Screenwriter

  • Elementary, my dear Trailerspotting.

    November 20, 2009 @ 11:49 pm | by Donald Clarke

    Insofar as anything so grand as “controversy” can attach attach itself to the trailer-junkie community, some sort of, well, controversy has gathered round the promo for Guy Ritchie’s upcoming assault on Sherlock Holmes. Recalling the whole Shutter Island furore, the dispute hinges on whether you think the film looks like a steaming pile of turnips or the dog’s best pyjamas.

    We must, of course, face up to the problem of Mr Ritchie himself. There are, I guess, three takes on our Guy.

    1. The man’s an idiot and that’s all there is to it. Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels was Mockney garbage from a monocled-toff whose aunt is the Fourth Duchess of Bufton Tufton and who eats poor children for supper. Snatch was more of the same. And as for Revolver…

    2. The man’s a decent entertainer who went off the rails all too quickly. Lock Stock and Snatch are perfectly good fun. Sadly, Swept Away and Revolver are among the most hilariously wretched films ever made. RocknRolla was a partial return to modest form.

    3. The man’s a genius. Far from being pretentious drivel written, apparently, by a 19-year-old with a railway spike in his frontal lobe, Revolver is intellectual meat of the gamiest type. You just don’t get it.

    Now, I tend towards the second option. As a result, I am rather well disposed toward this apparently unpretentious Sherlock Holmes. I bow to nobody in my devotion to the original stories, but Ritchie is, it seems, making no gestures towards faithfulness. So there’s no real reason to get hoity-toity about the trailer’s lack of Doyleness. This is Holmes as action hero and the promo suggests that penny-dreadful larks will not be in short supply. Okay, Downey Jr — an actor I can overdose on very easily — doesn’t quite have the accent right. Sure, the film seems very reliant on CGI backgrounds.

    But Sherlock Holmes dives out of the Houses of Parliament into the Thames. He has a fight with a big man and his hammer — beside, I’m guessing, Isambard Kingdom Brunel’s The Great Eastern — and various people appear to be rising untethered from the dead.  Come on. It’s bound to be a bit of a lark.

    As far as weekly housekeeping goes, the film of the week is, without question, the Coens’ astringent, penetratingly pessimistic, weirdly hilarious A Serious Man. I was much  keener on Steven Soderbergh’s The Informant! than many critics. And I remain pretty much on board with the latest episode of the teen bloodsucker mopefest that goes by the name of Twilight. Decide for yourselves, folks.

    • 21 Comments »

    1.
    November 21, 2009
    2:10 am

    Seriously? I consider myself to be alongside you in the second group in my opinion of Ritchie, but Sherlock Holmes as an action hero? For starters, a Brit as an action hero? That’s just not cricket. But seriously for the first rew seconds when I first saw the trailer I thought, “Sherlock Holmes wise cracking, I like it, no longer the dry, slightly dull problem solver, I like it. But action-heroesque? That’s a bridge too far.

    Comment by David Harte
    2.
    November 21, 2009
    11:24 am

    With you also on Guy Ritchie. Really enjoyed Lock, Stock…. .Trailer for Sherlock Holmes looks interesting and Robert Downey Junior is one of those actors that could ‘make’ a movie watchable. Just like Jeff Bridges or George Clooney (viz. the men who stare at goats: barmy, black and very amusing). To comment on your piece on movie awards of last week - not lifetime achievements though - , I am amazed that a talented actress like Kristin Scott Thomas was not rewarded for her wonderful performance in “Il y a longtemps qe je t’aime” ? Ah well. No justice? By the way, the quiz questions and answers were not uploaded yesterday. Can we have the answers please?
    PS: really enjoying the blog.

    Comment by catherine f.
    3.
    November 21, 2009
    12:08 pm

    I suppose the trick is to try to induce some form of temporary amnesia and forget that there ever was a literary Holmes when watching this. Having said that we perhaps forget that Conan Doyles’ Holmes was quite the action hero. He is described as an expert at single-stick, a Victorian form of martial art, he carried a pistol and was a competant swordsman. In the Sign of the Four his past as a successful and formidable bare-knuckle fighter is mentioned. Let’s not forget that Sherlock Holmes was written to be sensationalist and populist and, had Conan Doyle access to CGI at the time he would undoubtedly have used it. Looks like fun to me and I’m a committed fan of the books.

