Sherlock Holmes or how to destroy a myth by Martin Cid.
I must confess I don’t like very much television series but last week I took one of the most conclusive decisions in my life: I watched Sherlock, the series created by Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss. Well, it’s not easy for a pipe smoker to talk about the most famous pipe smokers converted to a member of the tobacco-ban league. The series don’t update the character to modern time, they completely destroy the myth of Holmes converting a controversy character into some kind of stupid detective addict to self-help books. At least, I must accept that the series has one wise decision: the action takes place in London, not in the Moon.
This is just one example of how modern times transform and, sometimes, use without any consideration or respect old stories and characters to win some money. The first scene of Troy is my favorite: Brad Pitt woke up in company of two wonderful naked ladies, both plenty of silicone and surely empty of Greek culture. Well, I must confess again that when I read The Iliad the character was completely different and, as I saw two hours later, the character was like Achilles’s puppet version for children.
Let’s go back with my beloved Holmes. I accept that smoking is bad and all those things I usually hear, that’s fine (but I will continue smoking anyway, I swear)… what about the complexity of the character? In Conan Doyle books, Holmes had one curious love not only for tobacco: heroine was other Sherlock’s problems. To characterize Holmes, Conan Doyle described him as a misogynist, untidy, extravagant… and, after all, Holmes is one the characters than more times had been taken to the movies. There must be any reason for that.
Sherlock is not only an example of soul of modern thinking; he is a paradox into a paradox. He used the deduction to
entertain, to surprise and finally to amuse people with this question: how can such strict man be such messy boy? The plot doesn’t only consist in go with Holmes and Watson into story, there is also an internal fight between the science represented by Watson and the literature staring by Holmes. The paradox is always present in these stories: Holmes, the misogynist, fall in love (or something like that) with Irene Adler… Holmes likes to play multiple characters when he plays to dress himself up.
But now, my friends, times have changed and the old complicated characters have been replaced and updated with examples of modern times, no smoking people without paradox in their respective characters. At the end, simple characters for simple plays for simple movies for idiot proposals.
Anyway, I must warm Hollywood producers that not all is always so stupid as they usually think, but well… as one Carly Simon sing says: let the river (and the money) run. Here is the final film idea. Surely you can see it soon in theatres.
Why not? Ulysses staring by Arnold Schwarzenegger (copy and paste is always a great invention for this guy). The boring book of Joyce (I’m joking, of course) can be converted in a plenty piece of tacky cinema. Can you imagine Leopold Bloom saying: ‘I will be back’? Simply, genial.
Thanks for all, folks and remember: irony is not always the best companion for a writer.
My best winks.
Other articles by Martin Cid: