Elementary, my dear Watson
Arovet Li
Issue date: 2/2/10 Section: Opinion
I saw the Sherlock Holmes movie a few days ago. It was pretty good. The writers really knew a lot about the stories. Characters, premises and techniques were all carried over from the original stories. Irene Adler is a principle character, and there is a sideways reference to Watson's nature as the stories' narrator and there are many assorted references to Holmes' effects on the genesis of forensic science. These writers knew their stuff.
However, there is one glaring omission that they made which is endemic of the strange preoccupation some people have with removing drug references from film. The cocaine is missing, as is the morphine. The tobacco is there, a little bit, but you don't see it that much.
If you're confused, allow me to elaborate. Have you ever seen House? The show is based on the Sherlock Holmes stories (House-Holmes, Wilson-Watson, and so on). Those who have seen the show will recognize this premise: the doctor hasn't had a case in a while. He's bored and twitchy, so he starts taking painkillers to ease the stress. Then he gets a case, and stops for a while. Then he gets bored again, it's quite the cycle. Anyway, Holmes' situation is essentially the same, except the painkiller is replaced with cocaine which was legal at the time.
My point is that the writers clearly knew that Holmes' addictions existed and, as the experiment scenes indicate (particularly when he tries to make a gun suppressor); they were willing to exploit his boredom to add depth to the character. But they removed the drug references to secure a PG rating.
This move is not only contrary to the source material, it's hypocritical. This is a film that includes pig-corpses being cut in half, a man being hanged, guns, pit fighting and alcohol. It's clear that they wanted to do a clear representation of the stories, and the inclusion of a brief mention for the sake of accuracy would have gotten them, at most, a PG13 rating, but they removed it.
The deviation may be a part of an ongoing problem. The people who chose to remove the drug references are probably the same who'd condemn Requiem for a Dream, while vaulting Reefer Madness as a great piece of art (well, that last part may be an exaggeration). For some reason, drug references get stuck down where violence gets a pass, even when the negative effects are depicted honestly (or exaggerated). This film has merely fallen victim to the same effects.
However, there is one glaring omission that they made which is endemic of the strange preoccupation some people have with removing drug references from film. The cocaine is missing, as is the morphine. The tobacco is there, a little bit, but you don't see it that much.
If you're confused, allow me to elaborate. Have you ever seen House? The show is based on the Sherlock Holmes stories (House-Holmes, Wilson-Watson, and so on). Those who have seen the show will recognize this premise: the doctor hasn't had a case in a while. He's bored and twitchy, so he starts taking painkillers to ease the stress. Then he gets a case, and stops for a while. Then he gets bored again, it's quite the cycle. Anyway, Holmes' situation is essentially the same, except the painkiller is replaced with cocaine which was legal at the time.
My point is that the writers clearly knew that Holmes' addictions existed and, as the experiment scenes indicate (particularly when he tries to make a gun suppressor); they were willing to exploit his boredom to add depth to the character. But they removed the drug references to secure a PG rating.
This move is not only contrary to the source material, it's hypocritical. This is a film that includes pig-corpses being cut in half, a man being hanged, guns, pit fighting and alcohol. It's clear that they wanted to do a clear representation of the stories, and the inclusion of a brief mention for the sake of accuracy would have gotten them, at most, a PG13 rating, but they removed it.
The deviation may be a part of an ongoing problem. The people who chose to remove the drug references are probably the same who'd condemn Requiem for a Dream, while vaulting Reefer Madness as a great piece of art (well, that last part may be an exaggeration). For some reason, drug references get stuck down where violence gets a pass, even when the negative effects are depicted honestly (or exaggerated). This film has merely fallen victim to the same effects.
Be the first to comment on this story