Spotlight

Spotlight Date: 26-March-06
Spoiler Rating: Low

The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (1970)

If proposing a remake is generally an addlebrained conceit, how ridiculous is it to suggest reworking a movie by one of the greatest filmmakers of all time? It's this ridiculous: I really think someone ought to give new breath to "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes." It may appear that a movie by Billy Wilder wouldn't lend itself to improvement by modern Hollywood even if it is a lesser-known work, but this is one case where cinematic potential wasn't realized and should be.

What I'm imagining is more like grafting the same provocative title and setup onto a different picture. The opening credits of "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes" roll over images of a safe deposit box being accessed 50 years after Dr. Watson's death. In it, a letter from the doctor promises to describe a case which was never published because it involved both national security and the most intimate feelings of his friend. Specifically, Watson states that the case will reveal the nature of Holmes' attitude toward women, which is a scintillating prospect indeed.

In Wilder's movie, the first 20 minutes after the intro are mostly comic and set a lighthearted tone for the rest. (I would nix it.) They involve a ballet dancer who wants Holmes as a sperm donor, but they do introduce two dramatic prospects: (1) how Watson (Colin Blakely) drags Holmes (Robert Stephens) to the ballet to keep him away from cocaine, and (2) how Holmes finds it convenient to pass himself off as a homosexual. A new "Private Life" might take up Wilder's gauntlet by honoring the title instead of waxing jocular about such situations. For example, Holmes could be shown in a rare moment of indecorum wherein he's so wasted that he must forgo a fascinating case (the lack of which drives him to get high in the first place); and Watson, who's usually a buffoon in the movies and nondescript in the stories, could become furious and embarrassed and wonder why he remains with such an impossible companion.

Once the central relationship has been established (which I'm not implying is sexual, only more complex than the straight guy/funny guy routine), the focus shifts to mystery. This is right for a film with "Sherlock Holmes" in the title, but it should be less goofy than the Loch Ness Monster-meets-midgets conspiracy hatched by Wilder and writing partner I. A. L. Diamond. (Casting Christopher Lee as Holmes' brother was inspired, however, and since Lee appears to be immortal the remake can do the same.) Whatever the intricacies of the plot, it ought to highlight Holmes' interaction with a person who deeply affects him. Although Genevieve Page plays opposite Stephens as a brave beauty who solicits his help, she never seems to get under his skin. When he finally notices her with admiration, it's more due to professional interest than a stirring of loins or heart. Any woman who could reach these untraveled regions would have to impress him intellectually, yes, but she should also chafe him in ways he doesn't like or understand. It would be rewarding to see the imperturbable genius in a private moment of hormone- or sentiment-fueled anguish, clandestinely observed by an astonished Watson in the wings.

As it stands,"The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes" isn't a bad movie, just a letdown. It's a suitable rental for fans of the character and people bold or foolish enough to see unexplored possibilities in a legendary storyteller's idea.

Copyright © 2006 The Jujube (M. I. Kim). All rights reserved.