Holmes Revisited: No Pipe, No Problem

If one goes to “Sherlock Holmes” expecting cold detached intelligence, Calabash pipes, a magnifying glass, and use of the word “elementary,” he might be disappointed—or confused. However, if movie-goers seek action thrills, appealing characters, and the usual intrigue twentieth-century audiences have come to expect from mystery tales but presented in a new way, they will discover “Sherlock Holmes” to be a satisfying experience. It is appropriate material for director Guy Ritchie —heists, robberies and tricky situations are found in his strongest work. Over one hundred years after the release of the classic tales, “Sherlock Holmes” has been catapulted into the twenty-first century with action, humor, and wit that couldn’t be more appropriate for today’s audiences.

Robert Downey Jr.’s Sherlock Holmes and Jude Law’s long-suffering Doctor Watson dominate the film—it is clear that they are a natural pair, both through the script’s witty banter and also through their clear camaraderie while acting together. 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—this Sherlock Holmes is a dark and complex character.

Holmes as portrayed by twenty-first century actor Robert Downey Jr. is not at all the classic cold intellectual of Doyle’s tales. He is adaptable and resourceful, and his flippant attitude frequently unmasks his healthy ego. His darker aspects are acknowledged; 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 Holmes’ most captivating attributes—his darkness, humor, and 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.

In creating a love interest for a character seemingly without a strong inclination to women, 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. Lord Blackwood, the movie’s chief antagonist, is a formidable foe for Holmes, and he also represents with his “magical” powers the seamlessness of reality and fantasy that pervades the film, not only in its plot but also in its design.

The film’s images have staying power—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...an inky late-1800s London is enlivened through the costumes, makeup and set design. Radiant costumes light up the dusty but electric London streets—Adler adds color with her crisp bright dresses and tailored menswear. Holmes’ world is not at all stuffy; it stubbornly asserts its reality with dirt, texture, and chiaroscuro light effects that are a testament to Sarah Greenwood’s mastery of the film’s production design.

“Sherlock Holmes” is replete with action to satisfy today’s audiences. It might not utilize the classic pipe or magnifying glass, but if one does not happen to be an inflexible and die-hard aficionado of the classic tales, “Sherlock Holmes” can provide an entertaining movie-going experience, making this film anything but elementary.