MR HOLMES: Ian McKellen as Sherlock Holmes
- Thread starter Allyn Gibson
- Start date
They have something of a point.
Not all of the Sherlock Holmes stories are in the public domain, and the recent lawsuit has been misunderstood. What was established there was that the Conan Doyle estate can't shake down people for using the public domain Sherlock Holmes material as they had been. Yes, now anyone can use Sherlock Holmes, but elements from stories published after 1923 are still the property of the Conan Doyle estate.
Holmes' Sussex retirement is something of a mixed case; it was established in clearly public domain stories like "The Second Stain" and "His Last Bow." ("The Second Stain," notably, makes reference to his beekeeping.) But I suspect that the estate is going to hang their case on "The Lion's Mane" and "The Blanched Soldier," the two Canonical stories that Holmes wrote himself, since Mr. Holmes features Holmes writing an account of one of his cases. "The Lion's Mane" also deals extensively with Holmes' retirement.
I suspect that they just want some money to go away. Both Elementary and Sherlock have paid money to the Conan Doyle estate, even though neither production needs to, just to avoid the nuisance. I suspect that's how this will be resolved; Miramax will pay the ACD estate some hush money and it's done.
Not all of the Sherlock Holmes stories are in the public domain, and the recent lawsuit has been misunderstood. What was established there was that the Conan Doyle estate can't shake down people for using the public domain Sherlock Holmes material as they had been. Yes, now anyone can use Sherlock Holmes, but elements from stories published after 1923 are still the property of the Conan Doyle estate.
Holmes' Sussex retirement is something of a mixed case; it was established in clearly public domain stories like "The Second Stain" and "His Last Bow." ("The Second Stain," notably, makes reference to his beekeeping.) But I suspect that the estate is going to hang their case on "The Lion's Mane" and "The Blanched Soldier," the two Canonical stories that Holmes wrote himself, since Mr. Holmes features Holmes writing an account of one of his cases. "The Lion's Mane" also deals extensively with Holmes' retirement.
I suspect that they just want some money to go away. Both Elementary and Sherlock have paid money to the Conan Doyle estate, even though neither production needs to, just to avoid the nuisance. I suspect that's how this will be resolved; Miramax will pay the ACD estate some hush money and it's done.
Interesting. It's kind of a tangled web, isn't it? I'm kind of surprised they didn't do that up front knowing that maybe it would be a sticking point. Sometimes it's better to be safe than be sorry.
This way they both get publicity - Miramax for the movie, and the Estate for an inevitable McKellen-covered reprint editions.
Looks like a really intriguing film, particularly with McKellen in the lead role. I'm on board.
Last night after work I went to see Mr. Holmes.
As I've mentioned, I've read the book (Mitch Cullin's A Slight Trick of the Mind), and I liked the book a lot. Strangely, for a Sherlock Holmes story, the book is a tearjerker. It's a meditation on memory and the stories we tell (and believe) to make sense out of our lives. It's an internal book with an unreliable POV character and three plot strands (Sussex, 1947; Hiroshima, 1947; London, 1903), and I wasn't sure how well it would translate to screen.
It translates well. Mr. Holmes is a good adaptation of the novel's storyline and all three of its narrative threads, with changes that are largely appropriate for translating the book to the screen. The London 1903 story is moved forward in time to after World War I (so that McKellen can pass for a mid-sixties Holmes instead of a 50-year-old Holmes). Mrs. Munro, the housekeeper played by Laura Linney, has a more prominent role and more character moments. And Roger, Mrs. Munro's ten-year-old son (played by Milo Parker, who looks like a very young Thomas Sangster) has a deeper relationship with the movie Holmes than he does with the book's Holmes.
The performances from the major characters are all strong. McKellen does well with Holmes at two different ages and makes them different. I was especially impressed with the quick mental turns he conveyed as the 93-year-old Holmes; he goes from sharp to catatonic and back, as dementia patients often do, and he managed the physical change that comes from that mental whiplash as well. (My grandmother suffered from dementia that last decade of her life. I saw a lot in McKellen's performance that I recognized from personal experience.) I was very impressed with Parker; he held his own on screen against McKellen and Linney.