    Comment by Eleanor
    4.
    November 21, 2009
    12:51 pm

    I’m retrieving my Jeremy Brett box set from the shelves right now…

    Comment by redframewhitelight
    5.
    November 21, 2009
    12:58 pm

    Hey Catherine,

    Don’t know what’s up with the quiz. Anyway, questions and answers are below. I’ll add them to the blog itself if they don’t pop up soon:

    1. Who was originally going to be called Mortimer Mouse?

    2. Who is about to accompany the Chipmunks for their upcoming “squeakwell”?

    3. Which prestigious awards are handed out by AMPAS?

    4. The end of one of my legs. A closing line of the Lord’s Prayer. The pasture. The fighter. Who’s first four?

    5. Which is the odd-one-out: Jaws 2, Dial M for Murder, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Avatar?

    6. Why might Annie Hall, Toy Story and Larry Flint remind you of a woodpecker?

    7. Lean adapts Dickens. Cardiff adapts Fitzgerald. Chaplin ridicules Hitler. Chronicle of a breakout. Which superlative?

    8. Which current release is described as a “German children’s history” in its original title?

    9. What might you expect to see after reading the words “Ars Gratia Artis”?

    10. What is Smultronsället?

    1. Mickey Mouse.

    2. Alvin.

    3. The Oscars.

    4. Jim Sheridan (My Left Foot, In the Name of the Father, The Field, The Boxer.)

    5. Jaws 2. All the rest were in 3-D. (Jaws 3-D was of course filmed using the process.)

    6. They all involve Woody, as in Woody Woodpecker. (Woody Allen directed Annie Hall. Woody is the cowboy in Toy Story and Woody Harellson played Larry Flint in The People versus Larry Flint.)

    7. Great. (Great Expectations. The Great Gatsby. The Great Dictator. The Great Escape.)

    8. The White Ribbon.

    9. An MGM film. That is the studio’s slogan.

    10. Wild Strawberries. This is the Swedish title of Bergman’s classic.

    Comment by Donald Clarke
    6.
    November 21, 2009
    2:37 pm

    should have just cast hugh laurie and let him basically play the house character

    Comment by bateman
    7.
    November 21, 2009
    4:28 pm

    Hey Donald

    Thanks a lot. 7 out of 10 isn’t bad. Will keep trying though..

    Comment by catherine f.
    8.
    November 22, 2009
    1:18 pm

    Looks appalling. Bring back Basil Rathbone.

    Comment by kynos
    9.
    November 23, 2009
    12:59 pm

    Excellent post Eleanor. It has been many’s the moon since I read the stories and lazily assumed that an excess of decorum is appropriate in the depiction of Holmes. He should thrum with the crude vitality of pulp-fiction. Also, one of the reasons for his survival as an icon of poplar culture is his mutability. I think there is an assumption that Holmes should only be represented in accordance with certain musty conventions, however, he has actually been subjected to varying degrees of willed ‘misinterpretation’ over the years. The less-reverent revisions are always more interesting, so, my favourite Holmes film is Billy Wilder’s ‘The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes’, which manages to be both satirical and romantic.
    If we accept that Holmes should be available to a multiplicity of appropriations, (no more than Marge Simpson), the problem which arises is whether such appropriations are worthwhile. Which brings us to Mr. Ritchie. I am doing my best, really I am, to generate a bit of optimism about the new film, but the dread spectres of ‘From Hell’ and ‘The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen’ keep emitting ectoplasm on my chips, so to speak. As to Mr. Ritchie’s own work, well, one might tread in ordure the first time accidentally and the second out of carelessness, but after that, one exercises a little caution. So, ‘Lock, Stock etc.’ and ‘Snatch’ are the only two of his films I have seen. Still, everyone deserves a sixth (?) chance so I will reserve my repulsively snobbish judgement until I see the film. Bad and all as things may seem, Jude Law will at least be a better Watson than Robert Duvall.

