Arthur Conan Doyle Is Rolling Over in His Grave
Posted by
Andrew Groves
|
Posted in
Miscellaneous
|
Posted on
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
The newest adaptation of Sherlock Holmes... with Robert Downey, Jr. as the famous detective. I wish this was a joke, but it's not. Arthur Conan Doyle is rolling over in his grave right now.
NOOOOOO!!!!! I LOVE Sherlock Holmes...ugh.
Actually, I'm really pumped for this!!! I think it looks amazing. I like the director, Guy Ritchie's early films Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, and Snatch and I thought last year's RocknRolla was back to that form. I think this version while different and taking liberties looks like two things: a. a lot of fun regardless and b. it has a great cast: Mark Strong, Jude Law, and Robert Downey Jr.!!! Count me in. I know you guys aren't as big on Downey, but he really is a great actor, one of the best in America right now. I'm telling you, check him out in Zodiac, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, and A Scanner Darkly and you will become a believer!! Even in last year's Tropic Thunder, he was absolutely genius!
Really, Matthew? Come on... this completely changes the character of Holmes. He was NEVER a womanizer in the books, and his stories were not "action-packed." They were suspenseful and full of mystery... not blockbuster material. I prefer the real Sherlock Holmes: the thoughtful and observant detective that generations of mystery lovers have grown to enjoy.
I understand what you're saying Andrew, but I like when filmmakers take material and give it a little edge and give it a different tone. To be honest, I think in the realms of art, including cinema, I think just because there is a pre-existing character and material that you don't have to follow it to the letter necessarily. This is one of the problems with many comic book films, they follow things to the letter of the law and sometimes they turn out very badly. I think it is well within a filmmaker's right to capture his or her vision of a pre-existing character however they want and I don't think they should be impeded. Now when the film comes out we can judge whether or not that was successful, but I think Guy Ritchie's got some talent and he's stretching himself, just like David Fincher did when he directed Zodiac and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and I like that he is doing that and I think he can bring a lot of interesting things to the table for this film. Also, it is a film, it is not going to destroy the iconic literary figure that is Holmes. I can understand your reservations and you may not go see it, but to be so passionately against one movie that will most likely go and pass seems a bit much to me. But whatever, to each his or her own, I know I don't want to miss the film for anything.
Yes, Matthew, the director has a right to reinvent a character, but the real question is this: Should he?
Sherlock Holmes has stood the test of time as the most famous detective in literary history. His character is classic and cannot be matched. He's up there with heroes like Odysseus, Don Quixote, and Atticus Finch.
Can a director reinterpret Sherlock Holmes? Sure. But should he? No. Don't trample upon something that is classic literature by modernizing it with sensationalism. That just leads to the watered down crap we've come to expect from movies like Great Expectations, The Man in the Iron Mask, and The Great Gatsby.