Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

In 2009 Guy Ritchie defied the odds with his reboot of Sherlock Holmes and managed to readjust perspective about the legendary sleuth to a kick-ass, crime solving hero. Now he returns again with a sequel that furthers the story of Sherlock Holmes and his sidekick Dr. John Watson in Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. Like its predecessor, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is fun, easily-digestible entertainment, but the sequel simplifies the mystery and misses a major opportunity to highlight one of literature’s great villains.

While Holmes’ nemesis, Professor James Moriarty, swirled around the first movie in the shadows, and now he has emerged (played by Jared Harris) to move towards a mysterious endgame. The device Moriarty stole at the end of the first movie has nothing to do with the new story, but grand plans still abound and Holmes has gone even more manic at the possibility of facing off against his equal. He must also deal with the annoyance that Watson (Jude Law) will be leaving for a peaceful married life with Mary (Kelly Reilly). His annoyance turns to serious concern with Moriarty threatens to harm Watson, Mary, and Sherlock’s brother Mycroft (Stephen Fry) if Sherlock doesn’t back off. Naturally, the cocky detective does no such thing and ropes Watson into the hunt along with a Simza (Noomi Rapace), a gypsy who helps the investigation in order to find her missing brother. 

A Game of Shadows reduces the detective aspect of the first film and focuses on playing up the action and the comedy. Ritchie knows his approach worked the first time, and he’s all too eager to try to top his already over-stylized visuals. Downey once again plays the character with daffy abandon and his chemistry with Law remains strong. The homoerotic comedy fires on all cylinders and I imagine the third film will have Holmes and Watson making-out for at least 60% of the runtime. Fry gets to steal a little bit of the humor as well, but considering his comic abilities, he feels underutilized. But Fry is practically a lead when compared to Rapace. Rapace was supposed to be a big splash in the states after earning raves for her portrayal of Lisbeth Salander in the Swedish Dragon Tattoo movies, but her character inShadows is barely present. Simza is merely a plot point and it seems like the need to have a female co-star was more important than giving the female co-star a good character.

But the real crime is wasting Moriarty, because villains can help illuminate our heroes. Moriarty is Holmes without conscience. He’s the only person on the planet who can challenge the great detective and A Game of Shadows makes a poor play by shuffling him off to the side. The intent is to make the villain’s presence felt even when he’s not on screen, but we got that in the first movie. Whenever Moriarty is on screen, Jared Harris steals the spotlight, which is impressive considering he has to contend with Downey.

A Game of Shadows retains most of the best qualities of the first film: Downey’s charm; the witty banter and strong chemistry between Holmes and Watson; the slow-motion sequences that illustrate Holmes’ analytical powers at work; action sequences shot in Guy Ritchie’s signature hyper-kinetic style; and the Steampunk aesthetic that makes the 19th century setting feel fresh and interesting, without breaking too far from the realities of the period.

On top of keeping all those elements intact, the sequel adds a wonderful villain in the form of Moriarty, who is realized onscreen in the best possible way by Mad Men actor Jared Harris. Moriarty is a sociopath hiding in plain sight: whether he’s delivering a lecture at university, hatching a terrorist strike, or directly threatening Holmes, the mad genius never loses his staunch English formality and soft-spoken demeanor, making him all the more disturbing.

Ritchie handles the build-up to this crucial sequence brilliantly, skilfully increasing tension levels before achieving a famously intriguing payoff. If there is to be a third instalment to the Sherlock Holmes franchise (there should be if the final scene), the standard set by this cracking scene is what Ritchie and his team should be pushing themselves to match.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

A First Look at Sherlock Holmes 2 – Robert Downey Jr

The sequel to Sherlock Holmes is currently shooting in Britain and we have the first promo picture.

A First Look at Sherlock Holmes 2 – Robert Downey Jr

"The great game"

Now I present my review of the mini-series finale titled “The great Game”.

Mycroft Holmes asks his brother Sherlock to investigate the mysterious death of an MI6 employee linked to the disappearance of top-secret military plans. But Sherlock is soon distracted by a series of crimes which he must solve in a prescribed time limit before innocent hostages strapped into bombers’ vests are blown up. Holmes’ successful deductions eventually lead him to his first face-to-face confrontation with nemesis Jim Moriarty, which ends with Sherlock pointing Watson’s gun at a bomber’s vest positioned between himself and Moriarty.

