hate it, however.
The beauty of a film adaptation is that it's an adaptation. The director can take a character and mold it into something that fits modern culture. In an era of superhero blockbusters, here's a Sherlock-ed version. It's kinda fun. Spiderman and Batman can fight the bad guys, but they can't use their heads to unravel an ages-old mystery. In Ritchie's film, Sherlock can do both. I think it elevates him to a god-like status that really appeals to moviegoers. It's not totally consistent with the books, but if this is what it takes to have a Sherlock blockbuster film in 21st century America, I guess I'm okay with it.
Ritchie did take some elements from the books. His Sherlock is still the incredibly-smart, overwhelmingly-observant, often-abrasive, less-than-perfect detective genius. In both the 2009 film and Baskerville, Sherlock dons a disguise. He's still partnered up with his doctor buddy, Watson.
After some internal debate, I actually really like Ritchie's Sherlock. It's not perfect, but I think it took the heart and soul of Sherlock and delivered it to modern America in a very relevant and successful way. It will be interesting to see where these films land in the Sherlock legacy.
I really like your comparison of Sherlock to Batman, and when you stated that Ritchie had turned Sherlock into “the tortured hero.” In class, we discussed the scene in where Sherlock was waiting for Watson and Mary in a restaurant, and he was observing everyone and everything. There wasn’t a reason for Sherlock to be paying so much attention to every detail in this scene. The director was showing the audience that Sherlock’s gift is also his curse. His powers of deduction are often overwhelming, and unfortunately for him, it doesn’t appear to be something that he can turn off and on. In this since, he is definitely a tortured hero. I just also wanted to point out that Doyle’s A study in Scarlet does state that Sherlock was an expert in boxing and swordsmanship. Although, I do understand that in all of our readings in this class we haven’t really seen Sherlock use this skills. I can only assume that these skills are further developed in other Sherlock stories, otherwise it would seem pointless for Doyle to mention that Sherlock had these abilities. Unless of course, if Doyle was trying to covey, in an off handed manner, that Sherlock was a man that could handle his own. At any rate, I felt like the fight scenes in Ritchie’s movie were true to how the character Sherlock would approach a fight, calculated and systematically.
ReplyDelete