The Case Study of Sherlock Holmes (2009) - Scholarly Commons ...

Sherlock Holmes (2009) has commercialised and modernised the character‟s
sensibilities and humour. In the film, Watson, aghast, questions Holmes: “Does your
depravity know no bounds?” Holmes promptly responds: “No” (Silver & Ritchie,
2009). This line, used in the film‟s trailer, represents the moral shift in Holmes‟s
characterisation and reflects how the character was to be marketed: Holmes, the
bohemian libertine. Watson originally used the term “bohemian” to describe Holmes‟s
anti-social lifestyle as a detective. Therefore, upon my first viewing, to which I brought
a stereotypical view of Holmes as a geriatric Englishman, I was delighted to find that he
was far more interesting and unusual. In retrospect, I know now that Holmes would
never have let his bohemian qualities show in his appearance or manner. Therefore,
when Downey Jr‟s Holmes is labelled “bohemian”, the term has been misconstrued to
refer to his outward appearance and exaggerated lack of social graces. Holmes in
Sherlock Holmes (2009) appears scruffy and unshaven, he smokes from only one pipe,
which is small, unrefined and dirty; a negative metaphor one could easily associate with
Robert Downey Jr‟s interpretation of the character. As I grew as a fan, I soon bore a
negative assessment toward this Holmes. However, as I slowly attained a well-educated
perspective, I looked back and understood that the stereotypical image Guy Ritchie and
Robert Downey Jr. were trying to break was visual, not literary. Hence, the film‟s
images succeed in enticing an audience with relatively little knowledge of the original
character and canon.
Primary product: Sherlock Holmes (2009) ideologies
It was not so much the ideologies that interested me about this film, but rather its
reinterpretation or, depending on your perspective, misinterpretation of the original
characters. The ideological changes made to Holmes‟s character reveal a Holmes who
exhibits modern masculinity juxtaposed with a comedic bohemian personality, both of
which strive to redefine the image of Sherlock Holmes in order to cultivate a modern
audience. Once I had progressed in my Holmes scholarship, I learned quite quickly that
one does not shun a product that wishes to take part in the Holmes fandom, but instead
one should reflect upon its contribution. A contribution that bears its own objectives and
intentions. Therefore, the change in Holmes‟s characterisation, as mentioned earlier, is
not so much a change in the literary creation, but the popular one, the visual stereotype,
as Doyle and Crowder (2010) call it, the “common picture” (p. 10):
44