Movie Review: Sherlock Holmes Game of Shadows

Aside from a persistent temptation to refer to this as “Sherlock Holmes: Game of Thrones“, which rolls off the tongue for a combination of reasons involving HBO and rhyme, this is an untidy but entertaining calvacade of nonsense continuing Guy Ritchie’s determination to change Sherlock Holmes from the stentorian deerstalker-sporting droll and heavy-lidded clue-fondler of vague popular consciousness into Steampunk Action Hero. Being as I am a fan of the very solid, unshowy Granada-produced Sherlock Holmes adaptations (or some of them, as The Three Garridebs is just bloody weird) and a firm holder of the belief that Jeremy Brett was the One True Holmes, I ought to be strongly against Ritchie’s meddling. However, as a fan of Guy Ritchie’s noisy, adolescent flailing films and apparently endless barrage of homoerotic subtext (which frequently breaks free of the bounds of “sub” to become merely loud, gun-wielding text), I have an iron in the fire.

Watson in a Game of Shadows
Manly, gun-shooting heterosexuality

Game of Shadows has not hit the same chord of novel delight in me that its predecessor did, but I am pleased to say that it did not disappoint, either – and I went in expecting to be disappointed.

In fact, I went in convinced that it was going to be irritating bilge, and largely in a foul mood, and came out much cheered and gigglingly praising Ritchie to the cloud-strewn skies, so I would say it went rather well.

Although the film begins with an action sequence it, for me, took a while to take off. I found myself bored with Irene Adler by the end of the previous film, and uninterested in her supposed role as the Holmesian love interest (lest we forget, in the Granada adaptation she was not his femme fatale but instead merely a woman of a jaded past who was as smart as he was, which has in more recent adaptation become some sort of infuriating mash-up of Mata Hari and Lara Croft); happily Guy Ritchie took care of that, and in doing so raised the stakes.

I find Guy Ritchie’s Moriarty a lot less annoying than Gatiss/Moffat’s changeable manic pixie lunatic, and his demonstration of his mastery over Holmes is – despite involving an explosion and an assassination and an honest-to-God opera (Game of Shadows is if nothing else a lavish affair) – more subtle.

Before I raise a few matters about new cast members I should point out that this is a very action-heavy film. There is almost always something happening, and as a result of this relentless forward motion it seems almost as if the film itself is rather short, plunging away to its conclusion without really pausing for breath. There are some magnificent set pieces, some harrowing scenes – the level and intensity of violence has been raised considerably, along with the stakes – and I wish to make prolonged and passionate love to the wardrobe department over the course of several days.

And of course, the slash fans are not only well catered-to but almost overly pandered to, which guarantees the film’s success in many circles. As a friend of mine (the delightful Bostonian cabaret artiste Amy Macabre) put it, “If this film were any more gay it would just be two dicks kissing each other.” Mainstreamer reviews have been quick to comment on it, largely in tones of great delight, for it’s hard to feel particularly resentful of the barely subtextual sexualisation of the Holmes/Watson friendship in the face of such glorious silliness.

Holmes and Watson in Game of Shadows
I can't imagine where they're getting this "bromance" from

On to the cast. In the previous film I felt that Rachel McAdams was the weak link in an otherwise shining cast; in Game of Shadows she returns, briefly, and is summarily dealt with. Her replacement is Noomi Rapace, who hurls knives and kicks Cossacks and shoots rifles in a refreshing change from the elegant poise and coyly sexualised tedium that has become de riguer for Irene Adlers; Sim, her character, is not presented as a potential love interest for Holmes but rather as a capable and intelligent woman trying to rescue a loved one and very much in command of her own destiny wherever possible.

It is a shame, then, that this film also fairly oozes with (period-appropriate) racial stereotypes and cringe-inducing racist notions. It would have been entirely easy to swap Holmes’s horrendous yellowface performance for something less directly ripped from the annals of 1891, considering how much else has been borrowed from the future (as a former student of sound technology I was more than a little peeved by some details of reproduction, although it is a small drop in a large ocean of deliberate and accidental anachronism); most gallingly, however, there is the depiction of the “gypsies”.

