On Wednesday night in the Olmsted Room, Gail Griffin invited her audience and the English Department to “generate a little light”. The English faculty responded with a glimmering phosphorescence of words, anecdotes, and description. The group, all of whom are either tenured professors at “K” or year or quarter-long visitors to the department, presented their current projects, thoughts, or chapters from their work that is soon to be released.
Andy Mozina led off with excerpts from “My Non-Sexual Affair”, a piece that could not have been written by anyone else due to its wit and candor. Visiting professor Beth Marzoni’s poem on Rothko’s Room at the Tate in London was an incredibly gorgeous and colorful trek for the audience, bringing them from rainy London to a rich red Pompeii to a hazy Florence. Marin Heinritz’s account of her mother was candid and personal, fitting well into the evening’s theme of personal experiences and journeys.
A sentimental Gail Griffin’s writing on the murder-suicide of Maggie Wardle and Neenef Odah was piercing—spectators were drawn into their worlds and tragedies. Dr. Griffin’s description of her personal odyssey in piecing together their story, carefully crafting the pieces, and presenting it to a new generation of students who might not have known their nightmare, and others who know it all too well.
Glenn Deutsch’s straightforward account of New York City and family life was strong; his slightly monotone delivery nonetheless revealed strong, realistic material in progress. Amy Rogers’ story of her search for information on Robert Frost’s son Carol as a graduate student seamlessly mixed academic and creative discourse, reconciling the night’s varied types of writing that were presented. Her advice on bonding with a character was highly appropriate for a crowd of young, aspiring, and attentive English majors and students.
Babli Sinha quickly changed the pace: with the driest material of the bunch, her paper on the Indian “New Woman” and technology was less immediately accessible to listeners. However, Dr. Sinha’s interest in her subject and obvious prowess as an academic in a different area of the English department was evident. Di Seuss’ description of a woman in New York City was all about self-awareness: “I watched myself watch myself.” Her focus on looking inside to find complete knowledge of oneself was not lost on the audience—there was copious applause. Professor Amelia Katanski’s account of her uncle and life cycles was commanding: the four sections highlighted the ups and downs of the deepest human desires, crafting a circular whole which satisfied listeners in only five minutes.
As the last presenter, Bruce Mills read from his memoir “An Archaeology of Learning”. It was an appropriate final piece, as it was personal and powerful. As a tale of dealing with his son’s autism, its theme of filling the empty spaces and seeing the beauty in them was the perfect finale to the evening’s theme of self-awareness, discovery, and journeys. Strong writing and verbal delivery is all is about confidence: the English Department at Kalamazoo College certainly has the confidence—and the talent—to continue to light up the campus.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
“Velvet Goldmine”: A love letter to all that is Glam
Oscar Wilde’s tombstone, covered with bright lipstick marks and messages of adoration in many languages, is a love letter to Wilde, the over-the-top, and art itself. Todd Haynes’ potent 1998 film “Velvet Goldmine” has the same function. The beautiful, the sublime, and the decorative are abstract topics, but the film embraces them through intense artifice in the performers’ elaborate costumes and makeup, the baroque interiors of their hotel rooms, and the stylized nature of the film itself from its acting to its camera techniques. “Velvet Underground” is also a love letter: to Oscar Wilde, Glam-rock, the taboo, and above all, art. As yet another musically driven pseudo-historical re-imagination of an epic epoch in music history, “Velvet Goldmine” is a richly textured, glittering, brazen film that succeeds in all aspects.
Considering the film has the fundamental concept of art at its core, it is not surprising that director Todd Haynes received the “Artistic Achievement” award at Cannes for “Velvet Goldmine”. Though it is not his most well known work, Haynes, who is openly gay, tackled the subject with passion and verve. Sexuality is addressed throughout; the “effeminate” rules in Haynes’ world. Art and artifice, as well as sexuality, are crucial to Haynes’ vision.
The effects, camera work, and set design were thoughtfully selected to make the viewer hyper-aware of the film’s existence of a piece of art. The careful stylistic choices are perfectly appropriate to the ideas of aestheticism and presentation that the film presents: to emphasize intense moments the camera zooms in tighter to pounding music, and cheesy newspaper and tabloid covers are flashed on the screen for the viewer to see. These effects give the effect of celebrity, media, and artifice—the film’s core ideas. Use of fade-ins, fade-outs, and other less-common (nowadays) film effects add to its artifice and take the viewer back to an earlier time. In creating a world where appearances are crucial, the camera work, effects, and set are flawless. The stylized world that these elements work together to create reflects the ideals of aestheticism and beauty crucial to Oscar Wilde.
The costumes were beautifully done- the most memorable is Brian Slade’s last outfit: he takes a gunshot with swan-like grace, literally. His white, feathered, over-the-top number makes him appropriately Glam-rock but also refers to the higher nature of his sexuality; and Oscar Wilde’s belief in the pure nature of “love that dares not speak its name”. Slade is adorned with symbols of innocence, yet the viewer knows he is anything but. In a world where appearances are (almost) everything, the wardrobe of characters like Slade looks really good.
Jonathan Rhys Meyers couldn’t be better for the flamboyant role of Brian Slade: a Dubliner by birth, fraught with personal issues that appear to have been beautifully channeled into Slade’s salacious and excessive lifestyle, Rhys Meyers’ Slade serves as a true Dorian Gray figure. His character’s vanity, obsession and lack of Victorian moral structure as well as obvious femininity and sexuality are appropriately portrayed by a languid and sexual Rhys Meyers. The musical Rhys-Meyers performed two tracks for the film: “Baby’s on Fire” and “Tumbling Down” are standout tracks in a strong lineup.
A slightly pudgy Christian Bale portrayed the rather confused Arthur Stuart to a tee. Scenes of him as a teen, listening to Brian Slade in his bedroom alone while his parents condemn his effeminate behavior, captures aspects of teenage angst, identity, and sexual confusion to a tee. He is perfect in the role; unsure, lost, and still searching for something, even in his more tame adulthood. While he tries to find out what happened to his idol Brian Slade, the audience believes him and the story of his past.
Ewan MacGregor’s Iggy-Pop-esque Curt Wild is highly effective; he successfully portrays the Rock-and-Roll lifestyle in his base physicality, attitude, and also manages to pull off a strange turn in sexuality: he and the others stand out in the sexual roles that were required of them in the film.
The female characters also succeed in the film, but by far the most believable is Toni Collette, whose Mandy Slade is alternately woeful, angry, and full of memory.
“Velvet Goldmine” is also a love letter to music history. The whole thing a tribute to seventies rockers, featuring their music, but newer stars were also included in the project. Modern-day rockers Thom Yorke, Johnny Greenwood, David Gray, Bernard Butler, Andy Mackay, Ron Asheton, Thurston Moore, Steve Shelley, and more. British and American musicians are represented here; Rock and Roll’s crossing of the Atlantic is crucial to the film. The soundtrack is poignant and appropriate, creating a seamless adventure through time and a particular time in music history.
“Velvet Goldmine” doesn’t apologize for itself. It is shamelessly self-promoting and unselfconscious in its self-consciousness. Presentation and appearance is everything: beauty is created even amidst the background of the characters’ personal lives. It deals with issues of sexuality and gender amidst the shimmering, pulsating backdrop of the glam rock movement of the 1970s. “Velvet Goldmine” closely examines the idea of celebrity and sexuality, and owes its debt to the high concepts of art and beauty, not to mention the taboo. Oscar Wilde never would have expected this kind of tribute, but he would have loved it.
Considering the film has the fundamental concept of art at its core, it is not surprising that director Todd Haynes received the “Artistic Achievement” award at Cannes for “Velvet Goldmine”. Though it is not his most well known work, Haynes, who is openly gay, tackled the subject with passion and verve. Sexuality is addressed throughout; the “effeminate” rules in Haynes’ world. Art and artifice, as well as sexuality, are crucial to Haynes’ vision.
The effects, camera work, and set design were thoughtfully selected to make the viewer hyper-aware of the film’s existence of a piece of art. The careful stylistic choices are perfectly appropriate to the ideas of aestheticism and presentation that the film presents: to emphasize intense moments the camera zooms in tighter to pounding music, and cheesy newspaper and tabloid covers are flashed on the screen for the viewer to see. These effects give the effect of celebrity, media, and artifice—the film’s core ideas. Use of fade-ins, fade-outs, and other less-common (nowadays) film effects add to its artifice and take the viewer back to an earlier time. In creating a world where appearances are crucial, the camera work, effects, and set are flawless. The stylized world that these elements work together to create reflects the ideals of aestheticism and beauty crucial to Oscar Wilde.
The costumes were beautifully done- the most memorable is Brian Slade’s last outfit: he takes a gunshot with swan-like grace, literally. His white, feathered, over-the-top number makes him appropriately Glam-rock but also refers to the higher nature of his sexuality; and Oscar Wilde’s belief in the pure nature of “love that dares not speak its name”. Slade is adorned with symbols of innocence, yet the viewer knows he is anything but. In a world where appearances are (almost) everything, the wardrobe of characters like Slade looks really good.
Jonathan Rhys Meyers couldn’t be better for the flamboyant role of Brian Slade: a Dubliner by birth, fraught with personal issues that appear to have been beautifully channeled into Slade’s salacious and excessive lifestyle, Rhys Meyers’ Slade serves as a true Dorian Gray figure. His character’s vanity, obsession and lack of Victorian moral structure as well as obvious femininity and sexuality are appropriately portrayed by a languid and sexual Rhys Meyers. The musical Rhys-Meyers performed two tracks for the film: “Baby’s on Fire” and “Tumbling Down” are standout tracks in a strong lineup.
A slightly pudgy Christian Bale portrayed the rather confused Arthur Stuart to a tee. Scenes of him as a teen, listening to Brian Slade in his bedroom alone while his parents condemn his effeminate behavior, captures aspects of teenage angst, identity, and sexual confusion to a tee. He is perfect in the role; unsure, lost, and still searching for something, even in his more tame adulthood. While he tries to find out what happened to his idol Brian Slade, the audience believes him and the story of his past.
