JHWS “Gwen” read a review of Mr. Holmes in The New Yorker (July 20 issue). The film is reviewed by Richard Brody. The writer made two statements that Gwen wishes to discuss – the first one we discussed last week and the second one is this week.
Since this discusses the movie Mr. Holmes, I’ll but this under a Continue Reading link for those of you who do not wish stumble upon any spoilers.
He notes that in the film Holmes is reproached for being logical instead of emotional in two instances. Then he writes: “The movie reproaches him for that chill, and, indeed, he reproaches himself, but who wants a warmhearted Holmes? He is not a counsellor but a huntsman, and, without him, who would lead the chase?”
I might argue that Holmes is a counsellor by trade, and he can be the huntsman at the same time. Your thoughts?
I agree that Holmes is a counselor in the sense that he advises his clients, but his main concern has always been in solving the puzzle, be it criminal or scientific. Personal consequences seem to come second. In IDEN, for example, he discovers what’s been going on but does nothing to help Mary Sutherland break herself from the unhappy situation.
Indeed, in the film, the one time he advises on an emotional level, something quite bad ensues. There is no knowing whether that would have come about in any case, but it was when Holmes stepped outside his real area of expertise, discovering facts, and attempted to deal with the emotional that he failed.
At the end of the film, Holmes may see his role differently and act upon it, but of course he’s now incapable of truly being the huntsman he was. (I’m trying to give as little as possible away for those who’ve not had a chance to see the film.)
Roxie