Saw Mr.
Saw Mr. Holmes as part of the cat herding. Spoilers ensue. Not spoilering might include comments like Ian McKellen acts good and some parts of England are pretty. It's ok, but I suppose reading the book it's based on might be informative. Or not. You can never tell with these things. Basically, there are a lot of good ideas that aren't quite worked out in the midst of some good acting.
A
n
y
w
a
y
The promotional tag for the film does and doesn't tell you about the film. Basically, Holmes is very old and has dementia, which has been progressing. Apparently, he has plenty of money because he can afford to keep a live in housekeeper. Or not. One of the stories it tries to explore but really doesn't do much with is the stress of caring for someone significantly ill. The housekeeper decides to leave at one point, but then doesn't for, frankly, not terribly good reasons.
There's a subplot about WWII and what happened with the housekeeper's husband that is supposed to add something, but doesn't.
Holmes is desperately trying to use what remains of his mind to find a cure for his mind. This leads him to go to Japan in search of a plant that is supposed to have particular medical qualities. This being set just after WWII, it is of course after Hiroshima, and it is of course to Hiroshima he has to go to find this plant. I'm guessing there's a great deal more to this in the book, I certainly hope so, because in the movie it came across as there's a reason we're in Hiroshima just post WWII, but mostly we're just trying to tell you that war is awful and you should feel badly. This is, I think, supposed to be some sort of moment for Holmes' character to develop some aspects of feelings and humanity, presumably due to the shock of seeing this devastation. It really doesn't do that, although McKellen is obviously trying to convey that.
There's another subplot with the Japanese gentleman who is hosting Holmes, and other than serving as a set-up for another evolution of Holmes as human being late in the movie, it definitely feels as though there is something that must be missing from the book.
The biggest missed opportunity in this film is exploring the devastation losing his intellectual capacity would be to someone who has nothing but his intellect, who is his intellect. Holmes' entire existence is his mind, and now that's betrayed him. Surely that is terrifying? If he isn't his mind, who is he? What is he?
This is clearly the main point of both the book and the film, yet the film has IanMcKellen and his castmates and some fleeting moments that convey this, but otherwise it's like the film is scared to go there, so it mostly doesn't. There's a brilliant bit where the local doctor stops by and gives Holmes a diary (datebook) in which he should make a dot when he forgets something. Later, when the housekeeper has to call the doctor back after a clumsy scene in which Holmes is stereotypically supposed to have almost set the house on fire, the doctor looks through the diary and seeing the size (Holmes seems to have added this as another metric, and it's a great conceit) and number of dots as he flips the pages speaks volumes.
What does work well is the relationship between the housekeeper's son and Holmes. It still has some work to do to tighten the plot, but the acting is well done, and there's an actual relationship you can watch on screen. I'm pretty sure this is also somewhat altered from the book, but this bit is well worth watching. It is the main relationship in the film, and it is inextricably wound up with Holmes' beekeeping. Dear Hollywood and assorted novelists, please note: bees and other hymenopterans may function conveniently as plot devices and deus ex machina, as well as some sort of deep, existential metaphor, but you can stop now.
McKellen is given a moment to break down, and immediately recovers. It is possibly the most Holmesian moment in the film and a mini-acting class. While it sort of is the climax to which the whole film is leading, it also isn't, or it took a very meandering path to get there.
Finally, there is another subplot about an "actual" old case that is supposed to have been the reason for Holmes' retirement. It's supposed to humanize him. It could have, it doesn't quite. What it does show is what a brilliant Sherlock Holmes Ian McKellen would be if he were to play Sherlock Holmes.
The cast is full of huge talents, most of whom get to shine in their own tiny moments. I wish they had done more with Laura Linney's housekeeper, but I mostly felt like she was a useful plot device. What a waste.
The story they meant to tell was an isolated intellect losing itself, possibly confused in a way it had never been, and reasonably eventually having to admit to itself it was terrified as it had never been; it's relationship with and need to rely on a caregiver for whom it did not care, and who did not care for it, except insofar as it was paid to do a job - that wasn't supposed to include this; and lastly, the last of a very few, rare almost humanly personal relationships at the end of it's existence, when it wasn't looking for one, and probably wouldn't entirely understand it even if the intellect was fully operational, and with a child, of all things (thankfully there are minimal hints at this somehow being about Holmes and his childhood, or reverting to a childlike state, or whatever).
