in movies world

I have never been a big fan of detective fiction, but I had read perhaps all stories about the sagacious Sherlock Holmes and his friend Dr. Watson written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. These stories are almost the only detective stories which were interesting for me. Therefore I dare guess that I liked tales about Holmes not because they are from the higher level than most detective fiction, but for different reasons, which are great for every genre: the style of narration, distinct characters, sophisticated humor, brittish refinement and so on. The details of separate stories have faded out eventually. I won’t be able to tell the outcome of all the adventures, only some components, for example, the way to understand how long the windows were opened by observing the candles of the room. But the the style itself, that “holmish” feeling left in my memory and this is what I am unconsciously searching for in any adaptation of the adventures of Holmes and Watson, both in cinema and television.

I know I’m risking to be misunderstood, but I found that feeling in the new “Sherlock Holmes” from Guy Ritchie. After a few not very successful variations on the “Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels” theme, director finally happened to create something of his own, but new. G.Ritchie returns again.

Yes, the story about Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) gives dynamics to action, no to thought this time. The movie contains as many FX as never before. The famous detective himself is a mix of House, M.D. and CSI agent. Too much fighting and too little sophisticated conversations between Holmes and Watson (Jude Law).

However, in my opinion, this movie is a transformation of XIX century detective fiction into the XXI century. The XX century had changed the very style of narration of adventures. Things which had been thrilling the reader in XIX century cannot affect the XXI century viewer in the same level.  In order to reach the same highness of tension the radically different stylistic means.

The G.Ritchie’s narration beginning give the reading clue instantly. In one of the first scenes Holmes is preparing to beat a security guard of Lord Blacwood, who is the main negative character in the movie, despite professor Moriarty. A prolepsis is given: Holmes in advance plans in which order and to which parts of enemy’s body he will beat to knock him out. He also calculates what organs will be damaged and how long it will take them to recover. Then he accomplishes it. Yes, it is a detail of the XXI century movie. But it has “holmish” sagacity. However, for me personally, Holmes relation with his violin illustrates the transformation mentioned before most accurately. Long known as a fan of this instrument, the famous detective in G.Ritchie’s movie plays with violin without a bow. He plays with it with his fingers, as if it is a banjo. This Holmes behaves with a violin as cheeky as a film narrator behaves with the traditional material about the legendary sleuth.

By the way, J.Law played Watson is also nonstandard. He is not the smart guy for whom Holmes is only cover as in some other adaptations. He is not a nitwit either, through whom an intelligent detective describes his deductional mind. This time the essence returns – Holmes and Watson is a tandem indeed, the equivalent partners. There wouldn’t be a successful end of any case without one of them and there wouldn’t be an interesting story without another one.

There is much more what to explore, but I have already written the substance. It is for every one to decide which narration about Holmes adventures is more attractive. My favorites are the XIX century style stories. However, I will watch the second part of G.Ritchie’s movie if it comes. They say it is on its way already. I have happened to heard some rumors that his highness Brad Pitt perhaps will take a role of professor Moriarty…