|
Some Sherlockian Hyperlinks
|
Would you like your link listed here?
Email us. |
|
As we noted
in the January edition of The Sherlockian E-Times, we will
be closed for the first three weeks of February. Therefore,
since we won't be able to deliver any products to you during
that time, we have decided to make this February 2010 edition
noncommercial and devoted entirely to news, views, and other
matters which we feel would be of interest to you, our fellow
Sherlockians. The only advertisements contained herein, therefore,
will be our customary link to The
Baker Street Journal and
to a couple of other sites.
|
|
OK, now, you might recall that in our last
Baker Street Bulletin we asked for impressions from you concerning
the new Downey/Holmes movie. We are delighted that so many
of you took the time to tell us what you thought about the
movie and we thank you for your interesting contributions.
Most of this February 2010 Sherlockian E-Times will be devoted
to reporting to you the results of our query. Some of the
entries here we had to edit for the sake of space, but we
don't think we have altered the spirit, or even the wording,
of any of the comments presented below.
First, a couple of comments from some of our non-Sherlockian
friends.
|
Richard (NC)
"How does one spell appalling? The Sherlock movie was
awful; it totally missed the sprit of the Sherlock Holmes
I know. The action was violent to the point of boredom.
Holmes was some kind of a violent hippie, while Watson was
a thug. My friend and I walked out after about an hour.
I'm afraid my friend appreciated the movie even less than
I. At least I could understand some of the references to
the real Holmes that were made in the movie. This one stinks!"
|
|
Tom (NY)
"The set work (computer-based and otherwise) is remarkable.
They totally captured the feel of the place at the time. You
could smell the horse excrement and industrial waste. Holmes
was done really, really well in my book. Some of it was obviously
digital and kind of fakey-looking, but a great lot of it was
pretty real looking and believable. I was impressed. Downey
does really carry off the "disturbed genius" thing, and the
film nicely presents that idea. . . shows him thinking through
things - tapping into encyclopedic info in his brain on all
topics - in slow motion and then reruns the action as visualized,
only in fast motion. It is pretty cool, and nicely gives us
glimpses into the depth of the mind of the master. . . he
comes through in the end, with thorough explanations and revelations,
all things missed by the mere mortals who surround him."
|
|
OK, these are the only opinions we have
from non-Sherlockians - probably because we don't hang around
with a lot of non-Sherlockians. So bear with us as we take
a look at the opinions of some Sherlockians from around the
world.
|
|
Jens (Denmark)
"This new, so-called "Sherlock Holmes" movie,
is not only heresy, it is blasphemy, disrespectful and an
outrage on the Canon. Shame upon the people, who are behind
these excesses, committed by money-greedy and history-less
upstarts, who stole characters created by a great author and
artist, and – with no veneration and love – turned them into
characters etc. without Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s original
spirit and outside the traditional Sherlock Holmes World."
|
|
Balaji (Bangalore
India)
Impressive in parts - The ideal Holmes movie should take you
to 221B in 1895 and this film does this. But Downey as Holmes
is a real letdown because he doesn't look like Holmes at all.
In fact, the villain Blackwood looks more like Holmes. And
why can't Downey stand closer to a shaving blade daily? Ritchie
goes overboard with some jokes and if one can quote The Great
Detective from NORW about him, "He had not that supreme gift
of the artist, the knowledge of when to stop." Watch the movie,
but don't expect Downey to do a Brett.
|
|
Dan (Ohio)
Dan: "I haven't seen the movie and I'm not going to."
E-Times Reporter: "Why not?"
Dan: "I've seen enough previews and promos to know it's
no good."
(But Dan did tell us of a friend of his; a non-Sherlockian,
who had never even read any of
the canoncial cases. This fellow saw the movie and, the next
day, went out and bought the complete Canon. He became immediately
entranced with the original cases and is rapidly on the way
to being a devoted Sherlockian. It is an ill wind that blows
no good!)
|
|
Roger Johnson (London
England)
"The topography of London is decidedly
askew; Holmes and Watson both dress unsuitably for dinner
at a high-class restaurant; Lord Blackwood’s status in society
is puzzling, to say the least; Holmes’s general scruffiness
and “lack of hygiene” do not match the books’ description
of his “catlike love of personal cleanliness”, and Robert
Downey Jr. is not “rather over six feet, and so excessively
lean that he [seems] to be considerably taller”… None of this
really matters. Messrs Downey and Law give us the detective
and the doctor as an Odd Couple, and the friendship, with
its ups and misunderstandings, is thoroughly believable. This
Holmes at last shows us the physical prowess that’s referred
to in the original stories, and this Watson is just the sort
of spirited, active and intelligent man that Holmes needs
as a roommate. The rest of the cast are splendid, particularly
Eddie Marsan as Inspector Lestrade. The plot moves along at
a cracking pace, and by golly it all looks superb!"
|
Mike (PA)
"I thoroughly enjoyed the
new Sherlock Holmes movie. I thought the screenplay was
excellent, the filming and special effects were great and
the acting was worth the wait. One thing I've always enjoyed
about the original SH stories was the tool of having Dr.
Watson narrate. In the movie, one could hear SH's thoughts/explanations.
That type of "narration" was quite effective to help understand
and follow the story line."
|
|
Steve (VA)
"Whether one likes Sherlock Holmes or not depends on
how Canonical one wants to be. Robert Downey is playing a
21st century Holmes transported in time back to the 19th.
His portrayal of Holmes, therefore, seems to be problematic,
for Sherlock was always the Victorian gentleman. I also have
problems with the relationship between Watson and Holmes.
There seems to be little respect there, especially on Watson’s
part. I also have problems with the portrayals of Irene Adler
and Moriarty. Neither one seems realistic. Still, I enjoyed
the film, and I will see it again."
|
|
John (MO )
"I thought it was a good action movie, but a weak Sherlock
Holmes movie. Both Downey and Law did some great acting, and
they played off each other well. The director seemed like
he could not make up his mind whether he wanted Holmes to
be a buffoon or not. There were elements of Young Sherlock
Holmes and Without a Clue as well as the handcuff scene from
Downey's Iron Man. I love the martial arts in the film, and
the explanation at the end of Holmes methods. Did not take
advantage of the wonderful set pieces in the film. And although
we know Holmes household habits were unkempt, his personal
habits were not. The movie does grow on me as an action movie,
but, I don't think, Downey will live on as the best Holmes
ever."
|
|
David Milner has
posted the first formal announcement of the informal meeting
of The Wigmore Street Post Office society to be held April
16, 2010 at Sticky Fingers (downtown) in Chattanooga. This
will be the first official-unofficial event on the sixth annual
Gathering of Southern Sherlockians program.
|
James (TX)
"I have not seen the movie
yet, but intend to. I will tell you that I go into it with
"Heresy" rather than "Good Job" on my
mind. I think we can count on Hollywood to screw up our
heroes that are rock solid for lo these many years and HOURS
of countless enjoyment. R. Downey said in an interview that
he 'Read all of the stories.' Well, that really boosts my
faith in a 2009 Hollywood project."
|
|
John (IL )
"The pros of the characters are this; Holmes is shown
to really care a great deal for Watson. That is always welcome.
Watson is not only the loyal stalwart friend Conan Doyle wrote
about, but he has a mean right hook! And the things he can
do with a cane to subdue a felon is of great help to Holmes.
The rest of the characters were up for grabs. If you can adjust
yourself to the major liberties that go on in this film I
think you'll find yourself having a good time. If you want
your Holmes strictly the way Conan Doyle wrote him, (have
we really ever had that 'filmically' speaking?), you'll absolutely
cringe and loathe it is my guess. I, myself, am the type of
person who as long as things are being done intelligently
and respectfully I let go such small reservations and try
to enjoy a film for what it is. In short I enjoyed it a great
deal and can't wait for it to come out on DVD. It's nice to
see a Holmes movie do well at the box office too."
|
|
Karen (CA)
"The details of this movie to a true Sherlockian were
undoubtedly wrong, and yet the movie works as entertainment.
Robert Downey Jr. acting skills help to create the true essence
of Holmes – even though the details were off by a little or
a lot depending upon the scene. This portrayal though also
creates a space for acceptance of this adaptation of Holmes.
Jude Law as Watson took even more steps away from the true
character but this Holmes needs this kind of Watson. For over
100 years Sherlock Holmes has been a marketable figure – why
not as an action hero. This is the Holmes of this century,
and I approve."
|
|
Jason (CO)
"I haven't seen it yet but probably will when it gets
to DVD. In principle I'm not bothered by a reimagination of
the brand, so to speak. Personally, my image of Holmes will
always be Jeremy Brett. But I know that others feel as strong
an attachment to Basil Rathbone, or for older generations,
William Gillette. And in any case, the writing is so good
that the everlasting image of Holmes will never suffer even
a poor adaptation on screen or stage. (Although Nigel Bruce's
Watson dug quite a hole!)"
|
Illustrious Client (of Indianapolis), Steve
Doyle, has assumed the responsibility of being the new publisher
of
The Baker Street Journal, The
Baker Street Irregular's Premier Publication of Sherlockian
Scholarship
CLICK HERE!
|
|
Len (Vancouver, BC)
"Ten Stormy Petrels received passes for a prescreening
of the new film with Robert Downey and Jude Law prior to
the official release. Overall I gave it 3 stars out of 5,
as it was entertaining, lots of action, and very good special
effects. The first half was a cross between The Da Vinci
Code and a James Bond film. The plot was very thin, a Moriarty-type
megalomaniac trying to take over the world. The Watson character
was well presented, even dapper; the love interests ( Irene
and Mary ) were good, but the Holmes character was a disappointment.
Print text and Paget portraits show Holmes as a tall, thin
man, always shaved and properly dressed when out and about.
Downey`s Holmes is short, scruffy, unshaven, looking like
an extra from La Boheme, who spends a lot of his time brawling."
|
|
Aziz (West Malaysia)
"I don't really want to spoil the fun by revealing the
details about the movie but let's just say it's worth the
price of admission. Robert Downey Jr. is a little scruffy
in the movie but I guess it is, in a way plausible -- at least
we finally get to see a more realistic Holmes with human flaws
on the silver screen. The plot is predictable if you're a
Holmes fan but it's not "who done it" type of mystery, more
like "how the villain" did it kind of thing. And I'm happy
to learn the movie is a moderate hit (I heard it was made
on a costly 80 million budget) and generally got good reviews.
Final verdict ? 4 out of 5 stars. I suspect some Malaysians
who saw the movie might have been puzzled as to why Downey
Jr. called Watson (Jude Law) "Old Cock" in one of the scenes!"
|
|
John (NJ)
"I will not be seeing the new Holmes movie so I will
not be able to review it. But I am not seeing it for several
reasons. First is the trailers are so 'dark' (as in weird,
evil, etc.), that this is not the Sherlock Holmes I know and
enjoy. Secondly, during Robert Downey's TV appearance he implied,
then suggested that Holmes and Watson had a homosexual relationship.
For him to play Sherlock Holmes is a tragedy. But Sherlock
Holmes (as it were) has weathered many interpretations over
the years and one day I may decide to see this one."
|
|
Roger (CA)|
"In response to your e-mail asking for opinions of the
Sherlock Holmes movie I found I could not limit myself to
100 words (see below) However to sum it up briefly I enjoyed
the movie tremendously in spite of the two obvious mistakes
made regarding Holmes knowledge of Irene Adler and Mary Morstan.
The story was well-done and Downey’s portrayal of Holmes,
while unique, was not out of character with the canon. I especially
liked Jude Law’s characterization of Watson’s exasperated
loyalty."
|
The Sound of the Baskervilles
recently received the following invitation:
"I want to invite your members
to an event coming up in February. St. Valentine's Day Victorian
Tea Saturday, February 13th, 2-4pm Bellevue Regional Library,
You can find directions to the library at: www.kcls.org
Join local authors who delight in creating romantic
stories set in the Victorian era. There will be live music,
refreshments and the authors will discuss why they love
writing in this particular time period. I would love to
invite your members to come in Victorian dress, as it would
add to the gala feel of the event.
Thank you, Deborah Schneider ."
More information at Ms. Schnider's website, http://www.debschneider.com/
This sounds like a great gathering for folks in the Great
Northwest of the USA!
|
Jeff
Falkingham (MN )
"Since Eille Norwood portrayed Holmes in 47 silent short
films in the 1920s, every generation of Sherlockians has had
its quintessential on-screen Holmes: the 40s had Basil Rathbone;
the 60s, Peter Cushing, the 80s, Jeremy Brett. We were long
overdue for another. I’m not sure Downey would have been my
first choice. Downey’s Holmes is not as regal as Cushing’s.
On the other hand, he’s at least as neurotic as Brett’s, and
more physical than even the swashbuckling Rathbone’s. Not
entirely by chance, I’m sure, Downey even brings a bit of
Charlie Chaplin to the role in a couple of short but memorable
scenes. The actor’s timing, facial expressions and body language
are all impeccable; his chemistry with the other actors is
superb. In short, he worked for me! I’m not sure we can infer
that Downey’s Holmes will send a new generation of Sherlockians
scurrying to the library in search of Doyle’s original works.
But I’m confident in my deduction that many movie-goers will
be eagerly awaiting the sure-to-come sequel. You can count
me among them."
[Re: "scurrying to the library" - see Dan (OH) above!]
|
|
Til (VA)
"Not a bad film from a performance and cinematography
perspective; indeed, the cast and art direction should be
applauded for their work. My single and harsh criticism is
that the director should never have invoked Sherlock and his
world. By choosing to frame this movie in that world I, as
a viewer, bring a lot of expectations--baggage if you care
to be cynical--to the movie. If, for instance, the characters
were simply renamed one could enjoy piecing together similarities
between the Ritchie world and that of Conan Doyle. However,
the perennial pit that many authors, playwrights, and film
makers fall into is reviving Moriarty and using poor Irene
Adler as a femme fatal, often with an overt love interest
in Holmes. To be fair, I did enjoy Jude Law's Watson. Personally,
I would love to have seen the production values of this film
wedded with the cast of the Granada television series. I,
like many, view Jeremy Brett as the definitive Holmes.
PS You may be interested to know that I am a stage designer
and recently designed a production of "Sherlock Holmes: The
Final Adventure" at Wayside Theatre in Virginia."
|
|
Lawrence (IN) attributed
to his friend, Mark
"The canon was totally ignored except that Holmes and
Watson knew each other. Everything about their behavior and
character was wrong. Holmes was filthy - in fact, I got the
impression (as did my wife) that the author and/or the director
were trying to intimate that Holmes was an addict (perhaps
a drunk) who could not handle it, and whose abilities were
negatively affected by stimulants. This was not the impression
one got from the canon. I already mentioned my disapproval
of the way they introduced Mary Morstan as being a stranger
to Holmes. Well, a major character in the story was Irene
Adler, who was portrayed quite a bit differently than I think
she was intended to be by Conan Doyle. My opinion is that
they have done what the last couple of years of the live radio
broadcasts tried to do, and that is, to actually change the
persona of Holmes into a James Bond type, and, if this is
the introduction of Sherlock Holmes to some young person,
they will have a totally incorrect idea as to what the character
of Holmes actually was."
|
Jeanne (IL)
"I did see the movie on Dec. 27. This movie was only
loosely based on the original stories. Robert Downey, Jr.,
was a bit too glib as Holmes; he portrayed Holmes as an
action hero, rather than an intellectual crime-solver. Jude
Law made a better Watson than Downey made a Holmes. I thought
it was a fun, entertaining movie, but Irene Adler and Mary
Morstan were also portrayed very differently from canon."
|
|
|
We are informed that prints of
the great painting by Gayle Holmes that graced the cover
of the 2009 "Beaten's Christmas Annual" are available
from the artist's web site at
http://www.gayleholmesfineart.com/
|
|
Janet (NY)
"I took someone who knew very little about Sherlock Holmes
to this movie, and we now have a new fan. The movie took Sherlock
to a new level - glorifying his analytical qualities and elevating
him to a real action hero. Dr. Watson's character was wonderful.
