The Adventure of the Ritchie deduction

Rating: 7/10 (4 July 2010)

Ritchie's latest marked a return to the cinemas for me after a gap of three months, longer than any gap I recall. As a result, I'm inclined to look at the nicer aspects of this flick. And there are many if one can discern the intent behind the making of Sherlock Holmes. For starters, it's Guy Ritchie. A O Scott's (of NYT) observation is bang on - his approach to films is "to make cool movies about cool guys with cool stuff". Also, he seems to have a hold over London's sub-culture. Snatch and Lock Stock ... aren't cult films for nothing. They are intended to be precisely that. In his gravitating towards Holmes, I sense primarily an opportunity to milk the considerable London ethos that pervades throughout Doyle's work. Permit the brief digression but this is crucial to Holmes' (still unquestioned) exalted position in detective fiction. Poirot and his like do not preside over a criminal setting anywhere near as compelling. Only Maigret's Paris (grossly overused) comes remotely close. London represents a veritable treasure-trove of literary and cinematic possibilities and Ritchie makes considerable use of the latter. From Piccadilly Circus to the Tower of London, landmarks abound. It was particularly gratifying to watch sequences that weave their way through the alleys and lanes - most distinctive of London, and Holmes.
There's a cue for the viewer in the manner in which Ritchie goes about extracting the maximum from London. He does the same with every aspect of the film from the performances to the plot. In short, every ounce of cinematic potential has been squeezed from the material. So Holmes' modest claims to an understanding of Bartitsu are developed into full- blown martial arts exploits. Watson is hinted as being a bit of a ladies' man in the books and voilà, Jude Law (competent) is cast, albeit with the necessary changes to his exterior. Far from being a mere accompaniment, Watson is very nearly indispensable to Holmes. Likewise, Lestrade is a nincompoop and Mrs Hudson in addition to being a super- efficient housekeeper, is also frankly expressive of her disbelief at Holmes' antics ("Some folk might say there was madness in his method"). Irene Adler and Sherlock Holmes have a fling (the limitless possibilities of 'To Sherlock Holmes, she is always the woman' !). Only here they make the one patent mistake of the movie. A femme fatale and a thief acting under Moriarty's orders is stretching it a bit and Rachel McAdams doesn't help either. The less said about the disservice done to Mark Strong in terms of character scripting the better.
Ultimately, the flick is probably meant to be seen as a caper and plays out as one. Ritchie (like many others) probably wants to do a Bond movie. So he's indulged himself here with many elements that are a mark of that franchise. About Robert Downey Jr. then. His turn here is in keeping with all the above. The rapport he establishes with Law is the pillar of the film and is testimony to the skill of the actors. No matter how askew his take on a trait of the ace detective, the performance never loses credibility and most importantly, isn't an all- revealing act. It feels as if he has restrained himself and that leaves him with a lot in terms of options to exercise in the forthcoming films. I think he can build upon this if the possibility of a series were to emerge (as such a second is a given).
And do remain seated for the exquisitely well crafted credits.