Ewan MacGregor’s Iggy-Pop-esque Curt Wild is highly effective; he successfully portrays the Rock-and-Roll lifestyle in his base physicality, attitude, and also manages to pull off a strange turn in sexuality: he and the others stand out in the sexual roles that were required of them in the film.
The female characters also succeed in the film, but by far the most believable is Toni Collette, whose Mandy Slade is alternately woeful, angry, and full of memory.
“Velvet Goldmine” is also a love letter to music history. The whole thing a tribute to seventies rockers, featuring their music, but newer stars were also included in the project. Modern-day rockers Thom Yorke, Johnny Greenwood, David Gray, Bernard Butler, Andy Mackay, Ron Asheton, Thurston Moore, Steve Shelley, and more. British and American musicians are represented here; Rock and Roll’s crossing of the Atlantic is crucial to the film. The soundtrack is poignant and appropriate, creating a seamless adventure through time and a particular time in music history.
“Velvet Goldmine” doesn’t apologize for itself. It is shamelessly self-promoting and unselfconscious in its self-consciousness. Presentation and appearance is everything: beauty is created even amidst the background of the characters’ personal lives. It deals with issues of sexuality and gender amidst the shimmering, pulsating backdrop of the glam rock movement of the 1970s. “Velvet Goldmine” closely examines the idea of celebrity and sexuality, and owes its debt to the high concepts of art and beauty, not to mention the taboo. Oscar Wilde never would have expected this kind of tribute, but he would have loved it.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Article 3- "Holmes Strikes Back"
http://thekosmo.com/?p=2668
Holmes Strikes Back written by Joseph Schafer
Posted on 02 January 2010.
There is a class of films that require virtually no real criticism—not because they are so great or horrible that there can be no differing opinion, but because they don’t need opinion, they are just ubiquitous. The point of a movie review is to give you, the reader, a better idea of whether or not any given movie is worth watching. This review is pointless: you are going to see Sherlock Holmes whether you like it or not, and probably Sherlock Holmes 2, 3, and so on.
This film, like Star Wars: A New Hope and Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl before it, is pure franchise-starting gold mined from the long-forgotten stone of pulp literature. Where Holmes differs from its ilk is in its pacing; I have never seen a Hollywood blockbuster that feels like the middle part of a trilogy. There is no origin story, and no real conclusion. Holmes and Watson, as well as love interest/part-time villain Irene Adler all exist at the beginning of the film, and even though the mystery is solved, the game, as Sherlock himself would say, is still on as the credits roll.
The story works thanks to the kinetic and maverick style of director Guy Ritchie, who not only brings endearing grime to Holmes and 19th century London, but uses this film as an opportunity to salvage his career from the tailspin it’s been in since his crime-comedy masterpiece, Snatch. His camera is fluid, his characters charming, and his drive relentless. Sherlock Holmes belabors nothing (thank god) and finishes its two-plus hours running time feeling like a ten minute jog.
Props, then, to Robert Downey Jr. who has successfully kick-started his second film series playing the same character. This Holmes is essentially Tony Stark AKA Iron Man, who was himself only a pumped-up rehash of Harry Lockhart from Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang (still his best performance). Yet I’m still not tired of his antics, the man is most certainly unique and talented, even if he only plays variations on one theme.
The internet was aflame with people calling Downey Jr. out for his stylized and less-refined take on Holmes. Those people need to shut the fuck up. This is still Arthur Conan Doyle’s Holmes, just all the most renegade aspects of him: Holmes the drug addict, Holmes the manic-depressive, Holmes the bare knuckle boxing enthusiast, all of whom were present in The Hound of the Baskervilles but overshadowed by Holmes the gentleman.
The gentleman here is Jude Law’s Doc Watson, whose story is the real emotional heart of the film. The bickering back and forth between Law and Downey Jr. is the film’s trump card. Whenever the two are alone together high gear is engaged. Whenever a peripheral character is caught in their crossfire, chaos ensues. Wondrous chaos, if the peripheral character is his fiancée Mary Morstan.
Too bad his screen time is eaten up by Rachel McAddams’ Irene Adler, who feels more like a sketch than a well-drawn character, even if her chemistry with Downey Jr. approaches excellent when it’s not bogged down by obtuse dialog.
The weakest link is Mark Strong’s Lord Blackwood, a muscle bound pseudo-Satanist whose deception is about as opaque as stained glass. Though he’s afforded a few interesting moments, particularly his first set piece’s sleight-of-hand with a glass needle, he quickly becomes old hat and thankfully won’t be returning for the inevitable sequel.
*It is especially interesting to read what other "K" students outside the class think of the film. This review on the Kosmopolitan Online (not officially affiliated with K, but put on by only K students)is satisfying in its bluntness and clear organization. Though it doesn't address all aspects of the film, it is up-front and colloquial, even admitting the review's uselessness right at the beginning- yet I kept reading. Altogether a nicely short and honest review of the film.
Holmes Strikes Back written by Joseph Schafer
Posted on 02 January 2010.
