“They saw their injured country's woe;
The flaming town, the wasted field;
Then rushed to meet the insulting foe;
They took the spear, - but left the shield.”
―Philip Freneau
Sunday, August 9, 2015
Old Movies for Old Folks
Mr. Holmes is a 2015 crime drama mystery film directed by Bill Condon, based on the 2005 novel A Slight Trick of the Mind written by Mitch Cullin and featuring the character Sherlock Holmes. The film stars Sir Ian McKellen as Sherlock Holmes, Laura Linney as housekeeper Mrs. Munro and Milo Parker as her son Roger. Set primarily during his retirement, the film follows a 93-year-old Holmes who struggles to recall the details of his final case while his mind begins to deteriorate.
Looks like it might be a delightful treat to me, but after having Benedict Cumberbatch's hideous "updated" version of Mr. Holmes inflicted on us by PBS a couple of seasons ago, I remain suspicious of anything emanating from the Modern Entertainment Mill.
Knowing McKellen to be the virulent leftist and gay activist that he is, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if this 93-year-old evocation of Sherlock Holmes as a bitchy homosexual pederast who frequently shared the favors of little boys in their thrall with that old quean, Dr. Watson, while smoking pot, swilling down brandy and sniffing cocaine.
Naturally, I hope I'm wrong, but given the tenor of the times could you blame me for being suspicious?
Just don't look to take home any "deep" moral message from this movie, and you'll be fine, FT.
IMO, the "subversive" intent of this film is to take a swipe at the extreme "rationalism" of the early 20th century by recreating a scene from Plato's Phaedo, with Holmes in the role of Socrates. The "flaw", IMO, is that it draws an opposite conclusion, that Socrates/Holmes earlier life had indeed been "wasted" in his careless disregard for the emotional sensitivities of those around him.... and that "little white lies" should have been produced whenever necessary to spare his fellow humanity undue emotional distress.
It was a good film, but for the amoral-moralizing conclusion so as to "lend meaning" to circumstances which contained "none" (Holmes tries his hand at writing a little "fiction" after all the time documenting his own "true" account of events in a case so to clarify certain falsehoods "Watson" had employed in the original published account of the case.)
Apparently, there is ignorance here of BBC-PBS' recent determination to encourage Ian McKellen and Derek Jacobi to "OUT" themselves in old age as lifelong, highly active homosexuals and to portray an aged homosexual couple in an outrageous burlesque of such a union in a half-hour show called "VICIOUS!"
Hence my tpngue-in-cheek assessment of McKellen's possible mistreatment of the good Sherlock Holmes. After the pointedly distasteful, embarrassing Cumberbach Fiasco I am fully prepared for any outrageous iconoclastic distortion the Left might produce.
I can't object to it, because believe in Freedom of Expression, but by the same token I can tell you I think such carryings on unnecessary, unfunny, undignified, and ill-advised.
If this new evocation of Holmes does not fall into the trap of aggressive iconclasm, so much the better.
The dilemma portrayed in the film is similar to the one faced by Kant in his 'absolutist' application of his Categorical Imperative. Conan-Doyle's Holmes would have acted as Kant. Condon's Holmes is tranformed in the end into a Utilitarian.
Apparently, there is ignorance here of BBC-PBS' recent determination to encourage Ian McKellen and Derek Jacobi to "OUT" themselves in old age as lifelong, highly active homosexuals and to portray an aged homosexual couple in an outrageous burlesque of such a union in a half-hour show called "VICIOUS!"
What the HELL are you cackling on about, you demented twit! McKellen came out in 1988. It's not exactly a public secret that he's gay. Where on Earth do you get your information from? Alex Jones? Jeff Rense?
Looks like it might be a delightful treat to me, but after having Benedict Cumberbatch's hideous "updated" version of Mr. Holmes inflicted on us by PBS a couple of seasons ago, I remain suspicious of anything emanating from the Modern Entertainment Mill.
ReplyDeleteKnowing McKellen to be the virulent leftist and gay activist that he is, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if this 93-year-old evocation of Sherlock Holmes as a bitchy homosexual pederast who frequently shared the favors of little boys in their thrall with that old quean, Dr. Watson, while smoking pot, swilling down brandy and sniffing cocaine.
Naturally, I hope I'm wrong, but given the tenor of the times could you blame me for being suspicious?
Just don't look to take home any "deep" moral message from this movie, and you'll be fine, FT.
ReplyDeleteIMO, the "subversive" intent of this film is to take a swipe at the extreme "rationalism" of the early 20th century by recreating a scene from Plato's Phaedo, with Holmes in the role of Socrates. The "flaw", IMO, is that it draws an opposite conclusion, that Socrates/Holmes earlier life had indeed been "wasted" in his careless disregard for the emotional sensitivities of those around him.... and that "little white lies" should have been produced whenever necessary to spare his fellow humanity undue emotional distress.
It was a good film, but for the amoral-moralizing conclusion so as to "lend meaning" to circumstances which contained "none" (Holmes tries his hand at writing a little "fiction" after all the time documenting his own "true" account of events in a case so to clarify certain falsehoods "Watson" had employed in the original published account of the case.)
"Naturally, I hope I'm wrong, but given the tenor of the times could you blame me for being suspicious?"
ReplyDeleteIn a word: yes.
Apparently, there is ignorance here of BBC-PBS' recent determination to encourage Ian McKellen and Derek Jacobi to "OUT" themselves in old age as lifelong, highly active homosexuals and to portray an aged homosexual couple in an outrageous burlesque of such a union in a half-hour show called "VICIOUS!"
ReplyDeleteHence my tpngue-in-cheek assessment of McKellen's possible mistreatment of the good Sherlock Holmes. After the pointedly distasteful, embarrassing Cumberbach Fiasco I am fully prepared for any outrageous iconoclastic distortion the Left might produce.
I can't object to it, because believe in Freedom of Expression, but by the same token I can tell you I think such carryings on unnecessary, unfunny, undignified, and ill-advised.
If this new evocation of Holmes does not fall into the trap of aggressive iconclasm, so much the better.
The dilemma portrayed in the film is similar to the one faced by Kant in his 'absolutist' application of his Categorical Imperative. Conan-Doyle's Holmes would have acted as Kant. Condon's Holmes is tranformed in the end into a Utilitarian.
ReplyDeleteApparently, there is ignorance here of BBC-PBS' recent determination to encourage Ian McKellen and Derek Jacobi to "OUT" themselves in old age as lifelong, highly active homosexuals and to portray an aged homosexual couple in an outrageous burlesque of such a union in a half-hour show called "VICIOUS!"
ReplyDeleteWhat the HELL are you cackling on about, you demented twit! McKellen came out in 1988. It's not exactly a public secret that he's gay. Where on Earth do you get your information from? Alex Jones? Jeff Rense?