![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eumeliaDear, dear me.
Gone a second time and back with more insight and a bunch of icons.
Where to begin? And can I ever end.
Let me first say, the clothes. My god, the clothes.
Friends, I want to be a dandy.
I want to wear Tweed and braces and waistcoats and a bowler and a cravat! The clothes seemed to be hyped up versions of themselves. Feh, the whole movie was a hyped up version of Sherlock Holmes and was faithful to the books in many ways - though departed in many many others.
London was filthy.
London was in the middle of a revolution which we are still in the midst of, I believe.
"An industrious empire", boy oh boy, was it!
More so than giving us a glimpse of the height of Victoria Regina's empire, it felt like a parallel universe to me - the science was almost science fiction. I think everything was explained wonderfully, but it felt just a tad... advanced (a silencer? Really?!)... for the Victorian mind set (despite them being in the midst of technological leaps and jumps - much like we are in the present, which is why I think Steampunk is seeing such a revival in popularity).
Guy Ritchie does filth very well. I don't think there's a moment in the film in which Holmes is clean. Even at the restaurant he isn't clean for long, what with that glass of wine Mary chucked in his face for being an utter bastard.
Which he is. A mean fellow. Socially awkward, though he would never admit it, because everyone else is wrong and besides, he has Watson to explain things civilly to people - what with that great bedside manner of his.
Speaking of manners.
Indeed there was a whole lot of sexual tension. Between Holmes and Watson, between Holmes and Irene, between Holmes and Mary, between Holmes... and every single character he came into contact with.
I don't know what Robert Downey Jr. did, but he managed to make a character who appears to be canonically asexual (debatable, but still, very likely) into one of the queerest characters I've seen on screen since, well, Captain Jack (Harkness, though Sparrow is quite queer, in that Drag Queen sort of way).
The difference being is that, unlike Jack (Harkness), Sherlock is not charming. He can be, as is seen in the prison scenes, but his bad habits - drugs, drinking, bare-knuckled boxing (pugilism) prevent him from being able to charm even those who hate him - also, he wouldn't sleep with them, he's very picky about who he keeps in his company.
RDJ, while sexing up Holmes, made him pretty inaccessible emotionally. Which is good for us, because that's what Holmes is about - described by the faithful and brilliant in his own (though different) way Watson as an "automaton".
A robot.
In the film Watson blatantly calls Holmes "not human". Which I always find interesting, people's humanity in doubt because they abscond social mores.
By the way, I hope you all forgive me the style of this entry, I'm a mimic you see and tend to take on a pastiche style of writing when I talk of things I love.
Unoriginal much?
Sorry, back to the point.
The dynamic between Holmes and Watson. Throughout the film and the various reviews, the homoerotic tension is palpable.
They play on the implicit sexual relationship these men, may or may not have.
Personally, I think Watson is far too straight laced to have actually done the deed with Holmes. As we can see in the film, Watson is torn between wanting to do the "normal" thing of getting married and having a female companion with whom to share his life, and between enjoying the adrenalin high he gets from investigating cases with Holmes.
Watson is an adrenalin junkie, that's why he has a gambling problem, that's why he kept returning to Holmes when he was supposed to meet Mary.
Holmes knows this and manipulates him accordingly.
Mary knows this and seems to be all right with it, though I wish she had more screen time! I really hope Mary makes more appearances in the sequel.
Not to mention that Watson, despite going along with Holmes as he bends the law, I very much doubt Watson would consider two years hard labour a reasonable price to pay to consummate a passion he channels through gambling.
As for Holmes, his desire and flirtations with Watson, Mary and Irene were far more explicit. His awkward scenes with Irene to me were evident of unresolved tension, yes well, duh, but what I mean is that Holmes wants people he cannot have.
He cannot take Watson (hence that really horrible moment of jealousy in the restaurant and towards Mary in general), because he is a man and he cannot actually have a relationship with Adler because she's a criminal and he doesn't trust her one little bit.
He could have had something on with Clarky (the constable that helps him along), but Holmes needs someone who's quite intelligent, and Clarky is just too much of a Bobbie.
Mary would have worked were it not for Watson getting to her first and the whole love triangle that commenced from there.
The movie is ambiguous and implicit when it comes to the sexuality of the boys.
Then again, it's ambiguous about Holmes' drug ("eye surgery medicine" is cocaine, btw) habits, Watson's trauma (the Anglo-Afghan war, there were a few battles in which the Agnlos lost) and Mary being not-quite-a-lady (she does indeed plant to "take" Watson).
I mean, Holmes is either high or drunk for the majority of the film (don't tell me those sunglasses weren't put on because of his massive hangover).