The closing instalment of the season was a welcome return to the form of the opening episode, with Sherlock dispensing his deductive skill in rapid-fire fashion as he solves case after case (many referencing a number of the original Holmes short stories, most explicitly The Bruce-Partington Plans). Cumberbatch plays Holmes’ self-confessed sociopathic tendencies perfectly as he tackles Moriarty’s conundrums with glee, treating the innocent pawns in the game with casual and coldly rational disdain. His reaction to the explosion which kills the blind old woman (and 11 others) – “but I solved the case!” - before immediately reeling off on another whirlwind of deductive reasoning reveals both the inner child within the man and the child-like excitement of returning to the game, and Cumberbatch’s performance is utterly believable without being unsympathetic.

In fact, as we discover, the lives of Moriarty and Holmes have been intertwined since childhood, with the former’s first murder being the case which ignited Sherlock’s boyhood interest in criminal investigation. Perhaps more explicitly than any of the books and adaptations have ever done, it is emphasised here that Moriarty is the yin to Holmes’ yang. Both are sociopathic geniuses disillusioned with the boredom of ordinary life, but whereas Holmes uses his particular skills to help solve crime, Moriarty has chosen to assist others to commit them as the world’s only consulting criminal. In the same way that Holmes fails to express concern for the potential or actual bomb victims (because to do so does nothing to help him solve the puzzles), Moriarty is equally dismissive about his victims having, as a boy, killed another “because he annoyed me” and blowing up the blind woman for simply ignoring her script.

Holmes and Moriarty are flip sides of the same coin: you can see how each could have easily become the other. It is a compelling theme which has frequently been addressed in the realms of science fiction, perhaps most thoroughly by Star Trek, through the original series episode The Enemy Within and subsequent forays into the mirror universe.

The Great Game was an excellent episode, packing an incredible amount of story and character development into 90 short minutes. Sherlock’s ongoing struggle to balance his sociopathy with his need to deal with people is explored more thoroughly here than previously, and he displays a clinical understanding of human emotion – or at least how to manipulate it at the flick of a switch, as in his tearful interrogation of the missing banker’s wife – which makes him even more chilling. Watson’s increasingly confident exchanges with Mycroft show how far he has progressed since A Study in Pink, and his willingness to sacrifice himself at the climax underlined the strength of his relationship with Holmes.

There were two niggles for me. Firstly, the implausibility of the first two bomb hostages – surely someone would notice a woman crying in a busy car park for nine hours, or a man doing the same in Piccadilly Circus for eight? Secondly, and more importantly, the casting of Andrew Scott as Moriarty jarred. It is not so much Scott himself (although his physical similarity to Ant had me wondering whether Dec would come around the corner at any moment), but more the fact that he was unveiled at all – although I appreciate that doing so significantly upped the tension for the cliffhanger. (Anyway, more on that later.)

Quibbles aside, this was a strong end to what has been an excellent retelling of the Holmes legend, and I cannot wait for the second season which airs in August 2011.

"The great game"

"The Blind Banker"

Now comes the second episode in the season 1 mini-series tilted “The Blind Banker”.

Holmes is hired by an old friend to look into an unexplained break-in and spray-painted graffiti at a merchant bank. He deduces that the graffiti is a cipher intended for a specific trader at the bank, who is subsequently found murdered in his flat. A journalist is found dead in his apartment the next day, accompanied by the same coded message. Holmes and Watson soon uncover a ring smuggling valuable artefacts out of China for sale in the West, and that one of the two dead men had stolen a multi-million pound jade pin on their travels. Holmes cracks the cipher just in time to help rescue Watson (whom the smugglers have mistaken for Holmes) and his date Sarah.

Although this was a good, action-packed yarn, it was also the weakest of the three episodes, and the one occasion on which Sherlock veered towards a more formulaic detective drama – for long stretches it could just have easily been an episode of Lewis. There are flashes of Holmes’ deductive brilliance throughout, but these often feel secondary to the overall plot, serving to move the viewer from one setpiece to another, rather than being the core of the story itself. The trail of breadcrumbs that leads the smugglers to mistake Watson for Holmes was a clever device, but felt implausible – surely a ring that well organised who knew of the existence of Holmes would also know what he looked like?

