I fell in love with the character of James Bond through the movie version of “The Spy Who Loved Me.” Although I went on to read Ian Fleming’s work, as well as that of John Gardner, it was the movie version of Bond that enthralled me. Broccoli and company portrayed Bond as an uncompromising and incorruptible agent for good. With the exception of “License to Kill,” he fought for others, never for himself. In a world full of evil, he served not just Queen and country, but the entire world.
It came as a disappointment, therefore, when Broccoli and Wilson decided to reshape Bond, beginning with their 2006 version of “Casino Royale.” Gone were all the aspects of Bond that I had so enjoyed: the character of Q, along with his ingenious gadgets; the light-hearted humor that kept the action from growing too intense; and the evil villain whose dreams of megalomania threatened us all. Instead, influenced by recent action movies such as the Jason Bourne trilogy, Bond grew darker, grittier, more self-involved. In an effort to portray not the James Bond they had created, but instead the younger man lacking all the qualities he will eventually acquire and hone, this Bond took on smaller villains, thus making the storylines less compelling. The villain of Casino Royale is not intent upon ruling the world through an organization such as SPECTRE. He does not plot to destroy the existing order by provoking a nuclear war between two great superpowers. Instead, he is an independent financier who plays the market and loses, and hence must recoup the money he has lost before his investors come looking for him.
In “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows,” England and Europe are beset by a series of unexplained murders, bombings, and terrorist acts. Lacking someone to blame, the nations rage at each other. Sherlock Holmes analyzes these seemingly unrelated acts of violence and determines that Professor Moriarty is responsible. He has yet to deduce Moriarty’s motive, or uncover sufficient proof with which the police can arrest the professor. As he evades attempts on his life, Holmes searches for clues to Moriarty’s overall plans, as well as the means to dismantle the man’s worldwide operation. No world leaders will believe that Moriarty is a villain: he seems indispensible to each country’s government. So, aided only by Dr. Watson, a band of gypsies, and his inventiveness and persistence, Holmes must defeat Moriarty before the man can unleash his evil schemes.
His quest takes him to France, Germany, and Switzerland. Moriarty unleashes his trained killers and ingenious war machines upon Holmes, Watson, and the gypsies. These two geniuses will stretch their intelligence to the utmost as each seeks to outdo the other. Moriarty thinks only of himself: he seeks to profit by unleashing mayhem and destruction. He fears the genius of others, who would take away all that he seeks to acquire. In comparison, Holmes fights for others: he seeks no personal gain. He celebrates the genius of others, rather than feeling threatened by their superior intellects. Such selflessness allows him to put his own life in danger again and again; he would willingly sacrifice his own life to end the threat Moriarty poses.
This new Sherlock Holmes exhibits all the panache and light-hearted humor that James Bond once exuded. He possesses Q’s inventiveness, and creates ingenious disguises and gadgets that protect him despite all that the villain threatens him with. His charm and charisma draw beautiful women to his side. He needs no research department; with the encyclopedic knowledge he has accumulated, he pieces together the disparate clues. Years of dedication and practice have honed his muscles and reflexes: he defends himself equally well with any weapon, or just his bare hands. He exhibits vivacity, grace, and style. He appreciates mankind’s newest creations and the artistic work of the old masters. He is uncompromising and incorruptible. He is Bond.
If Broccoli and Wilson choose to focus upon a less-capable and refined protagonist rather than the hero they created, that is their right. But I am grateful to director Guy Ritchie, and everyone behind “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows,” for bringing to the screen a hero who epitomizes the virtues that James Bond once exemplified. For this world has plenty of detectives who can piece together seemingly random events to solve their puzzles. This world has enough faceless spies. We are awash in stories about protagonists who count the cost to themselves as they battle their opponents. This new Sherlock Holmes fights not for personal glory or revenge, not for money or respectability. Thus, he represents the hero we all need, and the ideal we yearn to become. He is order. He is justice. Who is he?
“The name’s Holmes. Sherlock Holmes.”
Related Dragon Cache entries
No comments:
Post a Comment