McKellen's Holmes is closer to Jeremy Brett or Jonny Lee Miller than Benedict Cumberbatch or Robert Downey, Jr. He has feelings, even if he can't always express them or understand them.
For me, the film's most emotionally affecting moment was the visit of Holmes and Umuzaki to the burned ruins of Hiroshima, especially when Holmes sees the Genbaku Dome, the famous burned building at ground zero that survived the blast. Curiously, I wasn't moved when the book's most affecting moment happened, perhaps because I knew it was coming.
I liked the film a lot. It's well directed, well directed, and with solid production values. It's not hyperkinetic like Robert Downey Jr.'s films or Sherlock. It's thoughtful. I'll gladly add this to my collection when it comes out on DVD.
As I've mentioned, I've read the book (Mitch Cullin's A Slight Trick of the Mind), and I liked the book a lot. Strangely, for a Sherlock Holmes story, the book is a tearjerker. It's a meditation on memory and the stories we tell (and believe) to make sense out of our lives. It's an internal book with an unreliable POV character and three plot strands (Sussex, 1947; Hiroshima, 1947; London, 1903), and I wasn't sure how well it would translate to screen.
It translates well. Mr. Holmes is a good adaptation of the novel's storyline and all three of its narrative threads, with changes that are largely appropriate for translating the book to the screen. The London 1903 story is moved forward in time to after World War I (so that McKellen can pass for a mid-sixties Holmes instead of a 50-year-old Holmes). Mrs. Munro, the housekeeper played by Laura Linney, has a more prominent role and more character moments. And Roger, Mrs. Munro's ten-year-old son (played by Milo Parker, who looks like a very young Thomas Sangster) has a deeper relationship with the movie Holmes than he does with the book's Holmes.
The performances from the major characters are all strong. McKellen does well with Holmes at two different ages and makes them different. I was especially impressed with the quick mental turns he conveyed as the 93-year-old Holmes; he goes from sharp to catatonic and back, as dementia patients often do, and he managed the physical change that comes from that mental whiplash as well. (My grandmother suffered from dementia that last decade of her life. I saw a lot in McKellen's performance that I recognized from personal experience.) I was very impressed with Parker; he held his own on screen against McKellen and Linney.
McKellen's Holmes is closer to Jeremy Brett or Jonny Lee Miller than Benedict Cumberbatch or Robert Downey, Jr. He has feelings, even if he can't always express them or understand them.
For me, the film's most emotionally affecting moment was the visit of Holmes and Umuzaki to the burned ruins of Hiroshima, especially when Holmes sees the Genbaku Dome, the famous burned building at ground zero that survived the blast. Curiously, I wasn't moved when the book's most affecting moment happened, perhaps because I knew it was coming.
And the film blunts that moment. In the book and the film, Holmes finds Roger in the grounds of the cottage, apparently attacked by bees. In the book, Roger is dead. In the film, Roger is barely alive, and eventually he recovers. What made that moment so powerful in the book was Holmes' POV voice, as he's trying to piece together how Roger has died and how to call an ambulence without needlessly worrying Mrs. Munro. Through it the reader sees Holmes working through genuine grief. Film can't convey that in the same way.
And changing Roger's fate changes the complexion of the film's final act, giving it a happy ending where the book's ending was more ambiguous and bittersweet.
And changing Roger's fate changes the complexion of the film's final act, giving it a happy ending where the book's ending was more ambiguous and bittersweet.
I liked the film a lot. It's well directed, well directed, and with solid production values. It's not hyperkinetic like Robert Downey Jr.'s films or Sherlock. It's thoughtful. I'll gladly add this to my collection when it comes out on DVD.
Saw this on Saturday. Hubby and I both loved it. It is indeed a sad film, even with the happier movie ending. Holmes is a flesh and blood man here, not a fictional hero, and he is old, makes mistakes and is weak. McKellan gives a remarkable performance--very nuanced and subtle. I found some moments a bit uncomfortable, as I recognized some of the behaviors I've seen in my own Alzheimer's-patient father.