Anyhow, this was a decent story by the standards of a procedural crime series, but it was no more than a workmanlike Sherlock for me.

"The Blind Banker"

"A Study in pink"

The story unfolds at a cracking pace, bringing Holmes and Watson together for the first time via a mutual friend, exposing the latter first-hand to Holmes’ impressive powers of deduction and seeing them move into their new digs together at 221B Baker Street.

(Fact geeks: the exterior used in the programme is not the real 221B, which in real life is now the Sherlock Holmes Museum. Indeed, it is not even Baker Street, as the establishing shot clearly shows cars facing in both directions – in reality, it is a one-way street.)

Having set up the two main characters, the middle 40 minutes sees Watson being drawn into Holmes’s investigation of the ‘Impossible Suicides’, and here the episode really hits its stride, with Sherlock’s incisive dissection of the latest victim’s identity triggering a whirlwind of deduction and set-piece action (the rooftop/back-street pursuit of a black cab) that moves the main plot on at breakneck speed while also resolving the side-issue of Watson’s psychosomatic limp. And this all manages to give the final revelation, explanation and psychological showdown between Holmes and Jeff the cabbie (a chilling turn by Philip Davis) the space it needs to breathe in a denouement which benefits greatly from not being rushed.

What else? Stylistically, I really liked the use of floating on-screen text as a fast-cut way of conveying both text messages (the modern Holmes’ preferred method of communication, as opposed to the telegraphs and newspaper ads of the original) and the train of Holmes’ deductive reasoning. It is effective, avoids lengthy plot exposition and gives the series a signature visual look.

Benedict Cumberbatch looks every inch the 21st century version of the imperious, Victorian Holmes. While his look carries a hint of a bygone era, he brings a wild, youthful energy to the character without compromising the darker aspects of intolerance, impatience and impulsiveness mixed with a certain social awkwardness which are quintessential Holmes.

In many respects, this Holmes comes across not totally unlike Matt Smith‘s interpretation of the eponymous Doctor Who – a lanky, misunderstood genius who doesn’t quite appear normal, but you just can’t figure out why. It is no surprise that Cumberbatch is said to have been offered the role of the last Time Lord, but turned it down.

Equally important is the chemistry between Holmes and Watson, and Martin Freeman seems to fit this role perfectly, having made his reputation playing put-upon, straight-men in The Office and the film adaptation of TheHitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Freeman conveys greater expression with a raised eyebrow than perhaps any actor since the height of Roger Moore‘s James Bond, and his deadpan reactions provide a wonderful surface off which to bounce the humour which infuses this episode far more than in previous adaptations.

I’m a little less sure about Gatiss’s (uncredited) appearance as Sherlock’s brother Mycroft, which looks set to be a recurring role to provide some ongoing – and possibly distracting – mystery alongside the presumably slow-burning revelation of Moriarty. Rupert Graves is excellent as DI Lestrade, the policeman repeatedly forced to play a subservient role to Holmes’ genius, and who is as much in awe of him as he is offended by him.

In reversioning the characters and settings for a contemporary world, Moffat and Gatiss have remained true to their protagonists’ origins, while injecting a vein of humour lacking in many previous incarnations. Holmes remains, by his own description, “a high-functioning sociopath” – an abrasive, combustible, adrenalin junkie who is constantly amazed at the inability of other people to see the world as clearly as he does. His drug habit – in the books, he uses a seven percent solution of cocaine to alleviate the boredom between cases – is glossed over slightly with the use of nicotine patches, but the addictive, danger-fuelled nature of his personality is addressed squarely within the plot to redress the balance somewhat. (And it must be remembered that cocaine usage, while frowned upon by the original Watson, was not illegal in Victorian times.)

Assuaging the fears of many fans, Sherlock works very much within the spirit of Conan Doyle’s original, and stands alongside but separate to procedural dramas such as the CSI family, NCIS or Law & Order. As Moffat says:

“Sherlock Holmes is one of a kind: whilst other detectives have cases, Holmes has adventures. Sherlock isn’t a drama about police procedure; the police are involved but the cases themselves are Sherlock’s and he’s only interested in the strange ones.”

As what was effectively a retelling of the story of Holmes’ origins, this was a cracking launch episode, and bodes well for the remaining two stories in this three-part mini-series.