There is a class of films that require virtually no real criticism—not because they are so great or horrible that there can be no differing opinion, but because they don’t need opinion, they are just ubiquitous. The point of a movie review is to give you, the reader, a better idea of whether or not any given movie is worth watching. This review is pointless: you are going to see Sherlock Holmes whether you like it or not, and probably Sherlock Holmes 2, 3, and so on.
This film, like Star Wars: A New Hope and Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl before it, is pure franchise-starting gold mined from the long-forgotten stone of pulp literature. Where Holmes differs from its ilk is in its pacing; I have never seen a Hollywood blockbuster that feels like the middle part of a trilogy. There is no origin story, and no real conclusion. Holmes and Watson, as well as love interest/part-time villain Irene Adler all exist at the beginning of the film, and even though the mystery is solved, the game, as Sherlock himself would say, is still on as the credits roll.
The story works thanks to the kinetic and maverick style of director Guy Ritchie, who not only brings endearing grime to Holmes and 19th century London, but uses this film as an opportunity to salvage his career from the tailspin it’s been in since his crime-comedy masterpiece, Snatch. His camera is fluid, his characters charming, and his drive relentless. Sherlock Holmes belabors nothing (thank god) and finishes its two-plus hours running time feeling like a ten minute jog.
Props, then, to Robert Downey Jr. who has successfully kick-started his second film series playing the same character. This Holmes is essentially Tony Stark AKA Iron Man, who was himself only a pumped-up rehash of Harry Lockhart from Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang (still his best performance). Yet I’m still not tired of his antics, the man is most certainly unique and talented, even if he only plays variations on one theme.
The internet was aflame with people calling Downey Jr. out for his stylized and less-refined take on Holmes. Those people need to shut the fuck up. This is still Arthur Conan Doyle’s Holmes, just all the most renegade aspects of him: Holmes the drug addict, Holmes the manic-depressive, Holmes the bare knuckle boxing enthusiast, all of whom were present in The Hound of the Baskervilles but overshadowed by Holmes the gentleman.
The gentleman here is Jude Law’s Doc Watson, whose story is the real emotional heart of the film. The bickering back and forth between Law and Downey Jr. is the film’s trump card. Whenever the two are alone together high gear is engaged. Whenever a peripheral character is caught in their crossfire, chaos ensues. Wondrous chaos, if the peripheral character is his fiancée Mary Morstan.
Too bad his screen time is eaten up by Rachel McAddams’ Irene Adler, who feels more like a sketch than a well-drawn character, even if her chemistry with Downey Jr. approaches excellent when it’s not bogged down by obtuse dialog.
The weakest link is Mark Strong’s Lord Blackwood, a muscle bound pseudo-Satanist whose deception is about as opaque as stained glass. Though he’s afforded a few interesting moments, particularly his first set piece’s sleight-of-hand with a glass needle, he quickly becomes old hat and thankfully won’t be returning for the inevitable sequel.
*It is especially interesting to read what other "K" students outside the class think of the film. This review on the Kosmopolitan Online (not officially affiliated with K, but put on by only K students)is satisfying in its bluntness and clear organization. Though it doesn't address all aspects of the film, it is up-front and colloquial, even admitting the review's uselessness right at the beginning- yet I kept reading. Altogether a nicely short and honest review of the film.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Article: "Sherlock Holmes"
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/25/entertainment/la-et-sherlock-holmes25-2009dec25
'Sherlock Holmes'
Guy Ritchie turns the master sleuth into an action hero, with mixed results.
MOVIE REVIEW
December 25, 2009|By Kenneth Turan FILM CRITIC >>>
There's a mystery at the heart of "Sherlock Holmes," and it's not the one the great master of detection has been called on to solve. It's how a film that has so many good things going for it has turned out to be solid but not spectacular.
Solid, of course, is more than many studio films can muster these days, but we expect better when we're dealing with the world's greatest consulting detective, someone who has been played by more than 70 actors in something like 200 films, good enough for inclusion in the Guinness Book of World Records.
We also expect more when Robert Downey Jr. is in as fine a form as he is here, bringing an energetic insouciance as well as a raffish air of bohemian disrepute to a man who lives by the motto, "Data, data, data, I cannot make bricks without clay."
As directed by Guy Ritchie, Downey's take on the dean of 221-B Baker St. is, as the spin on the film has emphasized, considerably more physical than what moviegoers are used to. His Holmes is as much Victorian action hero as master deducer, a buff and muscular lad who likes to indulge in bare-knuckle brawling and fits producer Joel Silver's description of being "like James Bond in 1891."
It's helpful to add in the brisk style of British filmmaker Ritchie, best-remembered for two of his earlier films, "Snatch" and "Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels." A director with onscreen energy to burn, Ritchie initially has fun with this story of Holmes versus master criminal Lord Blackwood, a man who dabbles in the black arts, says gnomic things like "death is only the beginning" and threatens to end civilization as we know it.
On the other hand, though, all this "new Holmes" talk is something of a smoke screen. What is problematic about the film is not so much the change in character as the change in the nature of the classic Sherlock Holmes vehicle. This Hollywoodized epic has attempted to do too much, has had to serve too many masters. That has, in turn, given the picture an air of trying too hard, which is the one thing Sherlock Holmes should never have to do.
