Sherlock Holmes

Much of Sherlock's characterization can be seen in A Study in Scarlet. As Watson is being introduced to Sherlock, so is the rest of the world. Immediately, his intelligence is illustrated, as the thing he says to Watson is, "You have been in Afghanistan, I perceive." This novel also introduces Sherlock as a complex being, very skilled in some areas while completely lacking in others. The BBC version seems to paint him in an extremely intelligent, almost perfect way, but I think it's pretty important to note that he doesn't even realize that the sun is the center of the solar system. He is very forward and blunt, as seen in both Hound of the Baskervilles and A Study in Scarlet. For example, in the latter, he rattles off a list of his shortcomings to Watson, including the fact that he smokes, and sometimes does not speak for days. As Watson compiles a list of Sherlock's knowledge, we begin to see similarities in the two. Sherlock loves a good mystery, and at this point, Watson begins to attempt an answer to why Sherlock must be knowledgeable in such random, unrelated categories. Where we see the difference between the two is in the fact that Watson immediately gives up the task, where Sherlock would have continued until he found an answer (or would have already had one). Sherlock's intelligence is only further illustrated in Hound of the Baskervilles, and his relationship with Watson is further explored. The friendship between he and Watson is much more detailed in this novel than in the short stories, and we see how they compliment each other nicely, despite Sherlock's strangeness. While Sherlock is extremely socially awkward due to his blunt observations, he finds comfort in Watson, and even allows him to try his hand in detective work in Hound of the Baskervilles. Though he is rude, awkward, and doesn't know the situation of the solar system, the world just can't seem to get enough of the ever-observant, ridiculously intelligent Sherlock.

Guy Ritchie's Sherlock

Sherlock Holmes, in Guy Ritchie’s version is a bit different than what the novel portrays. One of the memorable scenes in the film was when Sherlock is in the bare-knuckle boxing match and he takes apart what the opponent’s weaknesses are. One of Sherlock’s notable traits is his ability to deduce details out of a scenario in a small amount of time. Ritchie shows this right after the flaws are pointed out in the opponent when Sherlock talks out what he plans to do to the foe. Followed by him carrying out this act, proving that he was right all along and building his credibility.  Most would argue that Sherlock was not an athlete before viewing that scene. All though we did not cover the story of The Sign Of The Four the boxing side of Sherlock is addressed. He is regarded as a formidable opponent in bare-knuckle boxing.

Ritchie’s Sherlock differs slightly form the novel version in small ways too. We are introduced to Sherlock in the movie as a detective who is going through withdrawal from his addiction to solving cases. His symptoms were uncleanliness among himself and his surroundings. In Hound of the Baskervilles, Watson tells us that Sherlock has a “cat-like” passion for hygiene. This uncleanliness makes Sherlock seem more manly than other versions, creating him into a detective who will go through grungy situations and maybe violent to get the job done. Overall Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock is not far off from what I expected him to be from the books. He chose to focus on certain details of Sherlock more than others that are traditionally relied upon.

Women

Although the question doesn't ask this directly I would first like to talk about how a women character would take away from the books. What I mean by this is that if a women was to be made into more of a drastic role I feel that it would take away from the relationship that Sherlock and Watson have created for themselves, and a women just wouldn't really fit into that. I mean we see this in the movie version when Watson is about to get married and how Holmes try's his hardest not to allow that to happen. Okay but now that I have gone on my tangent I will answer the real questions. 

The Females that have been portrayed in the book sherlock holmes to me are just fluff, they are mostly there to serve as a guide to where Conan Doyle wants that certain story to go. There is no depth or really a character background but for me they are just there to make the story flow in a certain way. I mean that is all but one.