In that sense the movie itself is very Victorian, all talk and no action. We can feel, practically taste the sex dripping from the interaction between Holmes and Watson ("old cock", "mother hen" - Holmes "treating" Watson's wounds at the hospital, his tongue going numb and thus being of no use at all to Watson), but we never get anything explicit.
IIRC correctly the only time we see a full on kiss (lips on lips) is when Irene kisses Holmes as he succumbs to the sedative she fed him and then ties him up to the bed, naked - skeevy consent issues aside - it was the only time something sexually "improper" was shown.
Ambiguity in these kinds of movies is a good thing I think. The problem is when it leaks into real life. RDJ and Jude Law played up the implicitness of the relationship. RDJ if I'm not mistaken is a fan of the books and used what could be read as homoerotic subtext in the canon in order to play up the tension in the film. Which indeed as I say makes the movie fun, interesting and a bit naughty.
However, the media went with the hijinks as well and jokingly wrote about the love between RDJ and Jude Law.
Something that would not have been done if RDJ and Jude Law publicly hooked up.
As it stands, Show Business is as homophobic as the rest as society and I very much doubt that they would chose to go really public if indeed they got together romantically. It would immediately kill their careers and ruin their carefully cultivated persona's as miracle addict-recovery family man and as heterosexual man-whore extraordinaire.
And that's what I have to say about that. Now excuse me I search for OT3 fiction ('cause you know Mary/Watson/Holmes is the bestest thing ever!)
Plot wise, it was very fun indeed. There were elements from many of the stories. The first time I watched it I was very frustrated by what I perceived to be anathema to the scientific beauty of Sherlock Holmes and I did not enjoy the "supernatural" angle.
Or the Order of the Golden Dawn wannabes - seriously, the Illuminati again?! I'm sure the Free Masons are wondering where they can find a good copyright lawyer - or something, unless they already have... dun dun duuuuuun.
Blackwood was a clever, if a tad pompous villain, the use of religion was a good diversion, I was irritated by him and my scepticism was just raising red flags all the time. Which made the second viewing much more fun for me, when I didn't have to try and work out whether the movie was taking the "supernatural" thing too seriously. His sidekick Coward was creepy and I liked the thugs. Dredger was awesome. LeStrade was a bit too bafoonish, but he redeemed himself by the end - I enjoyed the repartee between Holmes and LeStrade. Good natured bickering is always fun to observe.
It was a Bechdel Fail. No surprise, it being a hyped period action detective story. Irene was fun, though I'm not sure how tying her up and having her be rescued by Holmes and Watson was beneficial for - was it an attempt to make sure we remembered that The Woman (who bested Holmes twice) was still incompetent without two big butch dandies to save her? Ritchie you are symptomatic in your portrayal of women, when indeed you bother to have actresses in your films.
Mary, who Irene doesn't meet, is much naughtier than I thought she's be - having Watson indeed.
I think she'd make a nice addition to the team, she's fooled by no one and most probably would make a better spy than both Holmes and Watson.
Mrs. Hudson. "Nanny". Oh I would love to hear her opinion regarding her lodgers. But alas.
Maybe next time.
If Guy Ritchie casts Brad Pitt as Moriarty I may be forced to go see it drunk, because no, no, no! Holmes and Watson being pretty is one thing. Moriarty being prettier than both of them?!
God, may someone place cast Hugh Laurie as Moriarty?! Please?!
*sigh*
Gone a second time and back with more insight and a bunch of icons.
Where to begin? And can I ever end.
Let me first say, the clothes. My god, the clothes.
Friends, I want to be a dandy.
I want to wear Tweed and braces and waistcoats and a bowler and a cravat! The clothes seemed to be hyped up versions of themselves. Feh, the whole movie was a hyped up version of Sherlock Holmes and was faithful to the books in many ways - though departed in many many others.
London was filthy.
London was in the middle of a revolution which we are still in the midst of, I believe.
"An industrious empire", boy oh boy, was it!
More so than giving us a glimpse of the height of Victoria Regina's empire, it felt like a parallel universe to me - the science was almost science fiction. I think everything was explained wonderfully, but it felt just a tad... advanced (a silencer? Really?!)... for the Victorian mind set (despite them being in the midst of technological leaps and jumps - much like we are in the present, which is why I think Steampunk is seeing such a revival in popularity).
Guy Ritchie does filth very well. I don't think there's a moment in the film in which Holmes is clean. Even at the restaurant he isn't clean for long, what with that glass of wine Mary chucked in his face for being an utter bastard.
Which he is. A mean fellow. Socially awkward, though he would never admit it, because everyone else is wrong and besides, he has Watson to explain things civilly to people - what with that great bedside manner of his.
Speaking of manners.