There's a lot going on in this "simple" story--a mystery, a character study, a larger discussion about the value of truth, facing our own flaws and weaknesses, etc. Milo Parker, who indeed looks eerily like a younger Thomas Brodie Sangster, definitely has the acting chops of his look-alike and even upstages Laura Linney--not an easy thing to do.
I highly recommend this film. McKellan deserves an Oscar for this.
There's a lot going on in this "simple" story--a mystery, a character study, a larger discussion about the value of truth, facing our own flaws and weaknesses, etc. Milo Parker, who indeed looks eerily like a younger Thomas Brodie Sangster, definitely has the acting chops of his look-alike and even upstages Laura Linney--not an easy thing to do.
I highly recommend this film. McKellan deserves an Oscar for this.
I was thinking of seeing this film today (since Tuesday is discount day at the theaters), but it was either this or Ant-Man, and it's gotten to the point that I feel compelled to see any new Marvel film in the first week of release just so that I'm not totally spoiled by the Internet and can keep up with the conversation. So maybe I'll see Mr. Holmes next Tuesday.
The scene where Roger insists that his mother submit to one of Holmes' deductions comes quickly to mind. I found that scene and its aftermath astonishing for all three of the actors, particularly at McKellen's posture conveying how little his Holmes wanted to do this and and Linney's growing horror and discomfort as Holmes deduced her entire day. Then, when Holmes turned on Roger in (deserved) anger about words, cruelty, and regrets. That was great stuff.
Fingers crossed it's still there next week.
I wanted to see it as soon as possible on the chance that I'd only have a week to see it.
^The website for the local theater says that Mr. Holmes will still be showing next Tuesday. It's a theater that specializes in indie/art films, not your usual multiplex.
I did indeed see the film today. It was well-done, an effective alternate perspective on the great detective. Although I may have out-clevered myself, because I was expecting the final revelation to be more startling or complex than it was.
It was fun seeing Nicholas Rowe as the cinematic Holmes. I have to admit, I'm not quite sure his acting was sufficient that he could've carried a whole movie, but he looked the part and did a reasonably good job with what he had.
Were they really still using glass armonicas as late as the 1910s/20s? I think of it more as a part of Ben Franklin's era than Holmes and Watson's.
It didn't help that when I heard Mrs. Kelmot ask the railway attendant which train was the slow local and which was the nonstop express, I immediately deduced that she was planning suicide by jumping in front of the express train. That made the outcome rather unsurprising, and I find it hard to believe that Holmes missed it. He said that he'd laid out all the facts but misunderstood their meaning, but that's not true, because he overlooked that one very crucial fact which I felt was telegraphed rather blatantly. (After all, I'm generally pretty bad at solving mystery stories ahead of time, so it must've been pretty unsubtle for me to catch on. I did totally miss the clue about bee stings vs. wasp stings, even though they telegraphed the hell out of that one.) So that part of the plot didn't quite work for me. Although I suppose it could be taken as a sign that Holmes's observational skills were starting to fail him.
But I'd convinced myself that this was more of a mystery story than I'd been led to believe, and given that 1947 Holmes's memory was so eroded, I kept expecting we'd find that he was remembering certain details incorrectly. When Umezaki raised the question of what had happened to his father, I started to suspect that Holmes was misremembering and that Kelmot was actually the elder Umezaki. But later, when Watson showed up in the flashbacks and they never showed his face, I began to suspect that Kelmot was actually Watson, that Holmes had failed to prevent his best friend from losing his wife, and that that was why he couldn't live with it. Although then I couldn't figure out how Umezaki fit in.
But it wasn't that kind of story after all. Instead, we got a less twisty, more straightforward tale with no big surprises (at least, not if you caught that train conversation), a story that was really about Holmes going from "I have no use for imagination, only facts" to understanding the value of a kindly lie. So his "first foray into fiction" was his letter to Umezaki spinning a comforting fantasy about his father's intelligence career for the Crown.