Holmes and Watson’s attitudes could easily be written off as attitudes representative of the time, were they not then immediately supported by the text as realistic. This is sad, because alongside the painful moments of stereotypy there is also an overall intent to push the “gypsies” (a word I am using because it is used in the film; it is generally speaking a racial slur on a par with “negroes”) as being brave, resourceful, loyal, skillful, and intelligent without falling into the irksome “noble savage” trap. It is all the more twitch-making because it’s not the first time Ritchie’s danced around trying to say something admirable about a travelling people and fucked it up and said something unpleasant in the process instead (please see Snatch).

Returning to the cast; I’ve mentioned the formiddable Moriarty and a burgeoning admiration for Noomi Rapace, and I think due mention must also go to Stephen Fry, not least for his exceptional ability to play himself in every film role he receives. Although this is very clearly Mycroft-by-Fry, it is Mycroft-by-Fry in the same way that his brother is Sherlock-by-Downey, and thus their hammed sketches complement each other. Tethering Fry and Downey, Law injects as much level-headedness into both the plot and the performances as he can be expected to, and turns a very touching final scene or two.

Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows

So, Game of Shadows is silly, exotic, entertaining, and quite, quite gorgeous to look at, and even if it has only a passing relevance to any Holmesian plot (rather like its predecessor) it retains an essence of the original; its significant flaws are almost certainly an overreliance on Victorian racial attitudes which stand out rather starkly.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Movie Review: Sherlock Holmes Game of Shadows

    1. He really was! Did you notice that the opera he was going to see was even the one that Holmes suggested seeing in the first movie? Incredible detail.

  1. I was looking forward to the movie, but had gotten concerned by the opening, and I wasn’t entirely thrilled by slightly over-long (to me) periods of Nothing But Fighting/Explosions, and absolutely no room to breathe/process. I still like the first one better, even down to things like the pacing, but I did enjoy this one a lot once the snark started. Some of the scenes had me howling, and damn, was it nice to look at.

    Mostly, I’m nodding along and cosigning pretty much everything here. I did flail a bit about Irene. I never would’ve bothered with the whole love interest angle; i’d just have had her hightail it back to NJ or off to some other fertile grifting fields when the first adventure was done. And why must everyone write her as Holmes’ love interest? I like the canon character, I think there’s potential for good stories there, but everyone reinterprets her relationship with Holmes the same way and she just doesn’t work for me on that level. I do want her gowns though. All of them. /mini rant.

    Otoh, I loved Sim and her totally fierce, completely romance-free motivations.I would’ve liked a more graceful handling of the Victorian stereotypes/race issues, but other than that, it was everything y’could ask for in a big damn ridiculous movie.

    1. And why must everyone write her as Holmes’ love interest? I like the canon character, I think there’s potential for good stories there, but everyone reinterprets her relationship with Holmes the same way and she just doesn’t work for me on that level.

      I could not agree more. I mean, I am actually at the zenith of my agreement here – this is why I like the Granada version where she’s just Cleverer Than Him, and he admires that she is so smart. She’s not an evil mastermind, just a woman with A Past, and she outfoxes him.

      I feel the same way about the endless explosions, but I don’t think they dragged on for too long, Ritchie’s generally quite good at his bang-bang-to-chit-chat ratio.

  2. Watching both movies after someone tossed out a theory that Holmes is asexual, I didn’t really see much of a romance between Holmes and Adler. (Huge, throbbing bromance with Watson, of course, but not necessarily sexual.) She’s sexually aggressive with him, usually as a means to lie, cheat or steal, but he blocks it when he can and just doesn’t reciprocate when he can’t. To me, he seemed to find her fascinating, a frienemy who could just about keep up.

  3. Although all of the freshness that was part of the first one is somewhat over-used, the flick is still a lot of fun with Downey Jr., Harris, and Law breathing life into each of their own characters. However, I was kind of disappointed by Noomi Rapace’s role as she just simply stands there and really doesn’t do anything. Regardless though, good review.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s