Finding the Positive in Ritchie's Film

[rusty_armour]

In an effort to fight against my depression over the success of a certain film, I've decided to write a post about some of the benefits I've been able to reap from it. The first one that springs to mind is TCM's 24-hour Sherlock Holmes movie marathon. At first, I couldn't figure out why TCM would be holding a Sherlock Holmes marathon on Christmas. Then I remembered that Ritchie's film had just been released, so TCM was probably taking advantage of that. This, in turn, allowed me to take advantage of the marathon and tape six films I hadn't seen before (or, in the case of at least one film, hadn't seen in a very long time). Today, I watched the first four films.

The first film was Sherlock Holmes's Fatal Hour (aka The Sleeping Cardinal), which is from 1931 and stares Arthur Wontner as Sherlock Holmes. I have to admit that my expectations were pretty low for this movie as I saw Murder at the Baskervilles a few years ago and thought it was awful. However, Sherlock Holmes's Fatal Hour was better than I thought it might be. I mean, it was hardly brilliant, but it had a couple of things going for it. While I think Arthur Wontner would have been better suited to play Holmes after he retired, as he was too old for the part IMHO, I like the touches of humour he added. His bond with Mrs. Hudson seemed a little too close for Holmes, but I couldn't help finding it endearing.

The second film in the line up was A Study in Terror, which I had seen several years ago. It was made in 1966 and featured John Neville as Sherlock Holmes battling against Jack the Ripper. Despite having an excellent cast that also included Judi Dench, Anthony Quayle, and Frank Finlay, the movie was pretty cheesy and certainly didn't hold a candle to Murder by Decree (1979), which provided a much better story of Holmes's possible involvement with the Ripper Murders. For one thing, Murder by Decree actually stuck to the facts and didn't invent new ways to kill the Ripper victims. In the same way the Hammer version of The Hound of the Baskervilles tried to add extra chills and thrills by having that tarantula crawl across Henry Baskerville's shoulder, A Study in Terror had one woman die by having a knife shoved through her neck and another die by being shoved in a trough of water and viciously stabbed. If these weren't supposed to be Jack the Ripper murders, it wouldn't have bothered me. Well, despite a rather weak script, I quite liked John Neville as Holmes and it was great to see Anthony Quayle and Frank Finlay appear in this film and then return again in Murder by Decree. In fact, Frank Finlay played Inspector Lestrade in both Ripper movies!

Although I knew it wouldn't be a great, I taped The Spider Woman out of sheer curiousity. It was one of the Rathbone films I hadn't seen and I wondered if this female Moriarty would measure up considering that the Spider Woman character was so popular that she was later given her own film. Not surprisingly, The Spider Woman was pretty bad. At one point, Holmes darkens his face and disguises himself as Rahjni Singh, an Indian officer, which made me cringe. What was worse was the white actor dressed up as a Pygmy. Adrea Spedding was fun as a so-called female Moriarty, but I've seen more impressive female villains in the Rathbone films. I did get a kick out of the plot elements that were worked into the film from "The Speckled Band" and The Sign of Four, and I found it moving that Mrs. Hudson couldn't stop weeping when she thought Holmes was dead, and Watson told Lestrade that he could choose one of Holmes's pipes (which Holmes lets Lestrade keep when he returns from the dead).

I got the most enjoyment out of The Pearl of Death, which was very loosely based on "The Six Napoleons" and had a female villain (Naomi Drake) that adopted a total of four disguises. Okay, it was kind of on the cheesy side too, but I thought the plot held together a little better. I think I may even purchase this film on DVD at some point. It's certainly better than a couple of the other Rathbone films I already own. *g*

The last two films on the list are Pursuit to Algiers and The House of Fear. I'm pretty sure I haven't seen Pursuit to Algiers, though I believe I saw The House of Fear when I was in my early teens. I predict that The House of Fear will hold up better than Pursuit to Algiers, but I'm sure both will have their moments.

I doubt anyone is still reading this (if anyone began reading this in the first place), but another benefit of the Ritchie film is book and DVD merchandising. I'm sure it isn't a coincidence that Titan Books has created a new line of Sherlock Holmes books ("The Further Adventures of Sherlock Holmes") in the same year the Ritchie film was released. While I was staying at my parents over Christmas, I devoured David Stuart Davies' The Veiled Detective, which was originally published in 2004. This novel is rather dark but very clever. I'm really looking forward to reading more pastiches from Titan. Amazon (in its usual helpful manner) sent me a recommendation email for The Madness of Sherlock Holmes, which is a documentary on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and the characters he created -- most notably Sherlock Holmes. I'm sure the timing of this documentary isn't a coincidence, just as I'm sure it's something I'll probably have to order. *g*

Comments

[puckrobin.livejournal.com]

My thoughts on the movie:

The plot is garbage. I actually stopped paying attention to it after a while, and so I'm not sure it ended up making sense.

Mark Strong appears to make a career out of planning bland, evil aristocrats in costume films.

Holmes and Watson were much closer to the canon that you might think from the trailer. (After all, Holmes is a wrestler, boxer and can ... like Superman ... bend steel bars with his bare hands. Although the last one doesn't happen in the film.) They definitely push Holmes more towards the eccentric artist than the cold logician, but Brett went that way at times too. (And after all, Holmes does, in the canon, credit the detection skills to art manifesting in the blood.)

It's still hard for me to picture Holmes as Robert Downey Jr., but he does do a lot of canonical things and I recognized some lines straight from the stories. "I cannot make bricks without clay" for example. Still he doesn't quite look or feel quite right.

Jude Law was a very good Watson. He's smarter and wittier than usual (and a little more than the canon might allow for). And they used bits from the canon, like the reason why Watson needed his chequebook locked up.

Given a better plot with fewer explosions and Scooby-Doo magic, the Downey/Law pairing would have been pretty good.

[rusty-armour.livejournal.com]

I've been actually very curious to know what you thought of the film, so thanks for this mini-review! :-) During the one time I managed to sit through the entire trailer, I did notice that there were certain details that matched canon Holmes, such as the boxing. While I agree that Holmes definitely displays traits of an eccentric artist, I think he's more likely to embrace cold logic -- at least a lot of the time. I have a hard time buying him being the eccentric artist all the time. And I know I'm biased, but Robert Downey Jr. has never seemed right for the part (based on what little I've seen from trailers, etc.), which seems strange because he's a very good actor and I'm sure he could have done the role justice if he'd had a decent script.

Jude Law is about the only thing that seems right about the film. He looks the part and seems to act the part (again based on what little I've seen from trailers, etc.). Maybe he'll be like Ian Hart and be able to reprise the role in a better production later on. For that matter, maybe both he and Robert Downey Jr. could reprise their roles with more satisfying results if even a semi-decent screenplay were to appear...

[puckrobin.livejournal.com]

The ending definitely says "we want to make more of these films". Really, if they get a better script next time, that wouldn't be a bad thing. They have strong leading actors, and there's much to be said for that.

Holmes fights in a way that seems really appropriate for Batman, but makes sense for Holmes too. They start with him in slow-mo assessing his opponent's weaknesses, what counter-maneuver to use and the result. And then they come out and show Holmes doing it for real at a fast pace. It's not a terrible concept.

A friend of mine who reads the Holmes stories every year remarked they pushed the canon about as far as it can go, but they don't really break it. (Other than Watson introducing Holmes to his finance, of course.)

Allen

[rusty-armour.livejournal.com]

Actually, when I pictured a better script, I was thinking of something outside the Ritchie franchise. However... *g*