The Gold Rush (1925)
I like the gif 3d down on the left where he looks like a mannequin.
Welcome to my blog
Welcome to my blog
THERE IS NO BETTER MOMENT AT A CONCERT THAN WHEN THE SINGER STOPS SINGING AND THE CROWD CONTINUES THE SONG AND YOU SEE THEM ALL SMILE ITS SO PERFECT
A painting at Art Basel Miami that made me feel right at home.
WHOEVER BUYS THIS FOR ME WINS MY ETERNAL LOVE
I OWN THIS
EVERY MORNING HE SAYS SOMETHING DIFFERENT ABOUT HOW THE WORLD NEEDS YOU AND YOU HAVE TO GET UP
AND WHEN YOU PRESS THE BUTTON TO HUSH HIM HE SAYS “DEFTLY DONE, MADAM,” OR “IF IT’S NOT TOO FORWARD OF ME, THAT DID TICKLE, MADAM”
IT WAKES YOU UP WITH THE SOUND OF CHIRPING BIRDS BEFORE STEPHEN FRY’S VOICE
EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE ONE
THIS IS LIKE JARVIS.
A REAL JARVIS EXCEPT HE’S A CLOCK.
I WANT ONE
I love how RDJ gives Sherlock Holmes all these little Bohemian touches - his love for eccentric scarves, for one thing. His undone cuffs (a Downeyism that he carried through to the character). His just-rolled-out-of-bed hair. Anyone who says this isn’t a legitimate way to look at and portray the character is just flat-out wrong. It’s an acting choice, and a good one, and it’s true to the character of Holmes in these movies.
It may not be “canonical” — but I find it funny that so many purists critique RDJ’s Sherlock Holmes movies because they’re supposedly “uncanonical.” That’s not even a valid criticism, and should be rejected out of hand. Being canonical is a choice that a creative team makes on many levels when adapting a work. You can choose to be as purely canonical as you like — and really, the Jeremy Brett/GranadaTV Sherlock Holmes is the gold standard for that. Who can match him, going by that standard?
Or — you can choose to be a bit different. Would we want to see the same old canonical Sherlock Holmes again and again and again? Would we want to see the same old Hamlet, the same old Don Giovanni, the same old Dracula, the same old Huckleberry Finn over and over and over? That would get very boring very quickly, so “being canonical” is not a valid element by which to judge a creative adaptation — unless that happens to be exactly what you’re going for.
Guy Ritchie, RDJ and their team chose to go off-canon and add many original touches, not least of which was the choice to place Holmes in the context of action-adventures, not mysteries. The lead actor is shorter than the “canonical” Holmes, yes, and minus the hawk-like nose and hooded eyes; and he chooses to portray Holmes as an untidy Bohemian rather than the fastidious Holmes of the books. But in the context of the movies, it all works wonderfully well, and obviously audiences all over the world have agreed and have gone along for the ride, since both movies have made north of a billion dollars in profits. Those choices make sense for THIS character in these movies. It’s their choice for their creative universe.
But these movies are definitively Sherlock Holmes, heart and soul. They are layered with canonical elements and an underlying warmth and goodness that’s purely the same feeling you get when you delve into those beloved novels and stories. You feel safe and protected when you’re along for this ride with RDJ Holmes and his Watson. 221B feels like home. You know this is a Holmes, and a Watson, devoted to justice and — despite their bickering and their occasional spats — to each other. In large part that’s due to the dazzling onscreen chemistry of RDJ and Jude Law, going at it rapid-fire like two stars of a ’40s romantic comedy. But it’s also due to the other wonderful continuing cast members (Eddie Marsan’s Lestrade, Geraldine James’ Mrs. Hudson, Bill Houston’s Clarky, the unflappable Gladstone…) and to canonical touches that none of the other modern Holmes adaptations seem to be even touching upon much: Holmes’ expertise as a fighter and martial artist; Holmes’ considerable skills in disguise and costumery (hardly anyone else, amazingly, is playing much if at all with this very important aspect of Holmes — Laurie King in her Mary Russell/Sherlock Holmes book series definitely does, but the Ritchie movies so far have run away with the disguises onscreen…).
And then there’s the fascinating (and non-canonical) notion of Holmes’ “gift” of deduction really being a “curse,” because he sees and hears everything and cannot shut it out. Could he have a form of Asperger’s, undiagnosable in Victorian times? What if that were true? The movies raise that intriguing possibility, but not overtly…and also that a person living in those times, not understanding what he has, might suffer and possibly descend into drug use to attempt to deal with even the daily functions of life…or fall into despair because Watson, whose partnership helps him cope with the world, is leaving him. There’s an underlying and very palpable sense of sadness to the movies because of this, and it adds a spark of real humanity to the characters and to the stories. This Holmes is no unfeeling machine (and neither was the one in the books, btw…) — it’s entirely probable, in fact, that he feels too much, and tries to shut it down so he can get through his days.
That these “action-adventures” can pack in so much character illumination — and layered in so adeptly that many audience members, especially kids, wouldn’t clue into it because, you know, PG-13 — speaks to how complex and interesting these movies really are. They deserve examination and careful study as fascinating, worthy — and fully Sherlockian — additions to the wide range of Sherlock Holmes adaptations out there.
I have a whole essay on all this in the upcoming Baker Street Babes book “The One Fixed Point in a Changing Age” (X), which will be published and available early next year — it’s going to be packed with great essays on the various Holmes adaptations and the canon, by members of the online fandom (!) — so (shameless book plug on behalf of all the essayists) do watch for it!
if the purge was happening in real life you would see murders and rape and then you’d see me like
a proper way to ask me out on a date