A little something for you all to note:

The episode’s title is a play on the title of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle‘s first Holmes novel, A Study in Scarlet (originally titled A Tangled Skein), first published in 1887. The book’s title relates to a speech Holmes gives to Watson explaining the nature of his work, in which he refers to the murder investigation as a “study in scarlet”:

“There’s the scarlet thread of murder running through the colourless skein of life, and our duty is to unravel it, and isolate it, and expose every inch of it.”

Obviously, the story has been significantly revised and updated from the original, and while (unlike, say, Harry Potter) it is not necessary to have read the novel, viewers familiar with the book will recognise several key elements, although some have been transposed or even turned entirely on their head. Here are a few examples off the top of my head:

• The original Watson was an army doctor invalided from war in Afghanistan after sustaining a gunshot wound; the modern-day version has the exact same background – same location, different conflicts.
• Many of the Holmes stories are narrated through the medium of Watson’s diary; similarly, it is established in this series that Watson has been asked to maintain a personal blog by his therapist.
• In one early scene, Holmes is seen flaying a corpse with a riding crop while testing out a theory. In the novels, Holmes is frequently seen carrying one and even describes it as his favourite weapon.
• Lauriston Gardens in Brixton is the venue for the key murder in the story, although in the book the victim is a man, Enoch Drebber, rather than a woman, Jennifer Wilson.
• Holmes uses a miniature magnifying glass to examine the woman’s body. A Study in Scarlet is credited as being the first fictional work to use such a tool as an aid to criminal investigations.
• Before dying, Jennifer scratched the letters ‘RACHE’ into the wooden floor, which we see Holmes note is the German for ‘revenge’, before concluding that she was trying to spell out ‘Rachel’. In the original story, Lestrade incorrectly assumes this is meant to be ‘Rachel’, but Holmes points out the word was indeed intended to be ‘Rache’.
• In the TV version, Holmes attempts to draw out the killer by sending a text message to the victim’s mobile about her suitcase; in the book, he places a newspaper advertisement for a missing wedding ring.
• In both instances the killer’s victims are asked to choose between two apparently identical pills – one poisoned, the other harmless.
• The killer is ultimately revealed to be a taxi driver (unnamed in the episode, but listed as ‘Jeff’ in the credits). In the original book, the killer is Jefferson Hope, a cabbie. In both cases, he is dying of an aneurysm.

"A Study in pink"

A 19 century story, 21st century style!!

In the wake of Guy Ritchie's reimagining, the BBC puts its own stamp on Arthur Conan Doyle's sleuth--and sets him in a London filled with cell phones and laptops. In the pilot, director Paul McGuigan (a keen visual stylist) introduces Sherlock Holmes (Atonement's Benedict Cumberbatch) as a "high-functioning sociopath" and Dr. John Watson (The Office's Martin Freeman) as an army veteran with posttraumatic stress disorder. Through a mutual friend, the two become flatmates at 221B Baker Street (Una Stubbs plays their landlady). Holmes, who consults with Scotland Yard inspector Lestrade (Rupert Graves) on his trickier cases, drafts Watson to assist him.

Of course, this isn’t the first time Holmes and Watson have been brought to our screens. Many refer to the Basil Rathbone/Nigel Bruce films of the 1940s as the definitive version. (Yes, Holmes did exist on film before Robert Downey Jr.)  And many other distinguished actors have played Holmes on film or TV during their careers. To name but a few: Christopher Lee, Peter O’Toole, Patrick Macnee, Charlton Heston, Edward Woodward, Peter Cushing and Tom Baker. (We’ll ignore Michael Caine‘s turn in Without a Clue, shall we?) That’s quite a list!

Now onto our main topic:

Sherlock is a British television series produced by Hartswood Films for BBC Wales, co-produced with WGBH Boston for its Masterpiece anthology series. It was created by Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss, who wrote one episode each. Paul McGuigan directed the first and third episodes; Euros Lyn directed the second, which was written by Stephen Thompson. It is a contemporary update of Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes detective stories, starring Benedict Cumberbatch as Holmes and Martin Freeman as Dr. Watson. Una Stubbs appears as their landlady Mrs. Hudson, Zoe Telford as Watson's girlfriend Sarah, and Rupert Graves as DI Lestrade.