    Comment by Nam Citsale
    10.
    November 23, 2009
    2:07 pm

    revolver was a steaming pile of poo and rocknrolla was only slightly better

    Comment by petee
    11.
    November 23, 2009
    6:15 pm

    I think the film might be entertaining (I have to admit that I much enjoyed Revolver), but it seems like the only reason to call him Holmes was to use a recognisable brand-name.

    Also, a question about Jude Law: Why isn’t he washed up already? Nobody seems to like him and he’s always making flops.

    Comment by Joe Griffin
    12.
    November 23, 2009
    9:54 pm

    Elastic Man, Holmes may have been the pulp fiction of his day, and certainly vital but there was nothing crude about his original depiction. Seems a pity to change that there’s enuf crudity in the arts today some of it works and some of it doesn’t but I tend to agree with the Stoics. Touching up paintings after the fact just dillutes their authenticity not the other way round.

    Comment by kynos
    13.
    November 23, 2009
    10:36 pm

    Thought Lock Stock was superb. Though Revolver was something that could have been superb but ended up self-conscious and wilfully obscure which isn’t clever if yer aiming at the common man. Maybe should watch it again. But I guess iconoclasts become parodies of themselves eventually sort of like all politicians become faillures

    Comment by kynos
    14.
    November 23, 2009
    10:58 pm

    Guy Richie is a mediocre hack whose films express nothing but a slick brand of brutality.
    But even more depressing is the way Jude Law stopped being beautiful a few films ago, so sad.

    Comment by Shane
    15.
    November 23, 2009
    11:03 pm

    And as for Holmes as action hero in this depiction I don’t think Robert Downey has ever actually shot a man but Basil Rathbone certainly did. And he got a medal for it and a mention in the London Gazette as I recall. For gallantry. I think I prefer his portrayal of Holmes.

    Comment by kynos
    16.
    November 23, 2009
    11:03 pm

    All in all.

    Comment by kynos
    17.
    November 23, 2009
    11:04 pm

    See? Guy Ritchie really does split the punters. He’s the Marmite of his generation.

    Comment by Donald Clarke
    18.
    November 23, 2009
    11:11 pm

    Certainly nobody is dissing Basil Rathbone. Try that here and the moderator will bin your comment faster than a rattlesnake can swallow a vole. The comment above that does worry me is the comparison to The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. There is, alas, something in that. Boy, did that suck (as Queen Victoria would, no doubt, say).

    Comment by Donald Clarke
    19.
    November 24, 2009
    12:37 am

    Amazing how the British, colonised as they were by the Romans, became so decent to each other while being perfectly indecent to many others unrelated to them except by colonial fiat. And the attraction of their unexploited resources. Must be something post-colonial about it all. Cultural artefact. Only Anglo-Saxon is a white one and racially at the top of the pile. Helped to justify appalling things done to lesser chaps. You’re a better man than I am Gunga Din carry my suitcases from the car old boy and by the way I’ll just pinch the gemstone eyes from your little yellow god. But I prefer Rathbone’s portrayal. He’d shot his share in imperialistic wars between haemophiliac inbreds and could carry the original character with a certain authenticity. Don’t remember if he portrayed the cocaine injection that helped the great man to think. Certainly did not portray the opium war that led to an entire nation being reduced to Her knees by drug-running as State policy of conquest. Today it’s drug-running, torture, freedumb and dumbocracy as State policies of conquest. The White Man’s burden. To keep on doing war by deception not least upon himself. Still. Those old black and whites were so atmospheric. Positively Manichean. Sorry. Mancunian. No set in London weren’ they

    Comment by kynos
    20.
    November 24, 2009
    10:16 pm

    I’d love to tell my best Holmes and Watson joke at this point but already told it to Fiona few months ago and try to avoid repetition in the same year. Feckit. Holmes and Watson out camping in this forest see nah don’t want to wear down the old deerstalker

    Comment by kynos
    21.
    November 27, 2009
    12:42 am

    My eldest daughter apparently loves this Twilight series I’d rather she loved Holmes and Watson but we must move on mustn’t we? Prefer the rational approach to the dark side rather to the visceral one.

    Comment by kynos

    Leave a comment


    • (will not be published)


Search Screenwriter

 
Close
E-mail It