No less than four credited screenwriters had a hand in the Holmes script (story by producer Lionel Wigram and Michael Robert Johnson, script by Johnson and Anthony Peckham and Simon Kinberg) and apparently director Ritchie took a pass as well. With so many writers and so many focuses, it's no surprise the film feels more disjointed than organic.
*This review by Kenneth Turan was the first mixed review of Sherlock Holmes that I came upon. It made me re-think the movie. He sets the context well; giving background on the Holmes past and really emphasizing how many times this subject has been tackled by filmmakers. I didn't find this review particularly entertaining, but it did make me think about the movie in a different way.
'Sherlock Holmes'
Guy Ritchie turns the master sleuth into an action hero, with mixed results.
MOVIE REVIEW
December 25, 2009|By Kenneth Turan FILM CRITIC >>>
There's a mystery at the heart of "Sherlock Holmes," and it's not the one the great master of detection has been called on to solve. It's how a film that has so many good things going for it has turned out to be solid but not spectacular.
Solid, of course, is more than many studio films can muster these days, but we expect better when we're dealing with the world's greatest consulting detective, someone who has been played by more than 70 actors in something like 200 films, good enough for inclusion in the Guinness Book of World Records.
We also expect more when Robert Downey Jr. is in as fine a form as he is here, bringing an energetic insouciance as well as a raffish air of bohemian disrepute to a man who lives by the motto, "Data, data, data, I cannot make bricks without clay."
As directed by Guy Ritchie, Downey's take on the dean of 221-B Baker St. is, as the spin on the film has emphasized, considerably more physical than what moviegoers are used to. His Holmes is as much Victorian action hero as master deducer, a buff and muscular lad who likes to indulge in bare-knuckle brawling and fits producer Joel Silver's description of being "like James Bond in 1891."
It's helpful to add in the brisk style of British filmmaker Ritchie, best-remembered for two of his earlier films, "Snatch" and "Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels." A director with onscreen energy to burn, Ritchie initially has fun with this story of Holmes versus master criminal Lord Blackwood, a man who dabbles in the black arts, says gnomic things like "death is only the beginning" and threatens to end civilization as we know it.
On the other hand, though, all this "new Holmes" talk is something of a smoke screen. What is problematic about the film is not so much the change in character as the change in the nature of the classic Sherlock Holmes vehicle. This Hollywoodized epic has attempted to do too much, has had to serve too many masters. That has, in turn, given the picture an air of trying too hard, which is the one thing Sherlock Holmes should never have to do.
No less than four credited screenwriters had a hand in the Holmes script (story by producer Lionel Wigram and Michael Robert Johnson, script by Johnson and Anthony Peckham and Simon Kinberg) and apparently director Ritchie took a pass as well. With so many writers and so many focuses, it's no surprise the film feels more disjointed than organic.
*This review by Kenneth Turan was the first mixed review of Sherlock Holmes that I came upon. It made me re-think the movie. He sets the context well; giving background on the Holmes past and really emphasizing how many times this subject has been tackled by filmmakers. I didn't find this review particularly entertaining, but it did make me think about the movie in a different way.
Article 1: "Sherlock Holmes"
http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/28065483/review/31461044/sherlock_holmes
Sherlock Holmes
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Rachel McAdams
Directed by: Guy Ritchie
RS: 2of 4 Stars Average User Rating:3-5of 4 Stars
2009 Action
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle never imagined his cerebral London detective as a ball-busting action hero. But director Guy Ritchie did. And he's persuaded Robert Downey Jr. to mainline testosterone. You never saw Basil Rathbone, the best movie Holmes, or Jeremy Brett, the best TV Holmes, strip down in a freestyle-fight ring. You do here. Even old Dr. Watson is a scrapper in the studly person of Jude Law. Ritchie directs with the kind of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels gusto that's meant to batter you into submission.
The time is 1891, and the place is still London, but Ritchie can't be bothered with period details, especially dialogue. Noticing that the villainous Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) has scratched bloody messages all over his filthy prison cell, Holmes quips, "Love what you've done with the place." Holmes scholars will cry their eyes out over this update from hell. Rachel McAdams is mere window dressing as a mystery woman from Holmes' past. In place of romance, we get cheesy computer effects (that collapsing bridge — please). Ritchie is all about the whooshing and headbanging, leaving no space between Holmes' words to savor their meaning. Downey is irresistible. The movie, not so much.
*For the Rolling Stone reader, this article might be helpful. However, I find that this article is a little too wrapped up with the traditional Holmes story. However, I did think it was important to review negative articles like this because mine was positive.
Sherlock Holmes
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Rachel McAdams
Directed by: Guy Ritchie
RS: 2of 4 Stars Average User Rating:3-5of 4 Stars
2009 Action
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle never imagined his cerebral London detective as a ball-busting action hero. But director Guy Ritchie did. And he's persuaded Robert Downey Jr. to mainline testosterone. You never saw Basil Rathbone, the best movie Holmes, or Jeremy Brett, the best TV Holmes, strip down in a freestyle-fight ring. You do here. Even old Dr. Watson is a scrapper in the studly person of Jude Law. Ritchie directs with the kind of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels gusto that's meant to batter you into submission.