But I’m sure you all must be wondering about the fact that the topic of the article says “A 19 century story, 21st century style!!” Well to answer the question;

In the words of Mark Gatiss "What appealed to us about the idea of doing Sherlock in the present day is that the characters have become almost literally lost in the fog ... And while I am second to no one in my enjoyment of that sort of Victoriana, we wanted to get back to the characters and to why they became the most wonderful partnership in literature". Steven Moffat also talks about returning to the core of the original stories, saying, "Conan Doyle's stories were never about frock coats and gas light; they're about brilliant detection, dreadful villains and blood-curdling crimes — and frankly, to hell with the crinoline. Other detectives have cases, Sherlock Holmes has adventures, and that's what matters". Gatiss criticises recent television adaptations of the Conan Doyle stories as "too reverential and too slow", aiming to be as irreverent to the canon as the 1930s and '40s films starring Basil Rathbone.

Benedict Cumberbatch was cast to play Sherlock Holmes. "Cumberbatch", says The Guardian, "has a reputation for playing odd, brilliant men very well, and his Holmes is cold, techie, slightly Aspergerish". Cumberbatch says "There's a great charge you get from playing him, because of the volume of words in your head and the speed of thought – you really have to make your connections incredibly fast. He is one step ahead of the audience, and of anyone around him with normal intellect. They can't quite fathom where his leaps are taking him". For the role, he learned some violin-playing techniques, such as how to hold the bow. The role of the detective inspired Cumberbatch to analyse people's characteristics and behaviour: "You can't help but cast an eye round you and think about people and the explanation that might lie behind the exterior show ... you can't help it. That indentation where a wedding ring should be, the dynamics of families. People in a moment of isolation, certain things do stick out. It's an achievable superpower” Piers Wenger, Head of Drama at BBC Wales, describes the eponymous character as "a dynamic superhero in a modern world, an arrogant, genius sleuth driven by a desire to prove himself cleverer than the perpetrator and the police — everyone in fact". Addressing changing social attitudes and broadcasting regulations, Cumberbatch's Holmes has replaced the pipe with multiple nicotine patches.

In an interview with The Observer, co-creator Mark Gatiss says that they experienced more difficulty finding the right actor to play Dr. John Watson than they had for the title character. Producer Sue Vertue says, "Benedict was the only person we actually saw for [the part of] Sherlock ... Once Benedict was there it was really just making sure we got the chemistry for John [Watson] – and I think you get it as soon as they come into the room, you can see that they work together".

Several actors auditioned for the part of John Watson, with Martin Freeman eventually cast in the role. The writers say that Freeman's casting developed the way in which Cumberbatch played Holmes. Journalist Victoria Thorpe says "Freeman's dependable, capable Watson unlocks this modern Holmes, a man who now describes himself as "a high-functioning sociopath". Gatiss asserts the importance of achieving the correct tone for the character. "It's important that Watson is not an idiot, although it's true that Conan Doyle always took the piss out of him," said Gatiss. "But only an idiot would surround himself with idiots". Another commentator, from The Herald, points out that Freeman's incarnation of Watson seems brighter than the version portrayed by Nigel Bruce in the 1940s.

The show opened to critical acclaim, with excellent reviews from many respected analysts. The first episode rated highly on the Appreciation Index, meaning that viewers thought very highly of the programme. The Observer said that the show resembled "a cross between Withnail and I and The Bourne Ultimatum, there is also a hint of Doctor Who about the drama; hardly surprising, since it has been written and created by Doctor Who writers Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat". The Guardian's Dan Martin said, "It's early days, but the first of three 90-minute movies, "A Study In Pink", is brilliantly promising. It has the finesse of Spooks but is indisputably Sherlock Holmes. The deduction sequences are ingenious, and the plot is classic Moffat intricacy. Purists will take umbrage, as purists always do. But Sherlock has already done something quite remarkable; it's taken television's Sunday night and made it sexy". However, Sam Wollaston, also for The Guardian, was concerned that some elements of the story were unexplained. Tom Sutcliffe for The Independent also suggests that Holmes was "a bit slow" to solve the case, but his review is otherwise positive. He wrote, "Sherlock is a triumph, witty and knowing, without ever undercutting the flair and dazzle of the original. It understands that Holmes isn't really about plot but about charisma ... Flagrantly unfaithful to the original in some respects, Sherlock is wonderfully loyal to it in every way that matters".

A 19 century story, 21st century style!!