Not a member? Sign up now
Five Things Most Sherlock Holmes Movies Get Wrong (That Guy Ritchie Gets Right)
Why Guy Ritchie’s Holmes films are more accurate than you would have guessed.
by Kristin Hunt
When Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes first hit theaters in 2009, critics slammed it as too modernized, too stylized, too bastardized. Guy Ritchie might have gotten a little overzealous with the action, but too bastardized? Please. Cinematic adaptations have been screwing Holmes over he was first brought off the page. And truth be told, for all his bombast, Ritchie gets a lot closer to the mark than several of his predecessors. For the release of the Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, here are five things most Sherlock Holmes movies get wrong that Mr. Ritchie's get right.
1. Watson is not a portly idiot.
Cinema did Watson a disservice by casting him in the role of bumbling comic foil. In the books, Watson may not have shared Holmes' brilliance, but he was an asset nonetheless. His military training made him an expert marksman, a skill that saved Holmes more than once, and his medical background made him a handy consultant on causes of death and other CSI-type stuff. So Jude Law, though The Holiday toyed dangerously with my gag reflex, I’ll begrudgingly salute you.
2. Sherlock Holmes is actually kind of a badass.
Having detailed knowledge of everything from chemistry to "sensational literature" is badass, but in a nerdy kind of way. But in the books (and Ritchie's movies), Holmes is badass more in the fashion of Samuel L. Jackson. In the stories, Watson frequently references Holmes' martial-arts knowledge and amateur boxing matches; Holmes bends an iron poker back into shape and fights with Professor Moriarty on top of a goddamned waterfall.
3. Sherlock Holmes is also kind of an asshole.
There's a scene in Ritchie's first Holmes film where Watson goes off on Holmes for playing the violin at three in the morning, being messy, and experimenting on his dog. That wasn't just an updated touch for our era of cranky bromance; the Holmes of the books really is an inconsiderate jerk. Most films skip over that part to make him simply an eccentric hero, but his dickishness is an essential part of his personality. He constantly belittles the police, scares everyone silly by disappearing for hours without explanation, and yeah, plays the violin at all hours of the day and night. Really, what else would you expect from a coke fiend?
4. That deerstalker hat and tweed cape isn’t a uniform.
Doyle often portrayed Holmes as being clueless about human interactions and social cues, but even Doyle's Holmes knew that wearing a deerstalker hat and tweed cape twenty-four-seven would make him the subject of public ridicule. The only time he whipped out that get-up was when he was tailing ghostly canines and other mysterious figures in the country, and even then it existed solely in illustrations, not the actual text. (Why? Because deerstalker hats are for stalking deer.) Imagine a man who bills himself as the world’s greatest detective traipsing about London in a camouflage hat and orange vest, and you’ll understand why fans were happy to see Robert Downey, Jr. clad in a simple fedora.
5. “Elementary, my dear Watson” does not exist.
Perhaps even more ubiquitous than the famous Casablanca misquote "Play it again, Sam," is Sherlock’s very popular, very inaccurate catchphrase, “Elementary, my dear Watson.” Never once does that phrase appear in the original texts, yet people young and old, male and female, well-read and merely Twilight-read, go apeshit over this quip. Ritchie chose not to perpetuate it, but he did make a compelling case for “Holllmeeesss!” How faithful Ritchie's second installment will be remains to be seen, but hopefully neither this catchphrase nor that damn hat will be making an appearance.








Commentarium (47 Comments)
Yeah, but were they gay for each other?
No, they weren't. It's clear in the book that the married Watson was really into his wife... he wouldn't cheat.
book(s)
It depends what you mean by "gay for each other". Holmes was one of a many gay detectives that were a popular trend at the time. ACD puts in a lot of queer coding that a Victorian audience would pick up on, that a modern audience would miss the significance of. So, Holmes is queer and has feelings for Watson that are reciprocated to a point, but whether their relationship was ever sexual is up for debate.
Intriguing, James. Do share!
always means "really closeted homosexual."
Seconding the desire for more details on the queer coding.
I know a lot of gay men WANT desperately to believe this, but ACD told friends, family, and colleagues there was no gay relationship. (For the record, I'd love it to be true, but I think it's wishful thinking).
Most serious scholars think Holmes is a virgin....he was aesexual b/c sex wasn't worth the effort for him...
This is backed up by the fact that (1) He has no real need for human relationships...aside from Mycroft and Watson, who else is there? (Lestrade is even a stretch). (2) If he wanted sex, gay or straight, he could have easily gotten it (3) His "pleasures" tend to not be sensuous pleasures such as drink and food, but mental ones such as music and drugs...his drug use is to deal with his mind...not to make him feel better physically...
So Holmes is a creature of the mind, not the body.
Given how ACD does not shy away from mentioning sexual relationships when it deals with other characters, it was hardly Victorian prudery and coded language. If I had time, I'd go back through and list for you all the times sex comes up...but I do know when Watson is writing about That Woman he says that Holmes never showed any interest in women or sex. If Watson was in a gay relationship with him, that whole sequence would have been written very, very differently.
Wasn't buggery illegal back then?
That quesiton really got that many replies? tl;dr
The updated Sherlock series on the BBC also makes none of these mistakes, and is incredible.
I'm glad this has already been said.
Agreed that show rules! I wish there were more of them..
Completely agreed. You'd think the writer of the article would actually mention the BBC series?
Believe me, I love the BBC series to death. (Season two is so close!) But it's not a movie, so I couldn't incorporate it here.
OMG yes, I can't get enough of the new BBC series. It's so, SO well done.
+1 for more people watching Sherlock. If the actors would quit getting cast in OTHER things we'd have more...
Go back and watch the Jeremy Brett series. That's the best "classic" Holmes that really does show the conception in the books. The BBC series is the best modern interpretation, because it's still Holmes...
I love Sherlock Holmes. This is a cool article, but it needs a copy editor. stat.
I recently read this list somewhere else. I cannot remember where for the life of me; regardless congrats on being streamline Nerve.
I don't know about you, but I read it here: http://eddyfate.com/2009/12/29/sherlock-holmes-2009/
It is concerns like these that annoy me the most about the constant remaking and "reimagining" of classic texts. Sherlock Holmes has been done to death. If you try to do it faithfully, you're treading a boring road, but if you try to bring something new to it, you take it on the chin from obsessive fans. If you want to do a steampunk detective buddy story, why not just write a new character?
Probably because if you do a detective buddy story of just about any sort, everyone will say "oh, it's a re-imagining of Holmes and Watson" anyway. It's become a tough trope to avoid.
Because brand recognition is more important in the movie industry than anything else. That's why the same five actors are in every movie made in the past five years.
People have been rewriting and reimagining stories for centuries. Do you also get this upset about the Arabian Nights and Faust?
The now "classic" Aeschylus and Euripides tragedies from 5th Century Athens were almost always retellings of older stories, especially from Homeric versions. Euripides may have invented the idea that Medea killed her children (earlier versions say Corinthians did it) and he dramatized the ancient Egyptian theory that Helen never went to Troy at all, but was stuck in Egypt.
Well, the same critique was made in the 1970s...then the Brett Series on Granada come about and kept people watching "close to the text" Holmes for well over a decade...so it can be done and can be interesting, but you need the proper writers and directors.
I read many of the Holmes books as a kid, and it always bothered me that I didn't like the movies as much as I thought I should. At the time, it didn't really occur to me why that was... but this article sums it up pretty well. Holmes was not a stately gentleman: he was a kook. Holmes, as written, was more like House MD. And, in fact, Watson, as written -- Holy crap, I can't be the first one to realize that House = Holmes and Wilson = Watson, but it just occurred to me.
no.... your not the first. the creators of house were the first . If i recall the the guy that shot house was called moriarty, ust to close the case
Yeah, no Holmes am I.
Yeah, that's why House lives on 221B Baker Street, has a best friend named Wilson, etc. The original concept for the show was to do an updated version of Sherlock Holmes for the modern world. It's really interesting to compare it to the BBC Sherlock actually, because they are both put into modern times in extremely different ways, but Sherlock in that actually reminds me a lot of House.
Holmes probably had Aspergers. Seriously.
Nope. He's not obsessive or detail-oriented in the same way that someone with Asperger's would be. He doesn't struggle with eye contact or emotional nuance. He knows social cues, he just chooses to ignore them because he's an asshole and getting shit done is more important than social convention. There's a difference.
As I said below, probably more likely OCD and bipolarity, if it's a mental illness...he could, of course, just be a hyper-intelligent jerk.
Actually there is enormous evidence that Holmes does have Asperger's Syndrome. Asperger's, like Autism, is a 'spectrum' disorder - there is no one definitive 'way' that it manifests itself; the variances are often quite wide, and many people with Asperger's often 'pass' as 'normal,' or 'quirky.' And a great many of them are in the entertainment field. It is actually quite likely that Downey himself, has Asperger's.
Holmes was eccentric, brilliant, caustic and many other things. I'm really over hearing non-professionals (medical or literary) from the peanut gallery- couch commenters w/ one class of Psych 101, a few seasons of Law & Order SVU-NCIS or whatever under their belt a that token special friend who had schizophrenia after one bad trip so now you can recognize all those traits in your friend's sister's delinquent brother or whatever - sit there and diagnose someone with this or that. Especially about fictional characters from a time/place/culture with entirely different social norms. Does this indicate Western society's over-dependence on labeling people and behaviors? Is so-and-so's thoughts/feelings/behavior merely just exhibitions of diagnosis A, B or C? "That's so like her? (That's so RAVEN??)"
I swear I'm not a party pooper, but for reals, people.
I just wish they'd let Jude Law's Watson say "No Shit, Sherlock!" once.
This. So much this.
Kinda like how I was hoping Johnny Depp would say "Why is the rum always gone" in the Rum Diary. There should be more covert crossovers and references in movies.
Actually, I believe Doyle did use that in one of the short stories...
Indeed, Holmes is a jackass, but a brilliant one. That is his only saving grace from the glowing title of "Douchebag". It would have been typecasting to fetch Hugh Laurie for the roll as House and Holmes are practically one and the same. It was suggested in my literature classes that Holmes was written as he was to sensationalize and sell more novels in the prim and proper Victorian era. Ironically, Hollywood toned done the novels to make the movies more sellable.
In all honesty, I liked many elements, including the stylization, but I found the camera work much too fast. It was all action. It reminded me of a big bowl of bright, sugary cereal. Impressive in the moment, and a lot to take in, but by the time it was over, I had forgotten two thirds of it and was hungry again.
I really liked "Young Sherlock Holmes" though.
This is all true, but the movies are hardly the first. The Jeremy Brett series does a fantastic job of showing Sherlock Holmes for the hot mess that he is. And Watson is not a shrinking violet. It's on Netflix, but I have to warn you that it's really heartbreaking to watch the last few series knowing that Jeremy Brett is literally dying before your eyes.
Plus, for all the Ritchie movies get right, it gets a lot wrong. Horribly, horribly, wrong. Two words: That Woman. If you don't know what that means, then you haven't read enough Holmes to really get what's so wrong about it. (Not saying that to be snarky, just that a lot of people think they know Holmes, but don't).
As for Holmes' sexuality: most serious scholars and people who really are into the books thinks he was asexual....
As a person who is borderline Aspie myself, I think he's definitely not Aspie...he is however, potentially bipolar with a lot of OCD about some very specific things...
He doesn't have AIDS.
If you are borderline that means you have HIV, it won't be AIDS, the terminology is "full-blown".
What? I don't even...
Some other things Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes got right that so many others' films did not: Holmes' acidic/poisonous sense of humour; the use of a seemingly occult/supernatural villain that Holmes proves to be otherwise [one of ACD's favourite devices]; actually showing Holmes thinking several steps ahead of his opponent [though only in fight scenes] - and in a remarkably logical way [Holmes, were he real and able to witness it, would have loved that!].
There are actually several more, but I'd have to dig out my DVD and rescreen the film to list them all.
I can add this - I know a couple of Baker Street Irregulars [to become one, you have to know the Holmes canon more thoroughly than an evangelical preacher must know his bible] who thought Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes was very good.
If you want a truly ORIGINAL take on Holmes.Check out BBC's Sherlock. It is placed in today's time AND is true to the Spirit of Sherlock and Watson. The Guy Ritchie version is entertaining but gives little credit to Sherlock's true genius. Watson's seem to do most of the cerebral mental work.Who really cares about their sexual orientation? Sherlock was a thinking machine!!!!!Really Sherlock just chews coca leaves?????? Come on Guy.
My friend often said life is lack of passion till he met a cutest girl Angel on --CasualLoving dot c'0m--. It's where for men and women looking for intimate encounters.
It's a first and safe place for people who wanna to start a short-term relationship....
no bounds or limits in front of true love.
doens't he have like cranburger's syndrome or something?