So what do I think of Enola Holmes? This movie nearly needs to be viewed through several lenses.
How was it as its own thing? How faithful was it to the Enola Holmes books and how faithful was it to the Sherlock Holmes Canon?
I must admit I haven't read any of Nancy Stringer's books so I can't speak to that question but the others I can.
How was the movie? I found it quite enjoyable Enola is an interesting heroine, and I certainly wouldn't object to more of her adventures.
In several ways it reminded me of a favourite series of mine from the 90s "THe Adventures of Shirley Holmes" which featured a female relative of Sherlock Holmes solving mysteries. Shirley was the great granddaughter of Mycroft Holmes who solved mysteries in Canada where her diplomat father was stationed. (It was almost a precursor to Sherlock and Elementary) The show aired on Nickelodeon here in Australia.
The difference though is that the Sherlock Holmes looms large over Enola. She and Sherlock operate in the same time and city - I'd almost prefer that Sherlock didn't appear in the next movie.
It's not that I don't like Henry Cavill's Sherlock but his presence does detract from Enola's adventure. But hey give Cavill his own Sherlock Holmes film I'm down for that.
In a sense it become a competition between the two siblings to solve the mystery and our expectations are that Sherlock will be the one that solves the case. This seems to be a gripe of several internet comentators that Sherlock is useless in this adventure.
It's not that he's useless, he still solves the case with a different line of deduction but this movie is called ENOLA HOLMES and she has to be the one to solve the case.
I'm the guy who wrote "The Family Tree of Sherlock Holmes" showing several siblings and descendants of Sherlock Holmes (for a man who enshews the fairer sex he has a lot of children) so I have no issue with a relative of Holmes having adventures and solving mysteries.
I think that the production seemed to be somewhat vague as to when the movie was set - most commentators seem to think that the movie is set in 1884. There is a newspaper with that date but the opening of the movie seems to suggest that Enola was born in 1884 and this adventure took place on her 16th birthday which would be 1900. The 1900 date would fit with the motor car driven by the headmistress of the boarding school drives. Then there is a clipping implying that Sherlock worked on the Ripper murders in 1888.
Which brings me to the question - how does this work within what Sir Arthur Conan Doyle established in the Sherlock Holmes stories?
Oh boy where to begin with that? Let’s assume that the story is set in 1884 – they say that Sherlock works alone and he has no friends.
Except that is not accurate – Sherlock has the Baker Street Irregulars. Gloria Scott has Sherlock telling Watson about his first case in 1874 and mentions his friend Victor Trevor.
But while “A Study in Scarlet” was published in 1887 the story is dated by Baring Gould as 1881, and in the “Five Orange Pips” Watson states “when I look over my notes and records of the Sherlock Holmes Cases between the years ’82 and ‘90” to imply that we are pre Watson is just not right.
Then there is Mycroft Holmes – this does the most violence against Mycroft Holmes. When we are introduced to Mycroft in “The Greek Interpreter” Sherlock tells us that Mycroft is smarter than him.
In this movie we are told that Mycroft is normal and that Sherlock and Enola are the great geniuses (with the suggestion that Enola is smarter than Sherlock)
And seriously are there no heavyset actors to play Mycroft? (okay this is a gripe I have with many Holmes adaptations)
Look if we take Enola Holmes as its own little world it’s fine and fun but it doesn’t play well with the established Conan Doyle stories.
No comments:
Post a Comment