But I'd convinced myself that this was more of a mystery story than I'd been led to believe, and given that 1947 Holmes's memory was so eroded, I kept expecting we'd find that he was remembering certain details incorrectly. When Umezaki raised the question of what had happened to his father, I started to suspect that Holmes was misremembering and that Kelmot was actually the elder Umezaki. But later, when Watson showed up in the flashbacks and they never showed his face, I began to suspect that Kelmot was actually Watson, that Holmes had failed to prevent his best friend from losing his wife, and that that was why he couldn't live with it. Although then I couldn't figure out how Umezaki fit in.
But it wasn't that kind of story after all. Instead, we got a less twisty, more straightforward tale with no big surprises (at least, not if you caught that train conversation), a story that was really about Holmes going from "I have no use for imagination, only facts" to understanding the value of a kindly lie. So his "first foray into fiction" was his letter to Umezaki spinning a comforting fantasy about his father's intelligence career for the Crown.
It was fun seeing Nicholas Rowe as the cinematic Holmes. I have to admit, I'm not quite sure his acting was sufficient that he could've carried a whole movie, but he looked the part and did a reasonably good job with what he had.
Were they really still using glass armonicas as late as the 1910s/20s? I think of it more as a part of Ben Franklin's era than Holmes and Watson's.
Me, too! I got quite a giggle out of that. I had the impression he was hamming it up to be in step with the style of the film, which Mr. Holmes considered far too "dramatic." But he did a good job with the very small part.
^See, that's the thing, though -- it didn't seem to me that he was hamming it up nearly as much as he was supposed to.
Ah. Got it.
Perhaps. It was such a brief appearance; it's a bit hard for me to judge. I thought it seemed just about right.
Perhaps. It was such a brief appearance; it's a bit hard for me to judge. I thought it seemed just about right.
It wasn't a bad performance, just a little bland.
This is my central criticism of the movie. The ending is too hopeful and too pat. The book's ending is more melancholy and more ambiguous.
I realize you haven't read the book, Christopher, so it's interesting to me to see how you respond to the story the film tells without the baggage I came to the film with.
The point of Mrs. Kelmot's story, imho...
...was twofold. First, to show that Holmes' reason couldn't explain to him why people connect and what they take from those connections. And second, to explain why Holmes took up beekeeping, even if he didn't understand the reason why. He made a connection with Mrs. Kelmot in the garden, not fully understanding it, and after her suicide he was left with the question of why. To Holmes, Mrs. Kelmot is mysterious and somewhat ethereal, at least to Holmes, and she burrowed into his mind and -- yes, even his heart -- in an unexpected way, so that when she was gone and he was still trying to understand her death he latched onto the only tangible thing he had of her -- the glove that drew the bee.
In the book there are significant changes.
First, Holmes' investigation is different and he doesn't follow her to all the various places she goes, so he never knows that she's contemplating suicide -- and certainly not be stepping in front of a train.
Second, Mrs. Kelmot never knows that the man she spoke with in the garden was Sherlock Holmes. He went in disguise, and she never saw through it.
Also, though not really a significant change, Holmes never realizes that's she's suicidal nor that she made a connection with him in the garden. It is clear to the reader, if not to Holmes, that her suicide was because of him; she found someone who understood her, even if it were a Holmes in disguise, and she never saw him again.
In the book there are significant changes.
First, Holmes' investigation is different and he doesn't follow her to all the various places she goes, so he never knows that she's contemplating suicide -- and certainly not be stepping in front of a train.
Second, Mrs. Kelmot never knows that the man she spoke with in the garden was Sherlock Holmes. He went in disguise, and she never saw through it.
Also, though not really a significant change, Holmes never realizes that's she's suicidal nor that she made a connection with him in the garden. It is clear to the reader, if not to Holmes, that her suicide was because of him; she found someone who understood her, even if it were a Holmes in disguise, and she never saw him again.
I wasn't watching out for that because of the book.