The time is 1891, and the place is still London, but Ritchie can't be bothered with period details, especially dialogue. Noticing that the villainous Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) has scratched bloody messages all over his filthy prison cell, Holmes quips, "Love what you've done with the place." Holmes scholars will cry their eyes out over this update from hell. Rachel McAdams is mere window dressing as a mystery woman from Holmes' past. In place of romance, we get cheesy computer effects (that collapsing bridge — please). Ritchie is all about the whooshing and headbanging, leaving no space between Holmes' words to savor their meaning. Downey is irresistible. The movie, not so much.
*For the Rolling Stone reader, this article might be helpful. However, I find that this article is a little too wrapped up with the traditional Holmes story. However, I did think it was important to review negative articles like this because mine was positive.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Sherlock Holmes (2nd version)
If one goes to “Sherlock Holmes” expecting cold detached intelligence, Calabash pipes, a magnifying glass, and “elementary”, they might be disappointed-or confused. However, if movie-goers seek thrills, satisfying characters, and the usual intrigue audiences have come to expect from mystery tales but presented in a new way, they will discover “Sherlock Holmes” to be a satisfying experience. Over one hundred years after the release of the classic tales, “Sherlock Holmes” has been brought into the twenty-first century with action, humor, and wit. The film incorporates disparate elements like religious cults, action-hero sequences, tender moments of “bro-mance”, and humor to bring Baker Street to life in an altogether novel way.
“Sherlock Holmes” can be trusted in the hands of director Guy Ritchie—heists, robberies and tricky situations are his specialty, along with the glitz and glamour of Madonna’s films. As a classic tale of mystery, the new film adaptation of Sherlock Holmes might disappoint some lovers of the traditional tale. However, the writers of the film manipulated the classic story to please twenty-first century audiences. The most significant focus is put on the characters—Watson earns a significant promotion from lackey to respected and valued equal of Holmes.
Robert Downey Jr.’s Sherlock Holmes and Jude Law’s Doctor Watson effectively dominate the film in one’s memory—it is immediately clear that they are a natural pair, both through the script’s witty banter and also through their clear camaraderie while acting together on screen. The classical nudes in the window of Watson’s office gracefully illustrate his value of order and perfect physical harmony, while the mise-en-scène of Holmes’ office with its resident chaos immediately clues the viewer in to their respective personalities and the apparent differences between the two friends. The fact that Holmes’ room utilizes the same set as Sirius Black’s house in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix comes as no surprise—dark films are the order of the day, as is clear with the current macabre trend in film and television.
Though the relationship between Holmes and Watson is well-constructed and fulfilling, the true star of the film is Holmes. Sherlock Holmes as portrayed by a twenty-first century actor is not exactly the classic cold intellectual of Doyle’s tales; he is adaptable, resourceful, and has a flippant attitude that frequently unmasks his healthy ego. His darker aspects are not ignored; oblique references to his drug use are included, such as when Watson asks rhetorically, “You do know what you are drinking is meant for eye surgery?” Clearly the writers picked out what they considered the most interesting aspects of Holmes—his darkness, his humor, and his relationship with Watson—and transformed the pipe-wielding detective of yesteryear into a man much more recognizable to modern day audiences in his vulnerability, eccentricity, and genuineness. The construction of Holmes and Watson’s roles through the script as well as the actors’ talent in portraying their own versions of the residents of Baker Street combine to make Holmes and Watson highly memorable in this film adaptation.
In creating a love interest for a character seemingly without a strong inclination to women and would seemingly rather be gallivanting about with Watson, writers did the best they could with Rachel McAdams’ Irene Adler. As Holmes’ kryptonite, the character of Miss Adler, though sufficiently devious, serves as a simple distraction for Holmes. The presence of a love interest was clearly important in a film for today’s audiences, though Adler better fulfills the role of accomplice and helper more so than passionate love interest. She is the least fulfilling character, but she successfully fulfills her function as distraction and eventual helper the film.
A strange and sinister antagonist provides the dramatic tension in the movie. Lord Blackwood is introduced dramatically in an occult scene at the beginning of the film. Blackwood is a formidable foe for Holmes, the convincing nature of his “powers” keeping the audience intrigued throughout. Blackwood represents the seamlessness of reality and fantasy that pervades the film, not only in its plot but also in its design aspects.
The film’s images have staying power in the viewer’s memory—a writhing woman in a white dress, a dark figure hanging by the neck over the Thames from a shipyard chain, a man that ignites into a flaming inferno upon firing a gun...a dark London in the late 1800s is enlivened through the costumes, makeup and set design. Holmes’ world is not at all stuffy; it stubbornly asserts its reality with dirt, texture, and chiaroscuro light effects. Radiant costumes light up the inky London streets—though an overall dark film, the character of Irene Adler adds color with her crisp bright dresses and tailored menswear. The images created the film of a dusty but electric London with dark laboratories filled with things that ooze, old buildings falling apart before one’s eyes, and sweeping views of the Thames are a testament to the mastery of the film’s design.
The movie reads as a blow-by-blow, just like the audience is treated to a preview of Holmes’ attack tactics before they happen on-screen. Events are paced with the deliberation of a good book, while keeping in mind modern audiences’ need for incessant action. Considering the recent vogue for all things gloomy, “Sherlock Holmes” takes a dark situation and keeps it comfortably paced and never dull. If one does not happen to be a die-hard aficionado of the classic tales, “Sherlock Holmes” can provide an entertaining movie-going experience.
It might not have the classic pipe or the magnifying glass, but “Sherlock Holmes” can draw modern-day viewers into the past while relating it to the present. The intriguing complexities of Holmes’ mind engage with the depth of all the characters and the dark beauty of the film design, along with complex music that would never be considered cliché for a mystery film, making “Sherlock Holmes” anything but elementary.
“Sherlock Holmes” can be trusted in the hands of director Guy Ritchie—heists, robberies and tricky situations are his specialty, along with the glitz and glamour of Madonna’s films. As a classic tale of mystery, the new film adaptation of Sherlock Holmes might disappoint some lovers of the traditional tale. However, the writers of the film manipulated the classic story to please twenty-first century audiences. The most significant focus is put on the characters—Watson earns a significant promotion from lackey to respected and valued equal of Holmes.
Robert Downey Jr.’s Sherlock Holmes and Jude Law’s Doctor Watson effectively dominate the film in one’s memory—it is immediately clear that they are a natural pair, both through the script’s witty banter and also through their clear camaraderie while acting together on screen. The classical nudes in the window of Watson’s office gracefully illustrate his value of order and perfect physical harmony, while the mise-en-scène of Holmes’ office with its resident chaos immediately clues the viewer in to their respective personalities and the apparent differences between the two friends. The fact that Holmes’ room utilizes the same set as Sirius Black’s house in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix comes as no surprise—dark films are the order of the day, as is clear with the current macabre trend in film and television.
Though the relationship between Holmes and Watson is well-constructed and fulfilling, the true star of the film is Holmes. Sherlock Holmes as portrayed by a twenty-first century actor is not exactly the classic cold intellectual of Doyle’s tales; he is adaptable, resourceful, and has a flippant attitude that frequently unmasks his healthy ego. His darker aspects are not ignored; oblique references to his drug use are included, such as when Watson asks rhetorically, “You do know what you are drinking is meant for eye surgery?” Clearly the writers picked out what they considered the most interesting aspects of Holmes—his darkness, his humor, and his relationship with Watson—and transformed the pipe-wielding detective of yesteryear into a man much more recognizable to modern day audiences in his vulnerability, eccentricity, and genuineness. The construction of Holmes and Watson’s roles through the script as well as the actors’ talent in portraying their own versions of the residents of Baker Street combine to make Holmes and Watson highly memorable in this film adaptation.
In creating a love interest for a character seemingly without a strong inclination to women and would seemingly rather be gallivanting about with Watson, writers did the best they could with Rachel McAdams’ Irene Adler. As Holmes’ kryptonite, the character of Miss Adler, though sufficiently devious, serves as a simple distraction for Holmes. The presence of a love interest was clearly important in a film for today’s audiences, though Adler better fulfills the role of accomplice and helper more so than passionate love interest. She is the least fulfilling character, but she successfully fulfills her function as distraction and eventual helper the film.
A strange and sinister antagonist provides the dramatic tension in the movie. Lord Blackwood is introduced dramatically in an occult scene at the beginning of the film. Blackwood is a formidable foe for Holmes, the convincing nature of his “powers” keeping the audience intrigued throughout. Blackwood represents the seamlessness of reality and fantasy that pervades the film, not only in its plot but also in its design aspects.
The film’s images have staying power in the viewer’s memory—a writhing woman in a white dress, a dark figure hanging by the neck over the Thames from a shipyard chain, a man that ignites into a flaming inferno upon firing a gun...a dark London in the late 1800s is enlivened through the costumes, makeup and set design. Holmes’ world is not at all stuffy; it stubbornly asserts its reality with dirt, texture, and chiaroscuro light effects. Radiant costumes light up the inky London streets—though an overall dark film, the character of Irene Adler adds color with her crisp bright dresses and tailored menswear. The images created the film of a dusty but electric London with dark laboratories filled with things that ooze, old buildings falling apart before one’s eyes, and sweeping views of the Thames are a testament to the mastery of the film’s design.
The movie reads as a blow-by-blow, just like the audience is treated to a preview of Holmes’ attack tactics before they happen on-screen. Events are paced with the deliberation of a good book, while keeping in mind modern audiences’ need for incessant action. Considering the recent vogue for all things gloomy, “Sherlock Holmes” takes a dark situation and keeps it comfortably paced and never dull. If one does not happen to be a die-hard aficionado of the classic tales, “Sherlock Holmes” can provide an entertaining movie-going experience.
It might not have the classic pipe or the magnifying glass, but “Sherlock Holmes” can draw modern-day viewers into the past while relating it to the present. The intriguing complexities of Holmes’ mind engage with the depth of all the characters and the dark beauty of the film design, along with complex music that would never be considered cliché for a mystery film, making “Sherlock Holmes” anything but elementary.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Sherlock Holmes
As a classic tale of mystery, the new film adaptation of Sherlock Holmes might disappoint some lovers of the traditional tale. However, the new imagination of Baker Street and Holmes himself certainly brought new things to the table. It was a film with only a few images that truly have staying power in one’s memory—a writhing woman in a white dress, a dark figure hanging by the neck over the Thames from a shipyard chain, a man that ignites into a flaming inferno upon firing a gun...these areas of the movie, while the most shocking and perhaps visually memorable, are actually not where it is most successful. Lord Blackwood, Holmes’ chief antagonist is introduced dramatically in one of these sinister scenes. Indeed, as Watson states decisively, “And that is the end of Lord Blackwood,” the audience is assured that this is certainly not the end of Lord Blackwood, and the movie’s main tension is born. Lord Blackwood is a formidable foe for Holmes, the convincing nature of his “powers” keeping the audience interested throughout.
However, the highlight of the film is in the relationship between Robert Downey Jr.’s Sherlock Holmes and the reluctant Doctor Watson, played by Jude Law. The classical nudes in the window of Watson’s office gracefully illustrate his value of order and perfect physical harmony, while the mise-en-scène of Holmes’ office with its resident chaos immediately clues the viewer in to their respective personalities and the seemingly differences between the two friends. The fact that Holmes’ room utilizes the same set as Sirius Black’s house in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix comes as no surprise—dark films are the order of the day, as is clear with the macabre trend in film and television nowadays. The snippy banter between Holmes and Watson stands out, as well as Downey Jr.’s Jack Sparrow-esque portrayal of Holmes: a land pirate now and moved from the Carribbean to the dirty streets of London in the late 1800s, Sherlock wields significantly superior weapons of ingenuity but the same vague and zany characteristics as Depp’s beloved pirate. An early scene in which Holmes boxes is particularly strong; the power of his mental talents is effectively and physically impressed upon the viewer in a striking manner. Rachel McAdams’ Irene Adler plays a somewhat superfluous role in the film. As Holmes’ kryptonite, the character of Miss Adler fails to pack a real punch, though not for lack of talent on McAdams’ part. Her character, though charmingly roguish as most less-than-savory seductive female characters in mysteries tend to be, fails to fulfill any real purpose in the film.
The movie reads as a blow-by-blow, just like the audience is treated to a preview of Holmes’ attack tactics before they happen on-screen. Events are paced with the deliberation of a good book, while keeping in mind modern audiences’ need for incessant action. Considering the recent vogue for all things gloomy, Sherlock Holmes takes a dark situation and keeps it comfortably paced and never dull. All in all, if one is not a die-hard aficionado of the classic tales, Sherlock Holmes can provide an entertaining movie-going experience. And of the ending? Well, some movie-goers might walk away with a bit of frustration at not hearing the man with the magnifying glass’s classic line; however, I’ll say it: this movie is elementary.
However, the highlight of the film is in the relationship between Robert Downey Jr.’s Sherlock Holmes and the reluctant Doctor Watson, played by Jude Law. The classical nudes in the window of Watson’s office gracefully illustrate his value of order and perfect physical harmony, while the mise-en-scène of Holmes’ office with its resident chaos immediately clues the viewer in to their respective personalities and the seemingly differences between the two friends. The fact that Holmes’ room utilizes the same set as Sirius Black’s house in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix comes as no surprise—dark films are the order of the day, as is clear with the macabre trend in film and television nowadays. The snippy banter between Holmes and Watson stands out, as well as Downey Jr.’s Jack Sparrow-esque portrayal of Holmes: a land pirate now and moved from the Carribbean to the dirty streets of London in the late 1800s, Sherlock wields significantly superior weapons of ingenuity but the same vague and zany characteristics as Depp’s beloved pirate. An early scene in which Holmes boxes is particularly strong; the power of his mental talents is effectively and physically impressed upon the viewer in a striking manner. Rachel McAdams’ Irene Adler plays a somewhat superfluous role in the film. As Holmes’ kryptonite, the character of Miss Adler fails to pack a real punch, though not for lack of talent on McAdams’ part. Her character, though charmingly roguish as most less-than-savory seductive female characters in mysteries tend to be, fails to fulfill any real purpose in the film.
The movie reads as a blow-by-blow, just like the audience is treated to a preview of Holmes’ attack tactics before they happen on-screen. Events are paced with the deliberation of a good book, while keeping in mind modern audiences’ need for incessant action. Considering the recent vogue for all things gloomy, Sherlock Holmes takes a dark situation and keeps it comfortably paced and never dull. All in all, if one is not a die-hard aficionado of the classic tales, Sherlock Holmes can provide an entertaining movie-going experience. And of the ending? Well, some movie-goers might walk away with a bit of frustration at not hearing the man with the magnifying glass’s classic line; however, I’ll say it: this movie is elementary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
