Home > Uncategorized > Victorian House: “Sherlock Holmes”

Victorian House: “Sherlock Holmes”

January 2, 2010

I’ve loved Sherlock Holmes stories since I was a kid.  On summer vacation I had a big volume of all the Holmes stories and looked forward to long sessions immersed in the cerebral mysteries of seemingly supernatural murders that turned out to have rational explanations.  But not every film adaptation has been satisfying.  I didn’t (sorry, fans) like Basil Rathbone’s interpretation, nor the bumbling Watson of that series.  I did enjoy Matt Frewer’s Holmes.  But it’s perfectly acceptable for there to be different portrayals of a given fictional hero (Batman, or the new Star Trek movie for instance).  I’ll enjoy some, and scorn others, but as far as I know it isn’t the gravitational constant so it’s OK to try variations on the idea.

Fans of the TV series House will recognize in House and Wilson a modern interpretation of Holmes and Watson.  Maybe Cuddy is Irene Adler, though that could be stretching things a bit.  I would love to see a dream episode with the three of them in Victorian England. 

From my album: Design

That said, I enjoyed Robert Downey Jr’s interpretation of a bare-fisted, self-destructive, brilliant but fallible Holmes. Make no mistake, this is pure Hollywood with explosions, chases, and fistfights; lots of fistfights in vertiginous places. But there was also deep intrigue, and an arch villain unaware he was being controlled and exploited by another, more nefarious arch villain.  Holmes spent hours in thought but also thought fast on his feet, improvising and generally being rude and obnoxious.

No, it wasn’t “true” to the original characters in the books but it was lots of fun.  The pendulum will swing the other way.  In fifteen years, we’ll be comparing a new, more cerebral Holmes to Robert Downey Jr.‘s portrayal.

NOTES:

  • If there is any truth at all to the movie’s portrayal of Victorian England, it won’t be my first destination when somebody gives me a time machine.

  • Here’s Dana Hunter’s review: The Game’s Afoot
  • There are a lot of Holmes references in House.  Two that I can think of to Irene Adler, even. House’s apartment number was the same as Holmes’, stuff like that.
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. January 2, 2010 at 14:33 | #1

    You’ve pretty much written what I would have about this movie. It wasn’t Sherlock Holmes, not really. If you want to see a show that depicts the original Sherlock, I’d suggest the old BBC series with Jeremy Brett. Brett’s Holmes was both cerebral and isolated from his fellow human beings.

    Still, this was a fun movie. I could have done without so much action, but that’s what Hollywood’s about these days. Everyone wants to make Raiders Of The Lost Ark one more time. I hope we’re seeing the end of that urge, but I sure haven’t noticed any signs.

  2. January 2, 2010 at 19:21 | #2

    BBC Holmes series, you say?  (goes searching)

    Egad, Watson!  BBC has it for $196! 

    That actually is tempting, but it’s just over the financial horizon.  Might be worth getting a Netflix account for, if they have it.  My son says I should get one anyway.

  3. January 4, 2010 at 07:20 | #3

    From what I’ve read on the matter, Victorian England was even worse.  Then again, most cities most all time periods were crowded, noisy, and pervaded by stench.  Visiting the countryside wouldn’t be too bad.  You, however, would have a better time.  I’d either have to stick a rolled-up sock in my crotch or suffer a corset.  Argh.

    If you’ve never read Connie Willis’s To Say Nothing of the Dog, you’ve not gotten a proper taste of Victorian England and time travel.  Not to mention, it’s one of the funniest books ever written, and the only one I’ve seen where the author manages to gracefully inform you of something about the narrator that the narrator doesn’t know about himself – even though it’s written in first bloody person.  She’s a certified master of the craft, that woman.  When I realized what she’d done, I laughed and I cried and I wondered if she’d mind overmuch if I worshiped her.

    No Holmes in that book, alas, but if you’ve ever read Jerome K. Jerome’s Three Men in a Boat, you’ll be delighted.

