Friday
22Aug2008
Guy Ritchie Talks 'Sherlock Holmes'
Friday, August 22, 2008 at 6:32AM
I'm not obsessive about Sherlock
Holmes the way a lot of fans are, but I will admit a certain geekiness for the
world's greatest detective. Any chance I get to bring up the subject, I always
insist that you run out and buy the three-volume New Annotated Sherlock
Holmes that was released about a few years ago. It's great reading.
Reader Comments (9)
I know you say you've read all the stories, and I'm with you regarding praise for the Annotated edition (although mine is the old 2-volume William S. Baring-Gould one published by John Murray a few decades ago), so I hate to point out your error:
Irene Adler ("The Woman") appeared in the first Sherlock Holmes short story ("A Scandal in Bohemia"), not the first novel ("A Study in Scarlet").
It's been about 20 years since I last read Sherlock Holmes. What I remember from the books is a cold, cynical pessimism which ocassionally borders on horror. I haven't really seen that component in any of the films or TV-series.
I think that would be something to build on for contemporary tastes.
Extensive fighting is not in keeping with the books but perhaps Richie and the producers are worried that today's audiences are not cerebrally oriented enough for a classic Holmes.
This said the Jeremy Brett series were nearly perfect classic Holmes except that the lacked the darkness that I felt when reading Holmes.
I used to live very close to where Arthur Doyle lived and the mood of his books very much remind me of the coldest, dampest, darkest winter evenings in rural East Sussex.
I don't have a problem with Robert Downey as Sherlock, though. I'm sure he'll be able to handle anything Richie throws at him. He'll probably be the only good thing about the film.
Ah, so she is, Sensaes. In the New Annotated, her story is the first one. I mistakenly called it "the first novel."
Jeremy Brett, to me, is that character, Lengthy. And as big a fan as I am of Downey, I actually think Sacha Baron Cohen - who is playing Holmes in the comedy version - is a better choice.
Sacha Baron Cohen has got surface while Robert Downey has depth.
Cohen will smile wryly and splurt out 20 clever but nonsensical blurts in the same amount of time as Robert Downey will give us a sad look and present one epitomable truth.
This said I nearly injured myself with laughter when Borat made his debut on Da Ali G Show on Channel 4. But that is a long time ago and very different from Arthur Doyle.
So, while Guy Ritchie will be adding "ACTION!" to the Holmes lore, Will Ferrel and Sacha Baron Cohen will be adding...ummm...nude wrasslin'?
I just hope they get a woman to do the wrestling this time. Any woman will do. Even the one that engulfed Wee Man in Jackass. I still feel seasick thinking about that hotel wrestling scene in Borat.
A few years ago, for Christmas, the BBC broadcast a follow-up of sorts to their most recent TV adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles. Although they kept Ian Hart as Dr. Watson, Richard Roxburgh was replaced as Holmes by Rupert Everett. The script for The Case of the Silk Stocking wasn't great, but Everett's performance as the Great Detective was outstanding. None of those Jeremy Brett-style actorly histrionics - he was restrained, analytical, but still managed to convey Holmes' wry, sardonic wit.
It's a great pity that he's not in the running for Ritchie's stab at Holmesian pastiche.
I was unconvinced by Everett as Holmes, although a fine actor.
It was just too restrained and bland.
The secret of portraying a great thinker is to show it on the surface, which Brett did.
"The secret of portraying a great thinker is to show it on the surface, which Brett did." - Lengthy Johnson (above).
Hammy and overcooked. Mind you, he ALSO allowed the part to turn him into a complete drooling fruit loop, which is a SORT of indication of dedication to the rôle. *Sigh.* Poor ol' Jeremy...