Would the real Sherlock Holmes please stand up?

I posted here about how the book is not always better than the film, and how I enjoyed the recent Sherlock Holmes film. I've since had several friends mention to me that they were disappointed with the film, in virtue of the characters being so different from those written by Conan Doyle. 'That's fair enough,' I thought, 'You have to draw the line somewhere. You don't get to go around claiming a film is based on a book if it doesn't even use the same story or characters.'

After all, everyone knows that Sherlock Holmes was a reserved private detective who spent his time smoking a pipe whilst sitting in a wingbacked chair, the picture of civility. It's all incredibly sedate and English. Right?

Robert Downey Jr., on the other hand, plays him as:

• a detective consulted by police
• eccentric
• energetic
• alcoholic (when without work)
• brash
• a prizefighter

Imagine my surprise when I started reading the Sherlock Holmes books and found that Holmes actually is all of these things! With one exception- in the books, Holmes has a cocaine habit when out of work. We can safely assume that the cocaine was substituted with alcohol in the film for the purposes of winning the sympathy of modern audiences (at the time, cocaine use was considered a vice, but not a terrible one).

Shouldn't the Sherlock Holmes fans be praising Guy Ritchie for presenting the rich, endearing true nature of Holmes to the world? (Not to mention for turning an English cliche into a fresh adventure story?)

I even spotted some of those delightful homages film directors sometimes put in, retaining bits and pieces of the original story for fans to spot:

• In The Sign of Four, Holmes notices scratch marks on a pocket watch and deduces that the owner must have been a drunkard. In the film, Watson makes the same observation.
• In A Study in Scarlet, Holmes comments that the police have been careless at the scene of the crime by walking on the same path as the murderer, thus disguising his footprints. Watson makes a similar observation in the film.
• In A Study in Scarlet, Watson doubts Holmes's ability to deduce a man's occupation and character from his appearance, and Holmes proves him wrong. In the film, Watson's fiance poses the same question.

These are just a few examples- there are more to be found, including bits of dialogue lifted straight from the books.

I can only suppose, then, that the Sherlock Holmes purists object to the portrayal of Watson in the recent film. It is true that the relationship between the two men is depicted quite differently, that both a closeness and a tension between them is introduced. But in the books, at least as far as I have read (and I have read to where Watson is engaged, which is where the film leaves us), Watson isn't much of a character. He just tags along, and seems to exist chiefly for the purpose of providing a narratorial voice.

Why should I mind if Ritchie has given Watson a personality? If you ask me, the dynamic between Holmes and Watson is more interesting in the film.

I can only conclude again that films based on books are not made for book purists. If your very favourite book is made into a film, do yourself a favour don't go and see it. In the meantime, enjoy all the films based on those books you'll never have time to read.


By the way, I'm more than happy to be disagreed with on this one. Did you object to the recent film? If so, let me know your thoughts.