![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Sherlock Holmes
So I hope everyone had a good holiday, however or whether you celebrate it! This is what I did...
...Or rather what I saw after dinner en famille. Now, as many reviewers and even the trailers themselves point out, "Sherlock Holmes" is not particularly faithful to Arthur Conan Doyle's version. While some purists may be appalled at my blasphemy, I rather like the departure from canon. I actually HATED the way the series was written. Not because of Doyle's writing style, but that the narration by Watson as third-person (severely!) limited perspective tended to cast him as incredibly unobservant and rather dimwitted -- which, as a medical doctor, just undermined him as a likeable character for me. He was the straight man to Holmes' funny man. And since he was the narrator, it just made me roll my eyes throughout the canonical narratives.
As long as you don't go in as a Doyle purist, you should like the movie. It's got action, mystery, a bit of CSI-(guess)work, and really good chemistry among the actors. I agree with some critics that the homoeroticism brings to the forefront literary speculations and theories about the subtext of the original tales. Here, they are no longer subtext but more like text. I applaud that kind of interesting revisioning. It's more annoying when there isn't any sort of artistic innovation or intervention. If I just wanted the original stories, then I would just read the original stories. I like the intertextuality.
Not sure about the authenticity of the costuming, but I would LOVE a Victorian men's coat. Those are just TO DIE FOR. Not so much the women's clothing since it's just too impractical as anything other than a costume, but definitely a man's coat can be worn in winter. Le sigh.
...Or rather what I saw after dinner en famille. Now, as many reviewers and even the trailers themselves point out, "Sherlock Holmes" is not particularly faithful to Arthur Conan Doyle's version. While some purists may be appalled at my blasphemy, I rather like the departure from canon. I actually HATED the way the series was written. Not because of Doyle's writing style, but that the narration by Watson as third-person (severely!) limited perspective tended to cast him as incredibly unobservant and rather dimwitted -- which, as a medical doctor, just undermined him as a likeable character for me. He was the straight man to Holmes' funny man. And since he was the narrator, it just made me roll my eyes throughout the canonical narratives.
As long as you don't go in as a Doyle purist, you should like the movie. It's got action, mystery, a bit of CSI-(guess)work, and really good chemistry among the actors. I agree with some critics that the homoeroticism brings to the forefront literary speculations and theories about the subtext of the original tales. Here, they are no longer subtext but more like text. I applaud that kind of interesting revisioning. It's more annoying when there isn't any sort of artistic innovation or intervention. If I just wanted the original stories, then I would just read the original stories. I like the intertextuality.
Not sure about the authenticity of the costuming, but I would LOVE a Victorian men's coat. Those are just TO DIE FOR. Not so much the women's clothing since it's just too impractical as anything other than a costume, but definitely a man's coat can be worn in winter. Le sigh.