"The Women" - now she is more then just fluff in the story I feel. Irene is much more she is the "one who got away" in sherlocks eyes. I feel that Conan Doyle did this to show that although women are not a huge part of there story that, they can still play a big part in screwing up sherlock. I feel that if Conan replaced Irene with a male character that it wouldn't have effected sherlock as much as it did. Why I believe he used a female character is because it attacked more of the pride of Sherlock then anything else. Yes he would have been mad if a man would have gotten away but since it was women it is even more of a slap in the face. I think that Conan wanted to show the audience that Sherlock wasn't perfect, and that sometimes the people who you less aspect can be the ones who make the most damage.

I think that the adaptations handle this good and bad. What I mean by this is that in Sherlock the tv show it is done better then the movie. In the tv show version, (The 2 I saw) it again used women as fluff and not that big of parts other then to move sherlock along. But in the Movie Sherlock Holmes they make Irene almost a love interest which I didn't like, so I think that they failed in that aspect to get a wider audience.

Sherlock Holmes: Hollywood vs Literature

Sherlock Holmes is an infamous character. Doyle's stories have become so widespread that his characters have been translated into film. While this certainly is good for bringing in new Sherlock fans and ensuring a lasting Sherlock legacy, there are definitely some differences in the film version that aren't present in the stories.

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.

Movie Holmes vs. Book Holmes

I think that Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes character is uniquely adapted from the Holmes in the original print series.  In many ways, the film Sherlock is similar to the Sherlock in the books.  He is still extraordinarily perceptive: in A Study in Scarlet, Holmes is able to tell that Watson was in Afghanistan almost as soon as they meet.  In Ritchie's film Holmes, simply by examining Dr. Watson's fiance, can draw extraordinarily accurate conclusions about her life and her past.

Ritchie's Holmes is different from the character in the novel mainly in that the audience is much more exposed to what is going on in his head.  For example, in the first fight scene, Holmes walks the audience through his exact plan of attack.  In the restaurant scene, while he is sitting alone waiting for Dr. Watson to appear, we see (or hear) his world as a very chaotic and stimulating place because he is very aware of every single noise and disturbance around him.

Holmes is also much more active in the film than in any of the original stories.  He gets into a lot of fights and is usually the one to have violent confrontations with any antagonists.  This is probably because Ritchie wanted to emphasize Holmes's hyperactivity, as he did by exposing the audience to his thoughts.  The film really put focus on the way Sherlocks mind works and Ritchie's adaptive decisions relating to the character of Holmes show that he is the center of the story.

Sherlock Holmes: the Man, the Myth, the Legend

This great man of mystery is nothing short of unique. His differing traits include intelligence, social behavior and deductive reasoning methods. Yet Sir Arthur Conan Doyle does humanize Sherlock through many ways, such as Watson and Irene Adler. All of his traits do make up a very mysterious man that actually classifies himself as a high functioning sociopath in the BBC adaptation. Needless to say, this character is extremely complex and doesn’t fit into one category.

Sherlock’s most obvious differing trait is his supreme intelligence, he is able to analyze someone’s entire life story by simply looking at him or her. For example, when he meets Watson for he first time in “A Study in Scarlet” he is able to determine that Watson is a war vet, is interested in living with Sherlock and much more all before Watson even has a chance to speak. He uses this high observation skills and extreme intelligence to solve cases.

Sherlock’s social behavior makes him tremendously different from his peers because he is very rude, blunt and cocky. Especially when Sherlock is around the police force, he likes to make sure the people around him know he’s better than they are. Which is the reason he doesn’t have a normal job.

His deductive reasoning methods also set Sherlock apart from his peers. He smokes what we can assume is laced with some type of drug and he meditates all night in “Man with the Twisted Lip” in order to solve the case. Most detectives find the answers to their cases based on facts that draw a conclusion. Sherlock examines the entire case and then  “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” This method of solving cases leads Sherlock into many shocking answers but always brings him to the truth.

Although Sherlock has an intense set of skills, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle humanizes Sherlock through Irene Alder and Watson. Watson is the only “friend” that Sherlock has. Sherlock is obviously much superior to Watson in terms of intelligence but Watson keeps his ego grounded and reveals compassion within Sherlock. Along with Watson, Irene Adler being referred to as “THE Woman” created a weakness in Sherlock. This is clearly seen in Guy Ritchie’s adaptation where Sherlock hangs in front of the saw to save Irene.