Indeed there was a whole lot of sexual tension. Between Holmes and Watson, between Holmes and Irene, between Holmes and Mary, between Holmes... and every single character he came into contact with.
I don't know what Robert Downey Jr. did, but he managed to make a character who appears to be canonically asexual (debatable, but still, very likely) into one of the queerest characters I've seen on screen since, well, Captain Jack (Harkness, though Sparrow is quite queer, in that Drag Queen sort of way).
The difference being is that, unlike Jack (Harkness), Sherlock is not charming. He can be, as is seen in the prison scenes, but his bad habits - drugs, drinking, bare-knuckled boxing (pugilism) prevent him from being able to charm even those who hate him - also, he wouldn't sleep with them, he's very picky about who he keeps in his company.
RDJ, while sexing up Holmes, made him pretty inaccessible emotionally. Which is good for us, because that's what Holmes is about - described by the faithful and brilliant in his own (though different) way Watson as an "automaton".
A robot.
In the film Watson blatantly calls Holmes "not human". Which I always find interesting, people's humanity in doubt because they abscond social mores.
By the way, I hope you all forgive me the style of this entry, I'm a mimic you see and tend to take on a pastiche style of writing when I talk of things I love.
Unoriginal much?
Sorry, back to the point.
The dynamic between Holmes and Watson. Throughout the film and the various reviews, the homoerotic tension is palpable.
They play on the implicit sexual relationship these men, may or may not have.
Personally, I think Watson is far too straight laced to have actually done the deed with Holmes. As we can see in the film, Watson is torn between wanting to do the "normal" thing of getting married and having a female companion with whom to share his life, and between enjoying the adrenalin high he gets from investigating cases with Holmes.
Watson is an adrenalin junkie, that's why he has a gambling problem, that's why he kept returning to Holmes when he was supposed to meet Mary.
Holmes knows this and manipulates him accordingly.
Mary knows this and seems to be all right with it, though I wish she had more screen time! I really hope Mary makes more appearances in the sequel.
Not to mention that Watson, despite going along with Holmes as he bends the law, I very much doubt Watson would consider two years hard labour a reasonable price to pay to consummate a passion he channels through gambling.
As for Holmes, his desire and flirtations with Watson, Mary and Irene were far more explicit. His awkward scenes with Irene to me were evident of unresolved tension, yes well, duh, but what I mean is that Holmes wants people he cannot have.
He cannot take Watson (hence that really horrible moment of jealousy in the restaurant and towards Mary in general), because he is a man and he cannot actually have a relationship with Adler because she's a criminal and he doesn't trust her one little bit.
He could have had something on with Clarky (the constable that helps him along), but Holmes needs someone who's quite intelligent, and Clarky is just too much of a Bobbie.
Mary would have worked were it not for Watson getting to her first and the whole love triangle that commenced from there.
The movie is ambiguous and implicit when it comes to the sexuality of the boys.
Then again, it's ambiguous about Holmes' drug ("eye surgery medicine" is cocaine, btw) habits, Watson's trauma (the Anglo-Afghan war, there were a few battles in which the Agnlos lost) and Mary being not-quite-a-lady (she does indeed plant to "take" Watson).
I mean, Holmes is either high or drunk for the majority of the film (don't tell me those sunglasses weren't put on because of his massive hangover).
In that sense the movie itself is very Victorian, all talk and no action. We can feel, practically taste the sex dripping from the interaction between Holmes and Watson ("old cock", "mother hen" - Holmes "treating" Watson's wounds at the hospital, his tongue going numb and thus being of no use at all to Watson), but we never get anything explicit.
IIRC correctly the only time we see a full on kiss (lips on lips) is when Irene kisses Holmes as he succumbs to the sedative she fed him and then ties him up to the bed, naked - skeevy consent issues aside - it was the only time something sexually "improper" was shown.
Ambiguity in these kinds of movies is a good thing I think. The problem is when it leaks into real life. RDJ and Jude Law played up the implicitness of the relationship. RDJ if I'm not mistaken is a fan of the books and used what could be read as homoerotic subtext in the canon in order to play up the tension in the film. Which indeed as I say makes the movie fun, interesting and a bit naughty.
However, the media went with the hijinks as well and jokingly wrote about the love between RDJ and Jude Law.
Something that would not have been done if RDJ and Jude Law publicly hooked up.
As it stands, Show Business is as homophobic as the rest as society and I very much doubt that they would chose to go really public if indeed they got together romantically. It would immediately kill their careers and ruin their carefully cultivated persona's as miracle addict-recovery family man and as heterosexual man-whore extraordinaire.
And that's what I have to say about that. Now excuse me I search for OT3 fiction ('cause you know Mary/Watson/Holmes is the bestest thing ever!)