I would give this movie a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10. "
[Ed's note: Hey! This is promising!]
|
|
Joseph (PA)
"At no point, while watching the film, did it fail to
meet the low expectations that I acquired while viewing all
the promotional trailers for the film in the last several
weeks. It was Iron-Man meets The Artful Dodger. All action
(with occasional superfluous dialogue) except for the final
five minutes of Holmesian discursivity, which was rather well
done, but five minutes does not a movie make . It was a martial
arts movie set in 19th Century England. I am not so conservative
that I cannot enjoy an author taking some creative license
when dealing with a character of such literary stature as
Sherlock Holmes but a project can be so over the top that
it loses the original character and sadly that is exactly
what has happened in this case. If one is so opposed to the
way an original character was written then (My Goodness) it
is a free country. Write your own."
|
|
Gail (TN )
"We enjoyed the fact that we picked up on some tidbits
from Doyle. We thoroughly enjoyed the fact that they did not
make Watson out to be a buffoon but rather a partner with
his own degree of intelligence. We enjoyed it as an action
movie with Holmes as the main character, but it will in no
way ever compare to the Brett/Hardwick era."
|
|
Janice (IL)
"The idea that Downey is playing James Bond, is inaccurate.
I used to teach a multimedia class. We studied genres and
the Bond style is not in this movie. Bond was suave and Holmes
is not. Bond is a real ladies’ man. That Holmes is messy,
especially around 221b, is canonical, though he is a bit too
personally dissolute. Remember Watson said he was neat in
Hound. I think the relationship between Holmes and Watson
is well-done. I enjoyed much of their banter and much was
canonical. The idea that Holmes is jealous of Watson and his
marriage is somewhat canonical. I wouldn’t say Holmes was
jealous that Watson was leaving 221b. I would say that he
might have been a bit selfish for wanting Watson around and
saw no attraction to marriage. We know Holmes is an expert
in baritsu. He boxes and knows how to use the singlestick.
The movie does show how Holmes reasons and, if you watch carefully,
you see Holmes gathering clues that he relates later to explain
the villain’s actions."
(This segment abridged from Janice's article in her scion's
newsletter.)
|
Click
Here for a view of what some people are
saying is a photo of Stapleton and "The Hound."
We are told that he weighs 243 pounds and stands almost 43
inches at the shoulder (now, there's a HOUND!).
|
|
Lawrence (IN)
"Save for one thing, this could have been the Sherlock
of the new millennium. I could handle: 1) The now prevalent
CSI way of filming action i.e., fast cuts for flashbacks,
with a whoosh sound. 2) The script, because the bottom line
was real; no ghosts need apply, as it were. 3) The alteration
of some of the characters, mainly Irene Adler...kissing scene
and all. But, I could not believe, nor could I accept, the
actor playing Sherlock Holmes. Downey might be a fine actor
but he was not the man of inference in any way, his slovenly
appearance aside. It's as if I was watching him reprising
his Chaplin role in trying to portray Sherlock Holmes. That
might seem a little extreme, but Downey just was not that
thinking machine that other actors from the past have portrayed.
In closing here, I would have had no problem if the actor,
Mark Strong (the villain in this tale), would have been cast
in the Holmes role and I've always thought (although he might
be a tad old now), that Daniel Day Lewis would have made a
perfect man from 221 B.. I can only hope, although it probably
won't come about, that the next FOR CERTAIN installment in
the Sherlockian saga Downey will be replaced by someone who
can better handle this thespian task."
|
|
We have quite a
few more comments, most kindly offered by David and Terri
Haugen, from members of The Sound of the Baskervilles.
We will post those commentaries in our March issue of The
Sherlockian E-Times.
Thanks, David and Terri!
|
|
Thanks again,
Carolyn and Joel
|
|
|
Sherlockian Publications: Click to email
for subscription information
|
Would you like your publication listed here?
Email us |
|