    And now I’m going to shut up and get back to the writing I’m avoiding…

  4. Neil
    January 4, 2010 at 21:00 | #4

    As I’ve already commented on this blog about my love of the old Max Headroom series, it shames me that I had entirely forgotten about Matt Frewer playing Sherlock Holmes.  I’ve yet to see any of it.  I’m not the biggest T.V. or movie watcher in the world, but I usually do better on keeping up with my few favorites.  Oh well, something to look for in the future.

      I guessed from the marketing that the emphasis of the movie would be at least as much on the physical elements as the cerebral.  The local 7-11 has been covered in promo posters for two months, and 7-11 certainly doesn’t specialize in promoting intellectual pursuits.  The last film they had this many tie-ins with was the recent G.I. Joe movie.  This is also the first time I’ve seen a movie with its own California Lottery ‘Scratcher’.  Sherlock Holmes may have used cocaine, but I’m pretty sure that even if the character were re-written for modern times, you would never read about Holmes loitering in front of a convenience store swilling Mountain Dew, munching on Go-Go-Taquitos and scratching lottery tickets.  Unless maybe he switched from pure, pharmaceutical grade cocaine to Fresno-made bathtub crank.  Holmes could be a paranoid meth-head who is convinced that he is a super-genius detective uncovering a huge conspiracy…oh, wait…Robert Downey Jr. already played a very similar role in A Scanner Darkly…

  5. January 4, 2010 at 23:17 | #5

    Neil – I got the Holmes series starring Matt Frewer at Wal-Mart in the bargain bin this fall.  It included Hound of the Baskervilles, The case of the Whitechapel vampire, and The royal scandal. Not the worst five bucks I’ve ever spent by a longshot. I found them very enjoyable.

  6. January 18, 2010 at 06:48 | #6

    I agree with the above comment about the Jeremy Brett portrayal – I thought he was a very good Holmes indeed.

  7. tanksbyjoe
    February 4, 2010 at 11:45 | #7

    I for one, do not care about critics judging(bashing)all over the internet, the way Matt Frewer takes on the role as Sherlock Holmes, they need to get a life anyway. I very much enjoyed Matt & Ken together in these movies. I own alot of Holmes movies, from Rathbone, Cushing, Wontner, Massey, Robert Stephens, Ron Howard, to Christopher Lee, & in all I found that Matt & Ken did the best Holmes/Watson duo to date. I wish they would do more together. I was very impressed with the sets & landscape up in Canada for these works also. I loved how they made “Whitechapel Vampire”, so dark, I felt like “Jack the Ripper” was around every street corner, even though it wasen’t even about JTR.
    I was fond of a few more actors that made appearences in the collection also, Lilana Komorowska as the sulty Irene Adler in “Royal Scandal”, Matt if your going to have an adversary to match wits with, it may as well be the beautiful Lilana! More actors stood out to me in “Hound of the Baskervilles” Leni Parker(Mrs Barrymore, the maid), she nailed that roll & I wished that she would have had more speaking parts in the movie, & Jason London as Sir Henry, he was great & didn’t even need to conjur up an accent for the roll. Robin Wilcock also did a great job in not only “Hound” but also “Royal Scandal”, to see him go from a british accent in one movie, to a funny German accent in the next, made these movies all that much more enjoyable to watch, because I was entertained. 
    Is that not what these movies are all about? These Sherlock purist critics writing aweful reviews of Matt & Ken I think are missing the point, Entertainment! These movies were not meant to be “by the book”, besides that would be dull. That’s why critics are not actors.
      I had a great time viewing Christopher Lee’s rendition of an older, ready to retire, Holmes in “Incident at Victoria Falls” & “The Leading Lady”, both done in I believe 1988. Each movie was more then 3 hrs long, awesome terrian footage & sets & Lee just nails the roll!
    Good times with these movies by Matt & Ken. Truth is I cant stand the holmes movies made in the 30’s, 40’s & 50’s, they’re to hard to hear because of the noisy backgrounds, & poor film they used back then, to many holes left in their stories, the acting was not good at all, cuz they tried to be “By the Book” dull dull dull. So critics, lay off Matt & Ken, they did fine work, its you critics we don’t listen too anyway because you’re so negative all the time, so drop your purist attitudes & go be entertained

                                                Joe

Comments are closed.