The major difference from the book is that Roger dies from the wasp stings. He's already dead when Holmes finds him in the garden. I didn't think the movie would change that, because that was yet another example of where Holmes' reason fails him -- it can't explain why bad things happen to good people. when confronted with the pointless death of a little boy, Holmes' reason can offer no answers.
The major difference from the book is that Roger dies from the wasp stings. He's already dead when Holmes finds him in the garden. I didn't think the movie would change that, because that was yet another example of where Holmes' reason fails him -- it can't explain why bad things happen to good people. when confronted with the pointless death of a little boy, Holmes' reason can offer no answers.
That is, legitimately, an awesome idea. I can see how that would have worked.
Suffice it to say, the book doesn't go there.
Again, I wouldn't have expected that development. And again, I can see how that would have worked within the story the film tells.
This gets to the movie's other major change from the book.
In the book, "The Glass Armonicist" isn't Holmes' last case, nor does he go into any sort of depressive funk after Mrs. Kelmot's suicide. It's one of his later cases, sometime in 1903, and it prompts him to retire to Sussex to take up beekeeping sometime thereafter, but it doesn't break him.
Also, Watson is (oddly) more of a presence in the movie than he is in the book. They don't have a "falling out," as I think Holmes describes it in the movie. Rather, they grow apart. Watson has children and grandchildren, and Holmes realizes he has nothing in common with his old friend any longer.
I can understand the change the film made, making it the "last" case, making it the absolute reason for his retirement, and making the break between Holmes and Watson more definitive. What, in the book, is rather ordinary and mundane, in the film needs to be more than that. That's simply the nature of film.
In the book, "The Glass Armonicist" isn't Holmes' last case, nor does he go into any sort of depressive funk after Mrs. Kelmot's suicide. It's one of his later cases, sometime in 1903, and it prompts him to retire to Sussex to take up beekeeping sometime thereafter, but it doesn't break him.
Also, Watson is (oddly) more of a presence in the movie than he is in the book. They don't have a "falling out," as I think Holmes describes it in the movie. Rather, they grow apart. Watson has children and grandchildren, and Holmes realizes he has nothing in common with his old friend any longer.
I can understand the change the film made, making it the "last" case, making it the absolute reason for his retirement, and making the break between Holmes and Watson more definitive. What, in the book, is rather ordinary and mundane, in the film needs to be more than that. That's simply the nature of film.
I think I would have liked to have seen that reveal -- the comforting lie -- happen as it did in the book, with Holmes telling Umezaki the story personally.
I would also liked to have seen Umezaki's gay lover, even though he really didn't add anything to the book. I thought it was an interesting character trait.
I would also liked to have seen Umezaki's gay lover, even though he really didn't add anything to the book. I thought it was an interesting character trait.
I really didn't know what to expect from this (nothing like it happens in the novel), and I was really pleased with how well it pastiched a 1930s-era Universal movie. I think my favorite moment was when the Cinematic Holmes left the garden, and you could tell that was a studio backdrop just beyond him.
Honestly? No. They weren't common at all during Holmes' time.
Well, I was talking about the revelation regarding Mrs. Kelmot and why Holmes retired. As I said, I was expecting there to be a more devious twist at the end of the flashback story.
I wondered if the addition of her query about the train timetables -- and Holmes missing it entirely -- was new to the movie, because it was an awkward inclusion. Clearly it was. (And now I'm reminded of the Monty Python sketch with the mystery play that turns out to be entirely about people discussing train timetables in exhaustive detail.)
Yeah, I noticed the backdrop too. It did seem to replicate the period production values well.
One thing, though. Except for the first two Rathbone films in 1939, every Sherlock Holmes film for the first half of the 20th century was done with a contemporary setting rather than as a period piece (e.g. the Rathbone films from '42 onward had Holmes fighting Nazis). Can you recall whether the movie within the movie was period or "modern?" I'm not sure if we saw enough to tell.
Ah, gotcha.
I wasn't expecting a "devious twist" in the Kelmot story because I knew there wasn't one coming. If there had been, it would have been an invention of the film. It was, all things considered, a mundane investigation.
I couldn't tell. I don't think we're shown enough to tell.