Sherlock is meant to be see as this complex super human man that fights crimes by using his brain but since Sir Arthur Conan Doyle writes from the point of view of John, we get a more realistic view than if it has been written from an outsiders perspective which creates a dynamic understanding of Sherlock Holmes.

Sherlock's Fight Club

I personally loved the Guy Ritchie adaptation of Sherlock Holmes. I might be partial because of the facts that I’m a sucker for action films, and I find Robert Downey Jr.’s portrayal of Sherlock quite comical. I have to say, I like this adaptation the most because I find it entertaining. I believe Guy Richie’s version is just a modernized/sensationalized interpretation of Doyle’s work.

When Doyle started writing the Sherlock series, there wasn't necessarily an action genre. I believe that Doyle’s Sherlock stories definitely have elements that are found in most action/adventure stories nowadays. Compared to what today’s audience views as action and adventure, the original Doyle stories seem a little timid. This is why I believe that Guy Ritchie choose to sensationalize certain elements from Doyle’s version so that it would appeal more to today’s audience. Guy Ritchie version does use many elements from the written texts to create his interpretations.

In Doyle’s Sherlock story, A Study in Scarlet, the reader is given a list of Sherlock Holmes’s limits. On that list, it states, “Is an expert singlestick player, boxer, and swordsman” (9). Although in our reading of Sherlock thus far, we have yet to see him actually display his expertise in boxing and swordsmanship. In the movie however, Sherlock is constantly fighting off enemies. I like Guy Ritchie’s interpretation on how Sherlock approaches his opponents. In the movies, Sherlock plans out his physical encounters 10 moves ahead, so by the time he attacks his opponents, he already knows how the fight will end. The movie might be taking some liberties with this interpretation, but it seems true to how the meticulous, mathematical, and logical Sherlock would approach a fight.

Another element that was adapted from the original stories to Guy Ritchie’s interpretation was Sherlock Holmes incredible ability to use disguises that even his closest colleagues can’t even see through. In the movie, Sherlock disguises himself as a bum in order to find out who Irene Adler is working for. Sherlock uses similar disguises in many of the Doyle stories as well. For instance, in the story The Man with the Twisted Lip, Sherlock disguised himself as an old man to spy on an opium den. His disguised worked so well that Watson himself didn't realize it was Sherlock.

In short, I don’t see Guy Ritchie’s interpretation as being that far of a stretch from Doyle’s original stories. Even when the Sherlock stories were first published they were a hit that people couldn’t seem to get enough of, so much so that the author was somewhat forced to bring Sherlock back from the dead. It sounds like to me that people already idealized Sherlock the character as a super hero back then. The main difference I see is the pumped up with fight scenes and explosions. Sherlock still has his amazing powers of deduction, and the first story did state that he was an excellent boxer. Guy Ritchie’s version is just trying to reach a broader audience that not only wants to see the hero outsmart the villain, they want to see asses being kicked.

Guy Ritchie's Interpretation of Sherlock Holmes

I for one have always looked at Sherlock Holmes as somewhat of an action hero. Even before I read the books, many different adaptions of his stories that I have seen had Sherlock as this action hero, saving people and stopping bad guys next to solving mysteries. For example, Case Closed, a Japanese partial adaption has the young mystery solver solving mysteries and even fighting off bad guys. After reading a few of Arthur Conan Doyle’s stories, I can definitely see where these adaptions and especially where Guy Ritchie was coming from. In The Hounds of Baskerville, we see Sherlock Holmes going undercover to solve the mystery of the ghostly hound murdering people left and right in the area. He doesn’t do much more than solve the mystery, but he does go further than solving the mystery itself. He is willing to go the extra mile instead of staying behind the scenes and only looking at the clues to solve these complex mysteries. He has always been the type of person to go the extra mile in solving mysteries and that is probably what pushed Guy Ritchie to make him an action hero. Also, the way he presented himself. He waited until the best moment to come out as this homeless man to sort of take the mystery himself from Watson who has spent a long time trying to solve it himself. Watson just wanted to prove himself and be seen as an equal sort of to Sherlock but he was shot down by Sherlock’s cockyish attitude.

            He has all the qualities of one including cunning, smarts, and a mysterious demeanor. Sherlock is not your average person. He is almost super in a sense. We brought it up in class that he has a mind far better than an average human. He can completely research someone’s past and present self just by looking at minor details on their person. This ability is his power. This mental ability puts him above everyone else. In the film by Guy Ritchie, we see Sherlock using his mental power to easily take down enemies. Guy Ritchie focuses Sherlock’s abilities to be more resonant to that of an action hero. Guy Ritchie simply took all of his qualities and focused them in a direction to present him, as the hero viewers love to see.

            Another reason for Sherlock being an action hero would be for the modern audience to go see the movie. I feel as if the many films that make large bucks in the box office are all either action movies or large budget scifi/horror movies. Making Sherlock an action figure could just be like a way to make money. That would probably be one of the less interesting reasons but it is a very important one. Which movie would make more, a serious crime solving/ funny and interesting character driven movie or an action packed crime solving/ funny and quirky character driven movie?

            From what Guy Ritchie had taken from the Sherlock Holmes literature, he pulled from A Scandal in Bohemia. He took the character of Irene Adler and gave her more of an evolved history with Sherlock. Irene and Sherlock do not really show too much affection in the films but their sparks do seem to be present. Given they do sort of kiss towards the end. Guy Ritchie and probably most of the world, sees Irene Adler as Sherlock’s love interest and wanted to express her because every action hero needs a love interest. Even though Irene Adler is his apparent love interest, I sort of believe that Watson is a bit of a love interesting. They are both bet friends and their love for each other transcends “love” in the romantic sense. They have moments that represent people who are in a loving relationship. Their constant fighting and the way that they spark life into each other. The way they try to one up each other like in The Hounds of Baskerville. Guy Ritchie probably sees Watson and Sherlock as more than partners and more of loving friends and he wanted to focus on that is this film. “I might have gone a bit far in this final translation. Ha.)

            

Who is Sherlock Holmes?

                Sherlock Holmes is a brilliant, socially inept, unprofessional detective.  Holmes has but one friend, Watson, and he is not always the best of friends to him.  He often traps him into situations to test him or test a theory as well as popping up throughout Watson's day unexpectedly.  Whether the audience is lead to believe that Holmes is stalking Watson's every move or that he is simply always a step ahead, Holmes makes up excuses for this behavior by saying he has "excellent ears" or simply tells Watson to not ask any questions (The Man With the Twisted Lip 3).  These instances make Holmes appear to be everywhere as well as all-knowing.  Holmes lives for these cases, so it would make sense that he would track down every sign possible that there may be a case coming his way.  In Sherlock, a police officer tells Watson to be careful when associating with Holmes because she believed him to be a psychopath.  She claimed that Holmes gets off on these horrific murders.  However, through my perspective I believe that Holmes has an incredible gift and that he is only ever able to utilize it in a useful way through solving mysteries and catching the bad guys.  By taking part in solving these cases he must also be relieved to let his brain do his thing without keeping all of these pressing details inside his head.  Also, it is clear that Holmes is a bit narcissistic, so solving cases also allows him to show off a bit for his clients and police officers who beg him for help.  On the contrary to occasionally being a bad friend to Watson, Holmes is frequently asking Watson for his opinions on situations as well as recognizing his need for a friend like Watson.  The first words that Holmes speaks in The Hound of the Baskervilles are "Well, Watson, what do you make of it?" which goes to show that even though Holmes may not need Watson's input, he wants Watson to know his value in their relationship (The Hounds of the Baskerville 5).  Holmes does not feel a need to impress Watson, rather he wants Watson to be able to impress himself with what he may already know.  In the Robert Downy Jr. version of Sherlock Holmes, their relationship is portrayed as romantic in the way that they bicker and address each other.  The movie is also able to emphasize to the audience Watson's patience for Holmes and how he is one of the only people in London who would be able to put up with Holmes's violin playing in the middle of the night as well as his self-medicating behaviors.  Holmes may be genius and seem divine to the average reader, however it is clear that he needs Watson and he needs cases in order to get a grip on himself.        

Logic vs. Superstition

Most people either consider themselves logical or superstitious and there are those who flirt with the line in between. In all of the stories about Sherlock Holmes and his mystery-solving skills, the reader sees how much Holmes is more willing to use logic and facts to solve the mysteries rather than giving into the superstition of everyone else around him. The reader watches Holmes go to his “mind palace” and become quite superstitious when it comes to certain aspects of the mysteries he is solving in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s stories and the television and film adaptations. In the book, Hound of the Baskervilles, Holmes is trying to solve the mystery of all of the Baskervilles being murdered and he is drawn to the facts of the case to find the answers. Doyle is showing the gothic side of literature in this sense because he shows everyone else’s superstitions of Baskervilles, but that in the end, Holmes’ logical thinking and conclusions are what really solved the mystery.

            In comparison, Guy Ritchie’s movie, Sherlock Holmes, shows almost every aspect of various murders performed by Lord Blackwood, in some way, in a superstitious way. For example, when Holmes goes to visit Blackwood in jail, a man is seen seizing on the ground, which is supposedly done by dark magic. This causes a series of other superstitious events to unfold before Holmes and his partner in crime, Dr. John Watson. However, in the end, Holmes proves to everyone that all of these superstitious events can be proven by logic and facts of the matter rather than by the supernatural that everyone is so quick to believe. In this adaptation, the audience is shown that Holmes will always come to the conclusion that logic and scientific facts solve mysteries rather than the supernatural. I think Holmes also proves to everyone that superstitions stem from scientific facts and logic to begin with. 

Who is Sherlock Holmes?

         Sherlock can be described as great mind because of his deductive reasoning skills. Lazy, because he rarely bathes, and lives in a mess. Rude because of the way he treats Watson, the police and everyone else around him. And a master of disguise in some situations he has to disguise himself for instance in A Scandal in Bohemia he disguises himself as a priest to get into Irene’s house.

 In Guy Ritchie’s 2009 film Sherlock is portrayed as a superhero, a mastermind, and it hints at romance. Sherlock Holmes is seen as a superhero, because of all of the action scenes he is placed in, where as in Sir Conan Doyle stories Sherlock does not fight nearly as much in the books as he did in this movie. But you have to look at the audience this film is trying to appeal to at this time action pack movies are huge, and if rendition of Holmes did not have some aspect of this it would not be as appealing. He is seen as a mastermind because of the way he pieces together his mysteries, and thinks on the top of his head and analyzes every situation. In the books Doyle tip toes on the thought that Sherlock may have some kind of mental disorder like Autism because of his thought process, and his lack of social skills. Guy’s take on Sherlock hints at romance with having focused of Watson’s engagement to Mary, and even Sherlock’s ineraction with Irene. In the books neither woman are talked about and seen as much as they are in this film. Especially Sherlock and Irene this film has Sherlock saving her character countless of times and also shows her kissing him. In the books Sherlock is seen as asexual.

The films take on Sherlock is more of a take of the time it came out, to appeal and address its audience, just like Doyle's books where to appeal to the readers of this era.

Sherlock Holmes' Supernatural Abilities

Logic vs. The Supernatural

Throughout all of Doyle's stories read about Sherlock Holmes and John Watson, a constant debate between science and superstition has always been apparent. Specifically, within Sherlock's mind, he pays such close attention to so many details that everyone else, including John Watson and readers, completely overlook. Regardless of the most far-fetched or puzzling details given, Holmes uses his "powers of deduction" to find a truly reasonable and rational explanation for even the most difficult of mysteries, his own mind being almost supernatural or magical. Throughout all of the adaptations and stories, it is easy to see that Holmes is completely against leaving any mystery unsolved, or solely ruling it out due to magic, for he does not believe it in. But with this being said, the ways of Sherlock's mind are indescribable, having no explanation or comparison to any others. Through the character of Sherlock Holmes, Doyle found the ability to take mysteries and to make them seem reasonable and literal, and in a profound way, Sherlock Holmes' mind defies everything he is against. 

Specifically, within BBC adaptation's episode of the novel, "The Hound of the Baskervilles," as viewers, we are torn between these two opposite forms of explanation, science and the supernatural, attempting to find the reasoning and existence for the creation of a giant hound. As the mystery continues, we walk the line between the two possible reasonings, and we are shown signs of Sherlock beginning to do the same. Within the BBC adaptation, we are allowed to visually recognize Sherlocks inexplainable deduction process at the end of the episode, making him seem all the more powerful and unreal, and also generating a great reveal once he had solved the mystery. As viewers, we are distanced from Sherlock by his small, but still noticed, belief in the supernatural, making his mind seem even more incredible and indescribable, or everything he is against, at the end of the episode. This idea is also shown within the 1902 novel, for when Sherlock is disguised, we are distanced from him as our stunning protagonist. As we are shown the mystery of the murder of Sir Charles Baskerville through solely Watson's eyes, we attempt to figure things out on our own. Soon, we realize that we are no match for Holmes, proving once again, that he has the supernatural ability to create a completely logical and reasonable explanation out of almost nothing of the kind. 

Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock Holmes. When hearing this name, many individuals will know the iconic character. While many know Holmes as the crime solving genius, many do not truly understand Holmes as a person. With societies growth in knowledge since Arthur Conan Doyle first wrote these stories, a conversation about if Holmes has an Autism Spectrum Disorder has started. Many are focusing in on a mild form of Autism known as Asperger’s syndrome. Some of the symptoms of individuals with Asperger’s are poor social skills, eccentric or repetitive behaviors, unusual rituals, communication difficulties, limited range of interests, and skilled or talented in a particular area. Holmes has all of these traits. When looking in the story The Hound Of Bakervilles, his lack of social skills and communication difficulties are shown. In the first chapter Sherlock tells Watson that, “It may be that you are not yourself luminous, but you are a conductor of light,” meaning that Watson is there to help Sherlock and that there is no way that Watson could actually solve these crimes on his own. While in the first episode of the BBC version of Sherlock Holmes, Holmes yells out “ Brilliant! Four suicides and now a note. Its Christmas.” These two quotes are just a couple indicators for his lack of social skills. It is clear in the film adaptations and written work that Holmes has a certain way he likes to do things. He has not plans of changing his ways for anyone or anything. His rituals are his life and how he is able to fixate on his particular area of interest. This is shown when he is sitting with his eyes closed tight and his thoughts running across the screen. This ritual is something that Holmes uses in order to be the best at what he does. With this comes his cockiness and arrogance. Sherlock knows that he is both of these things but does not care what others seem to think. The only person who he cares about is Watson. This is common in individuals with Asperger’s.  Many lack a variety of friends but will have one or two individuals who they attach to. This person is Watson for Sherlock and is shown when Holmes tells Watson, in the episode about the Hound of Bakersville, “John, I don’t have friends. I have one,” meaning Watson. These are just a few examples of symptoms that Holmes portrays. While it will never actually be known if Sherlock has a disorder, such as Asperger’s, many are beginning to notice strong indicators that present that a diagnosis could occur, while others do not agree. It is up for debate but when looking at the symptoms and Holmes unique characteristics, I believe that this explains a lot about Sherlock Holmes.