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.