Plot wise, it was very fun indeed. There were elements from many of the stories. The first time I watched it I was very frustrated by what I perceived to be anathema to the scientific beauty of Sherlock Holmes and I did not enjoy the "supernatural" angle.
Or the Order of the Golden Dawn wannabes - seriously, the Illuminati again?! I'm sure the Free Masons are wondering where they can find a good copyright lawyer - or something, unless they already have... dun dun duuuuuun.
Blackwood was a clever, if a tad pompous villain, the use of religion was a good diversion, I was irritated by him and my scepticism was just raising red flags all the time. Which made the second viewing much more fun for me, when I didn't have to try and work out whether the movie was taking the "supernatural" thing too seriously. His sidekick Coward was creepy and I liked the thugs. Dredger was awesome. LeStrade was a bit too bafoonish, but he redeemed himself by the end - I enjoyed the repartee between Holmes and LeStrade. Good natured bickering is always fun to observe.
It was a Bechdel Fail. No surprise, it being a hyped period action detective story. Irene was fun, though I'm not sure how tying her up and having her be rescued by Holmes and Watson was beneficial for - was it an attempt to make sure we remembered that The Woman (who bested Holmes twice) was still incompetent without two big butch dandies to save her? Ritchie you are symptomatic in your portrayal of women, when indeed you bother to have actresses in your films.
Mary, who Irene doesn't meet, is much naughtier than I thought she's be - having Watson indeed.
I think she'd make a nice addition to the team, she's fooled by no one and most probably would make a better spy than both Holmes and Watson.
Mrs. Hudson. "Nanny". Oh I would love to hear her opinion regarding her lodgers. But alas.
Maybe next time.
If Guy Ritchie casts Brad Pitt as Moriarty I may be forced to go see it drunk, because no, no, no! Holmes and Watson being pretty is one thing. Moriarty being prettier than both of them?!
God, may someone place cast Hugh Laurie as Moriarty?! Please?!
*sigh*
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-02-03 11:59 pm (UTC)Brad Pitt as Morirarty!? I'm not sure how I feel about that.
You're too right about the reality of Hollywood and the Bechdel fail, of course. I don't know if I personally am willing to buy the interpretation of the movie, though, that Holmes and Watson don't have a physical relationship because of Watson's fear of prison. I could buy that interpretation of the movie, but not that particular reason. And the phrase "adrenaline junkie" wouldn't have occurred to me, but I can see that too.
I keep thinking about that scene in the gaol--"You're not human!"--too. I'm always interested in around whom, and why, people draw that sort of circle. Poor Watson, pushed to the breaking point. He wanted that tea.
I did like RDJ's interpretation of Holmes, too. He is obviously a bastard, but he's not vindictive about it, and while he obviously is the smartest guy in the room he doest at heart have a certain amount of respect for people who deserve it, if not for much else. And oh, that scene in the restaurant! How freaking prideful is he to just sit there and not even acknowledge that he is dripping red wine!
And on that note, back to the WIP.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2010-02-04 12:40 am (UTC)Not to mention that Watson, despite going along with Holmes as he bends the law, I very much doubt Watson would consider two years hard labour a reasonable price to pay to consummate a passion he channels through gambling.
I wasn't sure about that being canonical either, but there is this exchange from "A Scandal in Bohemia," the first short story:
"[...]By the way, Doctor, I shall want your cooperation."
"I shall be delighted."
"You don't mind breaking the law?"
"Not in the least."
"Nor running a chance of arrest?"
"Not in a good cause."
"Oh, the cause is excellent!"
"Then I am your man."
"I was sure that I might rely on you."
Plus one whole story which revolved around Holmes and Watson breaking into a blackmailer's house (they get really into it, buying masks and stuff). Oh, and London should definitely be filthy during that time. They burned so much coal and wood and there was no regard for air pollution at all. It was horrible! Like Los Angelos but carbonier ... if that makes any sense?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2010-02-04 01:24 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2010-02-04 07:21 pm (UTC)It was far, far, better than I dared hoped. Though my expectations were very, very low. Easily an excellent, even out standing movie. Jeremy Brett is still a better Holmes, though ;)
I thought Richie took an easy way out, by showing Holmes' genius in planning a fight, rather than detecting. This movie should have out-Housed House, out-CSIed CSI and all the other pretenders to the throne of #1 detective. The actual "detective work" did not take advantage of the motion-picture budget and attention-to-details.
The movie would have worked even if RDJ and JL were not Holmes and Watson. There was little that was explicitly Holmes and Watson in the movie except their relationship - which was superb. And I say this with no sexual undertone/subtext/literary-flavour-of-the-week expression ;)
Hopefully this movie has jump-started a franchise and the next movies will be even better!
Interesting link:
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6715287.html
(no subject)
From: