Mark
CreativeMountainGames.com
I do agree that past interpretations of the character in movies often lacked the physical side of Holmes.
But they all bend the fireplace poker eventually.
I do agree that past interpretations of the character in movies often lacked the physical side of Holmes.
And for the record, I have no problem with different actors emphasizing different aspects of the Holmes persona. Had they decided to play up the physical aspect and make a more "summer blockbuster" film than is traditional for a Holmes movie, I'd have been fine with it.
Yes, it's a stretch, but if the final product can be read with that interpretation, I'll be pretty tickled, whether RDJ pulls off the rest of Holmes or not.
And there you have it. Hugh Laurie playing Sherlock Holmes would be casting genius!That's a fair assessment, but I do think you may be over-detecting deviation a little. Rather than being outsmarted, one could read that scene as him being physically overpowered by a cheap shot.
OK... that might not be canonical either, but I have a further interpretation that I would find acceptable, so as long as we're interpreting wily nily, I'll throw my hat into the ring.... If the woman in question is indeed THE woman, and the Holmes in the movie is, on some level, really Holmes.... it is possible that what makes Irene Adler "THE woman" is that she is the only person Holmes can't anticipate.
I mean, if you take the character as written, he must be bored to death by 99% of the population always doing exactly what he expects them to do. Someone with the capacity to surprise him would probably be mesmerizing.
Heck, that's one of the things that assured me I had found my wife. 10 years in and she can still surprise me regularly. Most people stop surprising me MUCH sooner than that, and I'm not a tenth as intuitive as Holmes is written (of course, who is?).
Yes, it's a stretch, but if the final product can be read with that interpretation, I'll be pretty tickled, whether RDJ pulls off the rest of Holmes or not.
As a side note, I find House to be a much more realistic interpretation of Holmes than most straight up Holmes movies have been. There is a tendency with straight Holmes movies to present a nearly inhuman character with his flaws basically buffed down to nothing (except arrogance). In reality, a person that analytical tends to have very, very broken relationships and interpersonal interactions, IME, along with other.... idiosyncrasies and neuroses. The trick with interpreting Holmes in a realistic manner is very much in picking your neuroses, but if you don't at least pick some, the character is a cardboard cut-out when you put him on screen.
Besides, there's a reason Doyle had to invent Moriarty. Holmes was too good for real drama. He had to create a super-genius evil guy in order to challenge his super-genius good guy. It's the Superman problem in the intellectual realm. A less omniscient Holmes with more flaws that can be exploited is practically a necessity in order to have legitimate drama. IMO, of course. YMMV, and all that.
I'd watch Hugh Laurie do pretty much anything at this point. I have been accused of having a man-crush, though, so I may not be an unbiased viewer.And there you have it. Hugh Laurie playing Sherlock Holmes would be casting genius!