Sherlock Holmes is a tricky proposition; the most famous of private detectives has as many terrible adaptations as he does passable ones. The Holmes character is such plot driven literary device is very difficult for anyone to capture an approximation of Arthur Conan Doyle’s brilliant detective. The most successful direct adaptation were the magical pairing of the usual dastardly Basil Rathbone and the always bumbling Nigel Bruce; the seventeen films they made playing the famous crimefighting duo are as watchable today as they were in the 1940s. Rathbone captured the steely eyed and flamboyant intelligence of Holmes with Bruce providing able comic support, however despite their success the films are hampered by two major problems. The first problem is that many of there adventures were moved out of Victorian England to a modern 1940s wartime setting without any updating of the characters or their motivations, the updating was for one sole purpose: propaganda. These propagandistic adventures hurt the series in retrospect and often derail the most enjoyable of Holmesian tales. The other major criticism which can be levelled at the Rathbone and Bruce series is the broadly comic approach Bruce took to playing Watson. The Watson of Doyle’s novels and stories is not a fool, he is not there for comic relief, he is there a counterpoint to the cold presence of Sherlock Holmes. While Nigel Bruce employed a deft comic touch, the nature of the characterisation undercuts the potential tension and drive of the stories. The other largely successful adaptation of the Holmes stories and lore was by the widely, and rightfully, celebrated Billy Wilder. Wilder was one of Hollywood’s brightest talents from the 1930s onwards, and his Holmes film was a long cherished project. The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes is a bittersweet comedy with Robert Stephens playing the titular detective with great zeal and brilliant eccentricity, and Colin Blakley as his friend Dr Watson. Wilder sensibly made the Doctor a more intelligent and less foolish character however he kept all the lively pomposity which Doyle so brilliantly inferred in the character. Wilder’s film is a very good piece of work which misses the mark of Cinematic brilliance because of a few problems contained within the film. Most notably the film has a very choppy structure, affecting character arcs and emotional investment. It has a mixture of about one quarter of very funny comedy, then an abrupt change occurs and a deep mystery begins which has very little comedy. This abrupt change in tone can leave the audience bewildered and alienated from the film. The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes starts very well, with a nice comedic moment pointing to the strangely homoerotic relationship between Watson and Holmes which Watson takes great offence from. However, as the plot continues the film’s success lessens and by the end it is very difficult to care about the characters or the conclusion. One major reason for this is that the studio who Wilder created this film for butchered the final cut. The film was supposed to be a lot longer, some evidence suggest perhaps up to one hour longer, and perhaps this would have smoothed out the abrupt nature of the plotting. The film feels significantly hamstrung by these imposed cuts and any challenge for greatness, and the best Holmes film, would depend on all the material being input into the current cut. As it is Wilder’s film feels like a near miss. So what is the best adaptation of the Holmes stories? A film from Jake Kasdan made in 1998 makes a rightful claim to this prestigious honour. Zero Effect is not a direct adaptation of the Holmes stories, it is not set in Victorian England and the main characters are not called Holmes and Watson. However, it is perhaps the most realised adaptation in style, characterisation and emotion. It is also to some extent bases upon the great work of literature A Scandal in Bohemia by Doyle. Bill Pullman plays Daryl Zero the world’s greatest detective, who is a recluse. He is unable to deal with people and locks himself in his apartment composing terrible music subsisting on a diet of amphetamines and tuna. The film’s introduction to the great detective is a slowly panning camera which in the background only horrendous music played by Zero can be heard. Even from the most cursory plot description the Holmesian similarities can be seen: the addiction to illegal drugs, the playing of music to help the character think and the Watson like character. Ben Stiller plays Steve Arlo, the face of the Zero detective business and the Watson to Pullman’s Holmes in this tale. The main thrust of the storyline involves blackmail, Gregory Stark (played by Ryan O’Neal) is being blackmailed for reasons unknown to the audience, during Zero’s investigation he encounters mysterious woman Gloria Sullivan (Kim Dickens) who is connected to the case. To say anymore would spoil the pleasures of this tightly wound mystery. Bill Pullman is not an actor known for his great character work, his career has be somewhat a mystery to Hollywood followers, he has acted in big blockbusters like Independence Day and small independent films like David Lynch’s Lost Highway. But with his work as Daryl Zero he gives one of the most committed genre performances in recent years. His Zero is an idiot-savant, hilariously funny and surprisingly vulnerable at times. The best parts of this considerable film are when Kasdan places Stiller and Pullman in the same room and allows the camera to roll, the outcome is comedic gold. Stiller himself gives a good performance as the tightly wound Arlo, whose commitment to Zero is beginning to conflict with the promises he makes to his beautiful girlfriend. Stiller’s outbursts are enjoyable to watch, as he is increasingly exasperated by the eccentric Zero. There are two other significant performances in the film, firstly is another fine piece of work from Kim Dickens, perhaps best known for her work in Deadwood the HBO TV series, as the mysterious woman at the heart of the drama. The final main performance is from Ryan O’Neal. O’Neal is one of the worst actors to ever have come out of Hollywood. He has been terrible from the beginning of his career. His credits for destroying good work is impeccable: Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon, Walter Hill’s Driver and some early work from Peter Bogdanovich would have been improved immeasurably by the recasting of male lead role. His performance in Zero Effect is wooden as usual, however fortunately for the audience his presence does not completely collapse the film but rather just flattens the scenes he is in. Though casting the lead actor of Love Story adds something slightly sinister to his back-story and makes rewatching Love Story with an open mind very difficult. Other than the presence of O’Neal this is a beautifully acted genre movie with real heart and a high number of laughs. It is the performances which truly make this film the finest adaptation of Holmes. Jake Kasdan direction is perfunctionary but well judged as he allows the dialogue flow in the film. The main focus of the film is the dialogue, as with the Holmes’ stories, Daryl Zero does find himself shooting people and being involved in car chases this is a cerebral mystery. Yet Zero Effect is not slavishly respectful of Doyle’s work but updates the stories for a modern mid 1990’s retelling, there in lies the appeal of the film, no longer are the good guys so good and the bad guys so evil. But unlike the propagandistic work with Rathbone and Bruce Kasdan also modernises the characters in line with the plot. If you like offbeat mysteries with some romance, some comedy and a labyrinth plot then this film is well worth checking out. If you are a Holmes devotee then this film is a must. Steve Arlo: "There aren't evil guys and innocent guys. It's just... It's just... It's just a bunch of guys." Wilson McLachlan |
|||
Daryl Zero: "I can't possibly overstate the importance of good research. Everyone goes through life dropping crumbs. If you can recognize the crumbs, you can trace a path all the way back from your death certificate to the dinner and a movie that resulted in you in the first place. But research is an art, not a science, because anyone who knows what they're doing can find the crumbs, the wheres, whats, and whos. The art is in the whys: the ability to read between the crumbs, not to mix metaphors. For every event, there is a cause and effect. For every crime, a motive. And for every motive, a passion. The art of research is the ability to look at the details, and see the passion."
Post new comment