It won't be revelatory, it might even seem like it skipped a few bits in the middle to get to the end, and it's a little preachy. However, It's worth seeing at some point and the cast and acting are very worth it.
A
n
y
w
a
y
The promotional tag for the film does and doesn't tell you about the film. Basically, Holmes is very old and has dementia, which has been progressing. Apparently, he has plenty of money because he can afford to keep a live in housekeeper. Or not. One of the stories it tries to explore but really doesn't do much with is the stress of caring for someone significantly ill. The housekeeper decides to leave at one point, but then doesn't for, frankly, not terribly good reasons.
There's a subplot about WWII and what happened with the housekeeper's husband that is supposed to add something, but doesn't.
Holmes is desperately trying to use what remains of his mind to find a cure for his mind. This leads him to go to Japan in search of a plant that is supposed to have particular medical qualities. This being set just after WWII, it is of course after Hiroshima, and it is of course to Hiroshima he has to go to find this plant. I'm guessing there's a great deal more to this in the book, I certainly hope so, because in the movie it came across as there's a reason we're in Hiroshima just post WWII, but mostly we're just trying to tell you that war is awful and you should feel badly. This is, I think, supposed to be some sort of moment for Holmes' character to develop some aspects of feelings and humanity, presumably due to the shock of seeing this devastation. It really doesn't do that, although McKellen is obviously trying to convey that.
There's another subplot with the Japanese gentleman who is hosting Holmes, and other than serving as a set-up for another evolution of Holmes as human being late in the movie, it definitely feels as though there is something that must be missing from the book.
The biggest missed opportunity in this film is exploring the devastation losing his intellectual capacity would be to someone who has nothing but his intellect, who is his intellect. Holmes' entire existence is his mind, and now that's betrayed him. Surely that is terrifying? If he isn't his mind, who is he? What is he?
This is clearly the main point of both the book and the film, yet the film has IanMcKellen and his castmates and some fleeting moments that convey this, but otherwise it's like the film is scared to go there, so it mostly doesn't. There's a brilliant bit where the local doctor stops by and gives Holmes a diary (datebook) in which he should make a dot when he forgets something. Later, when the housekeeper has to call the doctor back after a clumsy scene in which Holmes is stereotypically supposed to have almost set the house on fire, the doctor looks through the diary and seeing the size (Holmes seems to have added this as another metric, and it's a great conceit) and number of dots as he flips the pages speaks volumes.
What does work well is the relationship between the housekeeper's son and Holmes. It still has some work to do to tighten the plot, but the acting is well done, and there's an actual relationship you can watch on screen. I'm pretty sure this is also somewhat altered from the book, but this bit is well worth watching. It is the main relationship in the film, and it is inextricably wound up with Holmes' beekeeping. Dear Hollywood and assorted novelists, please note: bees and other hymenopterans may function conveniently as plot devices and deus ex machina, as well as some sort of deep, existential metaphor, but you can stop now.
McKellen is given a moment to break down, and immediately recovers. It is possibly the most Holmesian moment in the film and a mini-acting class. While it sort of is the climax to which the whole film is leading, it also isn't, or it took a very meandering path to get there.
Finally, there is another subplot about an "actual" old case that is supposed to have been the reason for Holmes' retirement. It's supposed to humanize him. It could have, it doesn't quite. What it does show is what a brilliant Sherlock Holmes Ian McKellen would be if he were to play Sherlock Holmes.
The cast is full of huge talents, most of whom get to shine in their own tiny moments. I wish they had done more with Laura Linney's housekeeper, but I mostly felt like she was a useful plot device. What a waste.
The story they meant to tell was an isolated intellect losing itself, possibly confused in a way it had never been, and reasonably eventually having to admit to itself it was terrified as it had never been; it's relationship with and need to rely on a caregiver for whom it did not care, and who did not care for it, except insofar as it was paid to do a job - that wasn't supposed to include this; and lastly, the last of a very few, rare almost humanly personal relationships at the end of it's existence, when it wasn't looking for one, and probably wouldn't entirely understand it even if the intellect was fully operational, and with a child, of all things (thankfully there are minimal hints at this somehow being about Holmes and his childhood, or reverting to a childlike state, or whatever).
It won't be revelatory, it might even seem like it skipped a few bits in the middle to get to the end, and it's a little preachy. However, It's worth seeing at some point and the cast and acting are very worth it.
Comments
Post a Comment